by LET
Town Council Forces Disabled Veteran & Retired Police Officer to Relinquish Service Dog
December 22, 2011 in Featured, News, Posts by LET
Aurelia, Iowa – James Sak, 65, a disabled Vietnam Veteran and retired Chicago police officer, was forced to relinquish his service dog after the Aurelia Town Council voted December 14 to prohibit the dog, identified as a “pit bull,” from residing within Aurelia city limits. Although the City of Aurelia has breed-discriminatory laws prohibiting residents from owning “pit bulls,” the Council’s decision appears to violate 2010 guidance from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on breed limitations for service dogs (“Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services”).
Sak and his wife, Peggy Leifer, moved to Aurelia in November to live near Leifer’s ailing mother, an 87-year-old longtime resident of Aurelia. Sak was accompanied by his service dog, Snickers, who is certified with the National Service Animal Registry. In 2008 Sak suffered a debilitating stroke that left him permanently disabled, unable to use the right side of his body, and confined to a wheelchair. For two years Sak worked with Aileen Eviota, a physical therapist with the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, to improve his functional capabilities and live more independently through the use of a service dog. “Snickers has been individually trained to assist James with tasks which mitigate his disability, including walking, balance, and retrieving items around the house,” said Eviota in a letter to the Aurelia Town Council dated December 2, 2011.
Days after moving into their new home, Sak and Leifer were summoned to a Town Council meeting after a small group of citizens circulated a petition calling for the dog to be removed from city limits. Although the dog has no history of aggression or nuisance complaints, the petition urged the Council to “retain as written and without exception the existing City of Aurelia Ordinance, Chapter 58,” which prohibits ownership of “pit bull” dogs.
However, because Snickers works as a service animal for a disabled person, the dog is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and should not be subject to the breed ban, according to 2010 guidance issued by the DOJ.
“The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks,” the DOJ stated in the regulation. “Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others.”
On December 14 the Aurelia Town Council told Sak that he must remove his dog from city limits by the end of the day. Snickers is currently being boarded at facility outside of Aurelia.
“I lost my helper,” said Sak, who served more than 30 years in the Chicago Police Department and enlisted in the Army during the Vietnam War. “I’m not looking for special treatment, I just want to be safe, and I need my service dog for that.”
“Without the service dog here to assist, I can’t leave Jim unattended,” said Leifer. “But the whole reason we moved to Aurelia was to care for my 87-year-old mother who is ill. I drive across town to care for her three times a day. Jim has already fallen once and we had to call 911. I live in fear that he will have another stroke, or worse. We need his service dog back.”
Sak is a member of the Fraternal Order of Police – Chicago Lodge 7 (retired from the 12th District of the Chicago Police Department) and the American Legion – Post 390 of Aurelia (Vietnam Veteran, Army Signal Corps).
Sak is pursuing legal action against the City of Aurelia so he can be reunited with his service dog.
In accordance with our mission, Animal Farm Foundation is committed to assisting Sak with securing funding for this case. For more information, please contact Kim Wolf at (845) 418-0778 or kwolf@animalfarmfoundation.org
This breed misconception need to end. Pit bull‘s are not born to fight; they are made that way by pathetic people who get a thrill from watching a dog rip apart another dog. This city ordinance should be changed.
This is an absolute outrage this man has served his country and the city of Chicago and just because a few citizens have an issue with the breed all of a sudden its a huge issue the dog is certified for service ada needs to step in and educate this community
OMG – really, this is not your everyday dog off the streets, Snickers is a “SERVICE DOG” do you know what that means? It means this wonderful dog helps him, daily, everyday….you people just don’t get it obviously, get your damn noses out of the sky and quit acting like your so much better than anyone else and get educated, learn before you speak that is what is wrong with this world, there is way to much predjudice. You don’t care about dogs that is quite obvious and you don’t care about a handicapped man either because you took away his life!!!! I hope he sues the hell out of you and if you touch that dog there will be hell to pay, trust me….
Hello everyone. (Cracks fingers, reaches for keyboard and takes deep breath),… here we go,…
Let’s take a semi-quick-look at a few things.
First, is the City of Aurelia (Iowa), getting ANY federal aid at all on anything? If so, they likely appreciate that federal financial assistance. Then they should also appreciate the federal rulings and pick their battles accordingly.
My opinion is, allow the city to contest the dog breed laws that the city and the federal government disagree on. Give the city as much time as they want to appeal. I’m ok with them taking their time as they likely would. However, during that appeals period, they get NO federal financial assistance for anything because they are not following federal legal precedence.
Second, is in regards to the same federal assistance interruption during their appeal(s), for point number two,… the issue of this being a ‘service animal’.
Third, is in regards to the same federal assistance interruption during their appeal(s), for point number three,… the issue of this being relative to a medically disabled person. And in this point, let’s throw in that it’s related to a multi-veteran. Ya know,… just for giggles.
These are merely three individual issues that surround an ignorance and arrogance from a city council (appointed citizen representatives) and the handful of people that registered the complaint in the first place.
When something such as this is brought to a city office with the signatures of a few,… unfortunately those few get to soapbox their opinions and force them down the rest of our throats, whether it makes sense or tastes good.
The only reason those few get that right is because the issue didn’t mean anything to the citizen majority of that city, who may not of even known a complaint was registered in the first place.
The rest of the city citizens may have just gone on with their days and just didn’t have a clue about what was being raised or gave trust that their city government would make the right decision for their community and not embarrass the city as a whole. I would estimate that those majority now have something in their laps that they had no awareness of. I would feel sorry for the majority in this instance.
I won’t even go into my opinions on how disturbing this is. But I do welcome the city to take their time and file appeals against the federal government, on each of the above three fact violations.
This would be where the city body is making themselves look ignorant, unappreciative of Mr James Sak’s life services as well as irresponsible and possibly highly embarrassing and financially draining to their community.
All this for the sake of not having to apologize for their original personal opinions. Err,… I mean ruling for the sake of their community as a whole. You know,… that majority-thing?
Those are my thoughts. I now welcome yours. I do not reply to my posts.
Respectfully,
Parson
What is wrong with these people? “Service Dog” Enough said.
Whether he was a veteran or not, the fact that he has a “SERVICE DOG” and there are laws about that (as we have seen) should be enough. But look at what all he has given for this country, only to be left alone without his service animal!!
These people should be ashamed!
Andrew Michleski
Advocate for people with disability
and service dog users
218 Boca Shores Drive
Panama City Beach Florida 32408
1-850-348-3773
andrew.michleski@yahoo.com
City of Aurelia Iowa
236 Main Street
Aurelia, IA 51005
Phone: (712) 434-2025
Fax: (712) 434-5986
Re: Service animals rules and regulations.
Dear Mayor and alderman,
Enclosed in this letter is the United States Department of justice rules on service animals. Service animals are protected
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, on federal property under 40 USC Sec. 3103 and Iowa State law,
Iowa Code Annotated. Title VI. Human Services [chs. 216-255A]. Subtitle 1. Social Justice and Human Rights [Chs. 216-216E].
Chapter 216C. Rights of Persons Who Are Blind or Partially Blind and Persons with Physical Disabilities.
Please pay close attached to the provision in Iowa state law that makes it a crime to interfere with a service animal.
216C.11. Service dogs and assistive animals
1. For purposes of this section, “service dog” means a dog specially trained to assist a person with a disability, whether described as a service dog, a support dog, an independence dog, or otherwise. “Assistive animal” means a simian or other animal specially trained or in the process of being trained to assist a person with a disability.
2. A person with a disability, a person assisting a person with a disability by controlling a service dog or an assistive animal, or a person training a service dog or an assistive animal has the right to be accompanied by a service dog or an assistive animal, under control, in any of the places listed in sections 216C.3 and 216C.4 without being required to make additional payment for the service dog or assistive animal. A landlord shall waive lease restrictions on the keeping of animals for the service dog or assistive animal of a person with a disability. The person is liable for damage done to any premises or facility by a service dog or assistive animal.
3. A person who knowingly denies or interferes with the right of a person under this section is, upon conviction, guilty of a simple misdemeanor.
Excerpt from the United States Department of justice stand on breed prohibit laws:
“The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks,” the DOJ stated in the regulation. “Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others.”
Please take the time to review the above referenced laws before passing any local laws or regulations that could be construed as discriminatory, illegal or criminal under federal or state law.
I am appalled at the “new” local ordinance that bands cretin breeds. Fear, allergies, presumption of attracts are not conditions on banning cretin breeds.
It is the owners responsibility to maintain control over the animal i.e. dog needs to be leashed.
The local ordinance should reflect your state laws dealing with control of an animal and licensing. Service animals are exempt from breed limiting laws and also how they are controlled.
Under the US Department of justice rules on service animals the control device is not just a leash but any form or device that is used to control the animal i.e. voice command. However the service animal still has to have the rabies vaccination. Fear or allergies are not a valid reason to deny a service animal access or ban a service animal. Also any policy, rules, laws that are passed by privet or public that interfere with or ban a service animal is a violation of the Americans with disability act.
The breed legations that you passed on December 14, 2011 should have made clear that service animals are exempt. This would have put you in non- violation with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Iowa state law.
Andrew Michleski
12/22/2011
I know it is kinda long but I have to post it. This is the letter I sent the city.
Bravo Andrew! Thank you for getting involved.
This dog along with its owner should be honored by the city. We as pet owners make a life long commitment to our pets. And why are they always labeling the dogs by their breeds. I have 3 dogs of which one is a pit, and I would not allow anyone to take my dog from me. They are like our children. The city needs to reconsider on this one.