A.

US: State Anti-Cruelty Laws and Companion Animals

In the United States, pets are protected through state anti-cruelty statutes. Every state has an anti-cruelty
statute. State anti-cruelty statutes protect against intentional infliction of pain or suffering on an animal,
killing an animal and sometimes animal fighting. They are often an animals only source of legal
protection. These laws were formed in the agrarian societies of the 1800's, mainly for the protection of
animals with economic value, such as farm animals.6 Today, many animals are exempt from these
statutes, while companion animals are protected. Common exemptions include: veterinary practices,
research animals, wildlife, farm animals, slaughtering animals for food, pest control, rodeo, zoos, and
circuses.7Commonly seen provisions in these laws are: counseling, community service, restitution,
seizure, reimbursement for cost of care, forfeiture of the animal, veterinary reporting, and arrest
policies. Each state's provisions are different. For examples of state animals cruelty statutes see
the Cruelty Laws Topic Area.

The Texas case of Celinski v. State 9 is illustrative of the way in which an anti-cruelty statute is typically
applied. The Texas Court of Appeals upheld an animal cruelty conviction in this case. The appellant was
accused of animal cruelty when his roommate, the cat owner, returned home to find her two cats very ill.
The appellant denied having caused harm to the animals. When the cat owner took the animals to the
veterinarian, it was discovered that a fatal dose of acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, had
been given to the cats. The cats' paws were also burned. The cat owner returned home to find cat hair in
the microwave. Both the lower court and the court of appeals found that there was sufficient evidence to
show that the appellant had tortured and subsequently caused the death of two cats by poisoning them
and burning them in a microwave oven.

A person who has suffered from an act of animal cruelty inflicted upon their pet may also bring a civil
case. In this way, a pet owner who has been aggrieved may collect damages. However, as pets are
viewed in nearly all states as the property of their owners, recovery is often limited to the market value of
the pet. This figure is usually nominal at best and rarely a substitute for the companionship of the pet. See
the Pet Damages Topic Area for a further discussion of this subject. The status of pets as property is
changing in some states. For an example of this see Colorado's Companion Animal Bill.

Despite the application of state anti-cruelty statutes to companion animals and the successes of
convicting those who have violated the statutes, the provisions in these statutes are typically geared
toward protecting the owner of an animal from harm or, as some would argue, for protecting society itself.
The court in Knox v. Massachusetts SPCA explained: "These statutes [state anti-cruelty statutes] are
'directed against acts which may be thought to dull humanitarian feelings and to corrupt morals of those
who observe or knowledge those acts.'"10 In other words, anti-cruelty laws in the US were not created to
protect the animals themselves, but to protect the morality of human members of society. Companion
animals are protected because of the special relationship they have with human beings, one based on
love and compassion. Farm animals, circus animals, and research animals are commonly exempted
because they are used as means to human ends. It follows that it would harm a human being to "observe
or knowledge" the infliction of harm on a companion animal, while it may not harm them if pain were
inflicted on an animal they solely use as a means to an end.

D. Conclusions on the Laws Relating to Companion Animals

There are two ways in which companion animals gain greater legal status. First, when animals are
generally granted a legal status greater than property through legislation. Second, when companion
animals are given their protection through laws created primarily for their protection. Germany leads the
way with an expressed duty to protect animals premising their animal legislation. Norway and Switzerland
imply this duty when they make animal welfare the guiding reason for their animal legislation. The EU is
the only body discussed above that has an actual selection of laws on companion animals. The United
States only covers the treatment of companion animals through state anti-cruelty statutes and possible
civil suits. Additionally, with the exception of few states, anti-cruelty laws exist mainly for the benefit of the
owner, not the animal itself. Civil suits are entirely for the benefit of the owner of an animal. This changes
when laws are premised with clauses that confer a desire to protect the life of an animal for the animal's
sake. Animals are no longer seen as just property, the harm no longer being just to the owner of the
animal. The most significant difference between the laws in Europe and the laws in the United States is
the desire to protect an animal for the sake of the animal.

The answer to this question depends entirely on state law. Today, every state has an animal anti-cruelty
statute. These laws do not afford animals legal rights, but rather serve as the primary legal protection for
animals in our legal system. It should be noted that there is no overarching federal anti-cruelty law;
rather, all fifty states have individual anti-cruelty laws.

With that in mind, state laws penalize two types of actions under their anti-cruelty provisions: (1)
intentional acts and (2) the failure to act. Intentional acts are those acts of cruelty where the actor
knowingly tries to hurt an animal by repeatedly striking an animal, burning an animal, or committing some
other heinous act. These acts will often be classified the most severely under the applicable criminal law
(serious or repeat offenses may even constitute felonies under the specific state law). The situation in the
question above, however, most likely falls into the realm of a failure to act. The failure to provide food,
water, necessary shelter, or in some states, reasonable veterinary care, may be considered animal
neglect. Depending on the state law, neglecting to provide shelter to an animal in a cold climate may be
considered neglect (for example, Minnesota has a specific provision in its cruelty laws for dog
houses when dogs are kept outdoors; violation is a petty misdemeanor). While neglect may be broadly
defined by state law, the factual circumstances will always determine criminal culpability. In the situation
above, a prosecutor would have to prove first that state law demanded outdoor shelter; second that the
weather necessitated shelter for domestic animals; and finally that the owner failed to provide necessary
shelter based on the time the dog spent outdoors. (Click on the Map of State Cruelty Laws to see what
your state defines as "cruelty.")

Anti-cruelty statutes operate only in the criminal system; that is, a person cannot sue another person
under these laws to recover money for injury to his or her pet. (But see an interesting case in New
York where a private citizen did try to sue the AKC for the required docking of certain dogs' tails for dog
shows under the state cruelty law. Also, see the laws ofNorth Carolina, §§ 19A-1 to 4, which allow any
person to seek an injunction to stop cruel acts, subject to the exceptions listed). Most of the state anti-
cruelty laws function as misdemeanor offenses (generally those lesser offenses in the criminal justice
system that carry penalties of a fine or jail time for less than one year). However, most states have felony
provisions for aggravated acts of cruelty, where the offender commits heinous acts such as mutilation and
intentional infliction of pain or death. As of 2009, about forty-six states have some felony provisions in
their anti-cruelty and/or animal fighting laws. This trend to charge certain acts initially as felonies as well
as graduating repeat offense to felonies has occurred in many states. (For an in-depth discussion of such
a change, see a recent article on Minnesota's change). Still, much progress still needs to be
made. Many believe that the apparent reluctance to prosecute animal cruelty as felonies stems from
many factors including limited resources, incomplete investigations, pressure from the community to focus
on other crimes, and even the personal feelings of the prosecutor toward animal abuse.

Perhaps one of the most interesting features of most laws is the definition of “animal.” While such a
definition may seem self-evident outside of the legal world, the term “animal” can be as broad under
statutes to include “all living creatures” or as narrow to include only vertebrates or mammals. Common
provisions under anti-cruelty laws include mandatory counseling or education, community service,
restitution (in some cases paid to a local ASPCA), seizure of the animals, reimbursement for the cost of
care, and limitations on future animal ownership. Common exceptions include veterinary practices,
research, hunting, fish, trapping, food production, pest control, rodeos, zoos, circuses, and killing of one’s
own animals on his or her property if done humanely. Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma do not
provide any exemptions to their animal cruelty laws.

In the table of state laws or map of state animal cruelty laws, it may be instructive to compare several
state provisions (when looking at the table, click on the state abbreviation that has the "consolidated
cruelty statutes.") However, the reader is cautioned that these laws are provided not as a comprehensive
list of state criminal statutes, but rather to demonstrate how each state protects animals.

Whether the impetus behind the adoption of such laws is to weed out potential future sociopaths or the
actual concern for all living creatures, these laws provide the first, and sometimes only defense for many
animals.

A. Sources of United States Animal Law

In the United States there are three main federal statutes relating to animal welfare: the Humane Methods
of Slaughter Act (discussed below), the Twenty-Eight Hour Law of 1877 (also discussed below) and
the US Animal Welfare Act. These three Federal statutes do not regulate the treatment of animals reared
for food while on the farm, nor do they regulate treatment of companion animals. Additionally, there is no
federal anti-cruelty statute in the United States.

The US Animal Welfare Act1 is the most comprehensive of the federal statutes. It does not, however,
apply to the treatment of farm animals used for food or the treatment of pet animals by owners or in pet
stores and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. 2 It applies to some animals used in or bred for
research, exhibitions and zoos, animal fights and auctions. 3 The definition of animal is limited under the
US Animal Welfare Act and applies mainly to warm blooded animals such as dogs, cats, non-human
primates, guinea pigs and rabbits.4 The US Animal Welfare Act is not a federal anti-cruelty law; instead,
anti-cruelty legislation is determined by states. For more information in the Animal Welfare Act, see
theAWA Topic Page.

The states have individual anti-cruelty statutes that may regulate the handling of animals reared for food,
depending on whether or not the state has an exemption for farm animals. Additionally, there is no
Federal law regulating the treatment of pet animals. Pet abuse falls under the ambit of state anti-cruelty
statutes.

B. Sources of EU Animal Law

The European Union was founded as the European Economic Community by the treaty of Rome in 1956.
From this point to the present, the EU has been developing through the introduction of several other
treaties. In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam created the political union by establishing a common police
force, a foreign policy, international security and a centralized EU citizenship. Currently there are fifteen
member states in the EU.5

Many laws in the EU are based on conventions or treaties constructed through the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe is an Intergovernmental body designed to promote human rights and democracy in
Europe. It was set up in 1949, has forty-one members, including all of the EU member states. When the
members of the EU sign a Council of Europe convention, they will incorporate the principles in the laws of
the EU through directives, regulations and decisions. There are currently six conventions relating to the
protection of animals, four of which will be discussed below. The conventions not discussed relate to
animal research and wildlife in their natural habitats.

C. Sources of Law for Other Countries

This discussion will include the individual laws of Switzerland, Germany, and Norway. Sweden, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom will also be referenced. Germany, Sweden, the UK and the
Netherlands are member states of the EU. This means that the laws of these countries must at a
minimum meet the laws adopted by the EU, but can go above and beyond those protections. In
Switzerland, two pieces of legislation exist on animal welfare. The first is the Federal Act on Animal
Protection which lays out the basic rule regarding the specific animal welfare topic of concern. The
Federal Council created the Animal Protection Ordinance , which contains the actual regulations
governing specific practices. In Norway, animal welfare is protected by the Norwegian Animal Welfare
Act.

Overview of Texas Animal Cruelty Laws

Gianna M. Ravenscroft

Animal Legal and Historical Center

Publish Date: 2002
Place of Publication: Michigan State University - Detroit College of Law
Printable Version

Overview of Texas Animal Cruelty Laws

Introduction

In the eyes of the law, animals are generally viewed as property. Animals are bought and sold, used
in various industries, and do not have individual rights. However, owners of animals cannot treat or
use their animals in any way they wish. Rather, state laws are enacted to protect animals from cruel
and inhumane treatment.

In the state of Texas, numerous statutes govern the treatment of animals. First, criminal laws are in
place to prohibit the cruel or inhumane treatment of domestic animals. Second, animals are
protected from mistreatment by civil laws, which differ from criminal laws in their enforcement,
scope, and penalties. Lastly, the Texas legislature recently passed in 2001 a set of laws that
governs the keeping of dangerous wild animals. Together, these laws dictate what actions constitute
cruelty, prescribe the potential punishments that can be inflicted, outline available defenses, and
address what happens to an animal that has been cruelly treated.

Criminal Laws

Compared to the criminal cruelty statutes of other states, Texas animal cruelty laws are very narrow
in their scope. Generally, state criminal cruelty laws are written to protect “every living dumb
creature” or “every living vertebrate, except humans.” In a handful of states, the laws do exclude
certain types of animals from the applicability of cruelty laws, such as fish, crustaceans, or
invertebrates, but these exceptions are the minority. For the most part, these state laws do not
differentiate between wild or domesticated animals, and the protection afforded by these laws would
cover both types of animals.

However, Texas criminal cruelty laws are surprisingly narrow and only apply to any “domesticated
living creature or any wild living creature previously captured.” What this means is that criminal
cruelty laws protect livestock and animals that are in custody, like everyday household pets, but they
do not provide any protection for animals that fall outside this narrow definition. Wild animals include
deer, rabbits, squirrels, birds, or any other animal over which no one has custody. Additionally, a
recent court decision in Waco, Texas, further narrowed the scope of these criminal cruelty laws by
holding that a homeless cat who was beaten with a baseball and killed was not protected under the
law. Although the cat had been named and cared for by a woman, the court deemed the cat wild,
and thus unprotected by the criminal statutes, because he had not been technically captured. Critics
have voiced their concerns over the controversial decision and the unjustified narrow scope of the
law in general.

Under Texas criminal laws, the intentional or knowingly cruel treatment of animals is expressly
prohibited. Therefore, accidental or negligent actions cannot be prosecuted under the cruelty
statutes. Because intent and knowledge may be hard to prove during a trial, the courts have allowed
juries to rely on circumstantial evidence surrounding the cruelty offense. For example, in a case
involving the torture of a cat, the jury was allowed to rely on evidence that cat hair was found in the
microwave, which helped them convict the defendant. In another example involving the starvation of
animals, the presence of numerous emaciated animals on the property helped demonstrate that the
ranch owner knew of the animals’ physical conditions.

Cruel treatment can be displayed in many ways, and Texas laws define cruelty to include two
general types of actions, intentional actions and failure to act. Intentional cruel actions include: (1)
torturing an animal; (2) transporting or confining an animal in a cruel manner; (3) killing, seriously
injuring, or poisoning an animal; (4) causing an animal to fight with another; (5) using a live animal
as a lure in a dog race; (6) tripping a horse; (7) injuring an animal belonging to another; or (8)
seriously overworking an animal. The state of Texas also has criminal laws that specifically prohibit
dog fighting.

Cruel treatment also includes situations where a person has failed to act or failed to provide care for
an animal. Failing to act or failing to provide care rises to the level of cruelty when it involves either:
(1) failing to provide necessary food, care or shelter; or (2) unreasonably abandoning an animal.

While some of these “cruelty” definitions may seem broad, it is the job of the courts to help interpret
the meaning and breadth of these actions. For example, in a case where a dog was left in its
owners’ car during a Texas summer, the court found that the owners had confined their pet in a
cruel manner. This demonstrates that each case must be looked at according to the specific facts at
hand, and each case might differ depending on the circumstances. Had the dog’s owners left their
dog in the car during the spring, such action may not be deemed cruel.

Two of the most frustrating aspects of cruelty laws are that animal cruelty cases often go unreported
nor are they prosecuted. However, if a person is prosecuted and found guilty of animal
cruelty, Texas laws impose different punishments based on the type of cruel action involved,
whether the conviction was one of many offenses, or whether the defendant involved is a minor. If a
minor has committed an offense under the criminal cruelty statutes, the court may require that the
child undergo psychological counseling.

For cruelty convictions involving depriving an animal of food or water, abandoning an animal,
transporting an animal in a cruel manner, injuring someone else’s animal, and overworking an
animal, the defendant will be punished with a Class A misdemeanor, which may include a fine up to
$4,000, jail time up to a year, or both. If the conviction is a third offense involving these actions, the
state may punish the defendant with a state jail felony. Under Texas law, a state jail felony may
include jail time ranging from 180 days to 2 years and a fine up to $10,000.

Some cruel actions warrant harsher punishments even on the first conviction. For cruelty offenses
involving the torture, killing, seriously injuring, poisoning, fighting, or tripping of an animal, a state jail
felony may be imposed on the first conviction. If a defendant is convicted three times under these
harsher penalties, he may be subject to a third degree felony sentence, which translates to
imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years and a possible fine of up to $10,000.

Civil Laws

The state of Texas also has civil laws that govern the disposition of animals that have been cruelly
treated. These civil laws differ from the cruelty laws discussed above in a number of ways. First of
all, in a civil action, private parties or a justice of the peace can bring suit against the violator. A
private party may sue the violator to recover damages for the loss of their animal, or a justice of the
peace may use the civil laws to order the seizure of a cruelly treated animal. In criminal actions, it is
the State, through a prosecutor or district attorney, that is charged with enforcing the law.

Secondly, the scope of civil laws is broader than criminal laws. These civil laws are defined to apply
to “every living dumb creature.” Accordingly, it seems that these civil laws could apply to both
domestic and wild animals. However, although their scope is broader, the civil statutes adopt a
 much narrower definition of what constitutes cruelty. “Cruel treatment” in the civil context includes:
(1) torturing an animal; (2) seriously overworking an animal; (3) unreasonably depriving an animal of
necessary food, care, or shelter; (4) cruelly confining an animal; and (5) causing an animal to fight
with another animal. Similar to interpreting criminal statutes, the courts are charged with interpreting
the meaning of these civil laws. In a couple of novel cases, Texas courts have decided that these
civil statutes do not apply to animal demonstration situations or wrestling matches between humans
and other animals (specifically bears).

Lastly, another major difference between civil and criminal cruelty statutes lies in the penalties
imposed. In a criminal proceeding, a defendant may face the loss of freedom, a fine, or both.
Furthermore, he could have the animal taken away from him. However, in a civil proceeding
involving animal cruelty, the owner of the animal does not face any jail time. Instead, the animal’s
owner may bring suit against the violator to request that he pay damages to the owner. Additionally,
the court could order that the violator relinquish ownership in any animals he has in his custody. In
both criminal and civil proceedings, the court could order that the animal be seized and either sold at
auction, given to an animal rescue group, or humanely euthanized if it was in the animal’s best
interest.

Defenses

Texas laws also outline permissible defenses that a person could argue if he were brought to court
on animal cruelty charges. While a defendant’s actions may technically fall within the cruelty
definition, the law does recognize that there are a very limited number of circumstances in which
injuring or killing an animal is allowable. First, in a situation where a person killed someone else’s
animal, the law will not hold the person responsible if the animal was discovered on another’s
property and was in the midst of killing or injuring another domestic animal. Second, tripping a horse
is allowed if it is done so for identification purposes or for veterinary care purposes. Third, a person
may kill an animal if he is in fear of bodily injury to himself or another person. Lastly, a person is
allowed to kill an animal if it is generally acceptable and otherwise lawful. This last provision
addresses situations like fishing, hunting, livestock management, or wildlife control.

Michigan Anti-animal Cruelty Law

The Michigan Legislature has designed three primary provisions related to cruelty to animals: intentional
infliction of pain and suffering, duty to provide care, and anti-animal fighting. The intentional infliction of
pain and suffering provision carries the most severe penalties for animal cruelty and a violation is
automatically a felony. A violation of the duty to provide care provision is initially a misdemeanor, which
becomes a felony for a second or subsequent violation. A violation of the anti-animal fighting provision is
either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the severity of conduct related to fighting (for example,
being a spectator at a fight is a misdemeanor while organizing a fight is a felony).

Much of the past animal cruelty case law concerns the malice requirement under the intentional
violations. Courts have also considered whether mere ownership is sufficient under the prior statute;
however, as will be seen, the change in statutory language may affect the statute’s reach. Another issue
that courts have troubled over is the scope of the duty to provide care provision – specifically, whether
certain acts or non-acts constitute cruelty under the provision. Further, courts have quickly dismissed
challenges to the constitutionality of the anti-animal fighting provision.

A final key issue in anti-animal cruelty law is the disposition of the animals involved in a violation, which
implicates not only search and seizure issues but has been dealt with significantly by the Michigan
Legislature. First, the plain view exception is acceptable to the courts and has often been used to protect
evidence or animals involved in an animal cruelty incident. Second, the Legislature has provided for a
device for prosecutors to bring a civil action of forfeiture of an animal pending a criminal charge under
either the duty to provide care provision or the intentional infliction of pain and suffering provision. Finally,
under the anti-animal fighting provision, the animals involved are automatically forfeited to the state.

The strict measures employed by the Michigan Legislature – convicting offenders of felonies for
intentional violations and subsequent failure to provide care provisions, providing for counseling for
offenders, and calling for forfeiture of animals – are effective means of deterring animal cruelty that have
been developed to reflect society’s greater compassion for all beings.

Housing Discrimination and Companion Animals

Kate Brewer

Animal Legal & Historical Center

Publish Date: 2005
Place of Publication: Michigan State University College of Law
Printable Version

Housing Discrimination and Companion Animals

"I have an emotional disability and need a companion dog. My

landlord told me to get rid of my dog. Is there anything I can do?"
Medical professionals have long recognized that animals can assist persons with physical
disabilities including blind or deaf persons. Recently, medical professionals have discovered the
profound effects that animals can provide for persons with mental and emotional disabilities. When
provided with an emotional support animal, depressed patients show decreased depression and
children with severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder show an increased attention span.

Despite this, the answer to the above question depends on whether a person is receiving federally
subsidized housing or whether he or she has a documented disability to get a private landlord to
waive a "no pets" policy. Unfortunately, if a person rents housing, landlords are given the right to
restrict a tenant’s ability to keep an animal in his or her rental unit. However, federal statutes,
including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Sec. 504") and the Federal Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHAA"), require that persons with disabilities have an equal right to
housing as those without disabilities. It is illegal for a landlord to deny housing to a person with a
disability because that person, or someone associated with that person, has a mental or physical
disability. Under the statutes, disabled persons are also entitled to reasonable accommodations so
that they can equally use and enjoy the dwelling. Courts have held that a waiver of a "no pets"
provision is a reasonable accommodation for a mentally disabled person who needs an emotional
support animal to lessen the effects of the disability. If a landlord fails to allow an emotional support
animal in rental housing for a person who qualifies under the statutes, the landlord violates the
statutes and could owe damages to the disabled tenant.

To qualify under both statutes, the tenant must establish that he or she has a qualifying disability.
Mental disabilities, such as mental retardation, mental illness, and special learning disabilities, are
qualifying disabilities under both statutes. Also, the mental impairment must affect the person’s
ability to perform major life activities such as caring for one’s self, walking, or working.

In addition, under Sec. 504, the tenant must be "otherwise qualified" to receive the benefit, the
tenant must be denied the benefit solely because of the disability, and the program must receive
federal financial assistance. Courts have held that "otherwise qualified" means that the tenant must
be able to meet the requirements of the program in spite of the handicap. Also, the tenant must be
able to meet the general rules of tenancy, such as cleaning up after the animal and walking the
animal in designated areas. Lastly, only housing authorities that receive money from the federal
government, such as public housing projects, are subject to Sec. 504 provisions.

Unlike Sec. 504, the FHAA applies to both public and private housing. Under the FHAA, in addition
to establishing a qualifying disability, the tenant must also establish that the landlord knew of the
tenant’s disability, waiving the "no pets" policy was necessary to allow the tenant to equally use and
enjoy the dwelling, and the landlord refused to waive the "no pets" policy. Also, the tenant must
request a waiver of the "no pets" policy from the landlord, explaining that he or she has a mental
disability and needs the emotional support animal to lessen the effects of the disability. A note from
a physician to this effect is often used to inform the landlord of the disability and request the
accommodation. Mere emotional distress that would result from having to give up an animal
because of a "no pets" policy will not qualify under federal law. Instead, there must be a link
between the animal and the disability.

Under both statutes, a mentally disabled person must meet two standards when arguing a waiver of
a "no pets" provision as a reasonable accommodation: (1) the accommodation must facilitate the
disabled person’s ability to function; and (2) the accommodation must pass a cost-benefit balancing
test that takes both parties’ needs into account. The former can be established by evidence showing
that the handicap requires the companionship of the animal, the disabled person has an emotional
and psychological dependence on the animal, or that the animal lessens the effects of the disability
by providing companionship. The supporting evidence often comes from a medical professional. The
latter requires an analysis of the benefits to the tenant as compared to the burdens placed on the
landlord. Generally, there are minimal burdens placed on a landlord if required to waive a "no pets"
policy. Especially because the number of mentally disabled persons who can qualify for waiver of a
"no pets" provision is small, most landlords have been unsuccessful in arguing a denial of a waiver
of a "no pets" policy because of extreme burdens. In addition, there must be no other reasonable
alternatives to lessen the effects of the disability, other than the animal.

Courts have not restricted the types of species that qualify as reasonable accommodations.
Examples of species that have been allowed as reasonable accommodations include dogs, birds,
and cats. Also, courts have held that animals do not need to have professional training or be
certified as an emotional support animal. Evidence establishing the nexus between the disability and
the animal is sufficient.

Even if a person qualifies for a reasonable accommodation under the statutes, a landlord does not
have to waive a "no pets" policy if doing so would cause a great financial or administrative burden, if
a "no pets" rule is a fundamental part of the housing program, or if the disabled person is not able to
follow general rules of tenancy. However, to date, a landlord has not been able to refuse waiving a
"no pets" policy to a qualifying mentally disabled person because of any of the above reasons.

In addition, if a tenant compromises the safety of other tenants or their property, or if the animal
poses a danger to other tenants, the tenant does not qualify under the statutes and the landlord
does not have to allow the tenant in housing or waive a "no pets" policy.

Given the known benefits of emotional support animals for persons with mental disabilities, it is
important for the legal community to assist mentally disabled persons so that they are aware of the
their rights and ensure that those rights are enforced.