Have you encountered what you suspected might be a ‘fake’ service animal in a public place? What made you wonder? Was the animal unclean, did it seem to be untrained, was it eliminating inappropriately? Did the animal’s behavior—or the behavior of the human with the animal—make you feel threatened or unsafe? You’re certainly not alone if you’ve had such an experience.
‘Fake’ service animals and their ‘fake’ disabled handlers are everywhere.
“I have seen personally folks who have asserted that their parrots, rabbits, small rodents, snakes, chickens, and etc., were service animals in grocery stores and various office settings,” says Mike Fagan, a member of the City Council in Spokane, Washington.
Starting this year, Washington State has changed its official definition of service animal to exclude animals that provide comfort or emotional support, but that are not otherwise trained to perform work or tasks for a person with a disability. Substitute House Bill (SHB) 2822 amends the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD—chapter 49.60 RCW). The legislative purpose of the new law is to “penalize the intentional misrepresentation of a service animal, which de-legitimizes the genuine need for the use of service animals and makes it harder for persons with disabilities to gain unquestioned acceptance for their legitimate, properly trained, and essential service animals.”
Under the state’s rules, an enforcement officer or owner of a public accommodation (store managers or any person in charge of an establishment) may ask if a service animal is required because of a disability and what work or tasks the animal is trained to do. An enforcement officer can remove the animal from the premises and fine the animal’s handler $500 if they refuse to answer questions or if the animal is observably not a service animal.
In Spokane, effective January 1, an ordinance sponsored by City Councilmember Fagan uses most of the same language as the state’s law, and includes a fine for those who misrepresent their pets as service animals. Under the ordinance, which becomes part of the City of Spokane’s human rights code, refusal to answer the “two questions”—if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal is trained to do—would create a presumption that the animal is not a service animal, and its handler could be asked to remove the animal from the premises. The initial fine could be up to $56, with increased fines for repeat offenders. Like the state law, Spokane’s ordinance defines service animals as specially trained dogs and some miniature horses.
Photo by Shoshannah Forbes
Here is the City of Spokane’s ordinance:
WHEREAS, service animals such as guide dogs are a valuable help for people many people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, Title 18 of the Spokane Municipal Code currently contains some guidelines for the use of guide dogs and service animals and provides that they may only be used by people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, recently, an amendment to the Revised Code of Washington, which will go into effect on January 1, 2019, adds a prohibition on the misrepresentation of an animal as a service animal and allows law enforcement and the operators of public accommodations to make limited inquiries as to the task and purpose of an animal represented to be a service animal; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane intends to clarify the local requirements for the use of service animals by ensuring that only ADA-recognized animals, such as dogs and miniature horses, trained for specific tasks or assistance for people with disabilities may be represented to the public as such and providing penalties for the misrepresentation of an animal as a service animal.
NOW THEREFORE, the City of Spokane does ordain:
Section 1. That section 18.06.040 of the Spokane Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 18.06.040 ((Misrepresentation in the)) Use of White Cane, Dog Guide or Service Animal
A. It shall be unlawful for any pedestrian who is not totally or partially blind to use a white cane or any pedestrian who is not totally or partially blind or does not have a hearing impairment to use a dog guide or any person who does not have a disability as defined in this chapter to use a service animal in any of the places, accommodations or conveyances listed in SMC 18.01.030(Q), for the purpose of securing the rights and privileges accorded by this chapter to persons with total or partial blindness, hearing impairment or who have other disabilities.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to misrepresent an animal as a service animal. For purposes of this section, a person misrepresents an animal as a service animal if the person:
Expressly or impliedly represents that an animal is a service animal as defined in SMC 18.01.030(X) for the purpose of securing the rights or privileges afforded disabled persons accompanied by service animals set forth in state or federal law; and knew or should have known that the animal in question did not meet the definition of a service animal.
C. A law enforcement officer may investigate and enforce this section by making an inquiry of the person accompanied by the animal in question as allowed by SMC 18.06.040(D), and issuing a civil infraction.
D. A law enforcement officer or place of public accommodation may not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, but may specifically ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A law enforcement officer or place of public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal, or require that the service animal demonstrate its task. Generally, a law enforcement officer or place of public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability, such as a dog is observed guiding a person who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person’s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to a person with an observable mobility disability. Refusal to answer the questions allowed under this subsection creates a presumption that the animal is not a service animal and the law enforcement officer may issue a civil infraction and require the person to remove the animal from the place of public accommodation.
E. A place of public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability in accordance with SMC 18.01.030(X) if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a facility, a place of public accommodation shall act in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Councilmember Fagan says he believes Spokane’s ordinance will deter pet owners from breaking the law by misrepresenting their pets as service animals. Laura Renz and members of the organization she heads, NorthWest Service Dog Alliance, hope Fagan’s belief proves true. Laura says:
NorthWest Service Dog Alliance is confident that the new House Bill (HB 2822), along with the new Spokane City Ordinance, RCW 49.60.214, will help deter people from taking undertrained animals, or their pets, into public places where only service animals are allowed.
Legitimate service dog teams are being accosted, even attacked, by undertrained animals in public locations. That takes a huge toll on highly trained service dogs, with two or more years of training, often requiring that the dogs be retrained, putting their disabled handlers at an even further disadvantage. It may seem like nothing to someone who brings their untrained pet into public; they think that no one will be harmed. In many cases, that may be true . . . until that undertrained pet sees a working dog and rushes it. For our members here locally, this sort of incident is a far too frequent occurrence—sometimes a daily or weekly event.
This issue in particular is one of the main reasons NorthWest Service Dog Alliance was formed. We think continuing education can be the solution—for handlers, for businesses, and for the public—making sure a balance is maintained. We look forward to the future in helping to educate businesses, service dog teams, and the general public.
How will the new ordinance that went into effect on January 1 in Spokane be enforced? Which agency within the City of Spokane will be charged with its enforcement? What process will be followed for reporting possible infractions to that agency? Who can or should report possible infractions? When should a report be made? What happens once a report is made? How quickly will a report be processed? Will those charged with misrepresentation under this ordinance be able to dispute the charges? How will that work? Have any infractions been reported to date?
I’ll be asking those questions of City of Spokane officials in the weeks to come!
NorthWest Service Dog Alliance Fans on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/NWSDAllianceFan/
