Connecticut General Statutes/Title 22/Chapter 435/Section 22-364

CGS § 22-364. Dogs or livestock roaming at large. Order for enforcement. Intentional or reckless subsequent violation.

(a) No owner or keeper of any dog or livestock as defined in section 22-381 shall allow such dog or livestock to roam at large upon the land of another and not under control of the owner or keeper or the agent of the owner or keeper, nor allow such dog or livestock to roam at large on any portion of any public highway and not attended or under control of such owner or keeper or an agent of such owner or keeper, provided nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit or prohibit the use of hunting dogs during the open hunting or training season. The unauthorized presence of any dog or livestock on the land of any person other than the owner or keeper of such dog or livestock or on any portion of a public highway when such dog or livestock is not attended by or under the control of such owner or keeper, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this subsection. Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be an infraction. The animal control officer or regional animal control officer appointed pursuant to section 22-328, 22-331 or 22-331a, as applicable, of any city or town in which any such dog or livestock is found roaming at large may, in addition to any other remedies provided by law, seek an order enforcing the provisions of this section, including an injunction, from the superior court of the judicial district in which such dog or livestock is found roaming at large.

(b) Any owner or keeper of any dog who, knowing of the vicious propensities of such dog and having violated the provisions of subsection (a) of this section within the preceding year, intentionally or recklessly violates the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, if such dog, while roaming at large, causes physical injury to another person and such other person was not teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.

Short History

(1949 Rev., S. 3412; 1953, S. 1850d; 1963, P.A. 613, S. 32; P.A. 76-381, S. 11; P.A. 77-63, S. 2; P.A. 96-243, S. 11, 16; P.A. 23-184, S. 12; P.A. 24-105, S. 2.)

Long History

History: 1963 act specified what constitutes prima facie evidence of violation and distinguished between penalties for first and subsequent offenses, imposing twenty-five-dollar minimum and one-hundred-dollar maximum fine for subsequent offenses, and making imprisonment an optional penalty only for subsequent offenses where previously applicable to first offenses as well; P.A. 76-381 made violation an infraction, deleting previous penalty provisions; P.A. 77-63 prohibited dogs from roaming on any portion of highway, deleting language which had limited applicability of prohibition to those portions of highway “not adjacent to the premises of the owner or keeper”; P.A. 96-243 added Subsec. (b) re subsequent intentional or reckless violations, effective June 6, 1996; P.A. 23-184 amended Subsec. (a) to add references to livestock and made technical changes, effective June 28, 2023; P.A. 24-105 amended Subsec. (a) to authorize animal control officers to seek an order for enforcement, effective June 4, 2024.

Citations

Cited. 9 CA 686.

Cited. 33 CS 660.

Subsec. (a):

The fact that an owner allows a dog to roam does not exonerate a keeper who also allows the dog to roam; either an owner or a keeper or both can be held liable for a violation of statute regardless of whether the owner was present and known to authorities at the time of the incident. 120 CA 324. Defendant who allowed dog to wander out of sight 20 to 30 yards away while on property of another violated Subsec., which is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness as applied, and which gives fair notice that Subsec. prohibits a dog owner from, inter alia, allowing a dog freely to move around another's property, unrestrained and unhindered, and not under the direct influence of owner; dog's subsequent response to owner's verbal command did not demonstrate “control” required by Subsec. 139 CA 107.