After Michael Ernatt’s dog allegedly bit his next-door neighbor, an officer with the Animal Control Section of the City of Wichita Police Department deemed the dog “potentially dangerous” under Wichita City Code of Ordinances Sec. 6.04.045(a) (2018). Ernatt appealed to an administrative hearing officer, who also concluded that Ernatt’s dog was potentially dangerous. There was no transcript taken of this hearing. Ernatt then appealed to the district court under K.S.A. 60-2101(d). Besides challenging the hearing officer’s potentially dangerous dog finding, Ernatt raised several constitutional challenges to Wichita’s dangerous dog ordinance scheme. The district court did not rule on Ernatt’s constitutional arguments but reversed, finding the lack of a transcript prevented the court from meaningfully reviewing the potentially dangerous dog ruling. The City of Wichita (the City) appeals, arguing that the district court misunderstood its review powers under K.S.A. 60-2101(d). Ernatt cross-appeals, raising some of the constitutional challenges to the ordinance scheme he raised below. We affirm the district court’s ruling.
Source: kscourts.org.
