One of my friends alerted me to the problem of pet owners buying fake credentials for their dogs — vests and certificates that claim the dog is a trained service animal — so that they can bring their pet places more conveniently. About a month ago, the Sun Sentinel had an interesting story about the problem.
A cause of this is that there aren't any standards for training a service dog. The accommodation laws require businesses to allow disabled customers to bring service dogs with them, but there are no federal or state agencies that regulate the training or issue certifications. This means that while certifications bought for untrained dogs aren't real, they're also not technically fake, since there is no such thing as a "real" certification.
Of course, it should go without saying that such fake certifications are an extremely selfish thing to use. If your dog isn't specifically trained, it's probably going to act in the ways that make business owners hesitant to allow dogs in in the first place. It's going to bark, it's going to be energetic, and it's going to bother other customers. If business owners start to think that service dogs behave in this way, it's going to cause a problem for those who actually need assistance in the future.
One bit of the Sun Sentinel article struck me as not correct:
I'm not an expert on Florida fraud law, obviously, but the relevant statute seems to be F.S. § 817.29, which provides:
If there's another statute or common law crime under which the state could charge the act, please let me know. As far as I can tell, though, no Florida prosecutor has ever tried to prosecute a "fake" service dog for fraud.
(UPDATED 5/7 to make it clear that pretending that a non-service dog is trained is an irresponsible and selfish thing to do.)
A cause of this is that there aren't any standards for training a service dog. The accommodation laws require businesses to allow disabled customers to bring service dogs with them, but there are no federal or state agencies that regulate the training or issue certifications. This means that while certifications bought for untrained dogs aren't real, they're also not technically fake, since there is no such thing as a "real" certification.
Of course, it should go without saying that such fake certifications are an extremely selfish thing to use. If your dog isn't specifically trained, it's probably going to act in the ways that make business owners hesitant to allow dogs in in the first place. It's going to bark, it's going to be energetic, and it's going to bother other customers. If business owners start to think that service dogs behave in this way, it's going to cause a problem for those who actually need assistance in the future.
One bit of the Sun Sentinel article struck me as not correct:
"If you portray yourself as disabled, or your pet as a service animal, the minute you go out in public you're committing a crime," [Ken] Lyons [director of Service Dogs of Florida] said. "It's felony fraud."It's not clear why that type of misrepresentation would constitute fraud, which usually requires monetary gain.
I'm not an expert on Florida fraud law, obviously, but the relevant statute seems to be F.S. § 817.29, which provides:
Whoever is convicted of any gross fraud or cheat at common law shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.This simply incorporates the common law definition of "gross fraud or cheat" and sets the level of the crime at a third degree felony. As to the actual definition of fraud, State v. Vikhlyantsev, 622 So. 2d 1365, 1367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) provides an answer:
This court in State v. Peterson, 192 So.2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA1966), recognized 30 Geo. II, c. 24, as the law of this state for the offense of cheating. The statute defines the offense as knowingly and designedly, by false pretense, obtaining from any person or persons, money, goods, wares or merchandise with the intent to cheat or defraud said person or persons of same. 192 So.2d at 295.Since pretending that your dog is trained in order to bring it into an otherwise restricted area is not a way of "obtaining from any person or persons, money, goods, wares or merchandise with the intent to cheat or defraud said person or persons of same," it can't constitute fraud in the Florida (or standard) definition.
If there's another statute or common law crime under which the state could charge the act, please let me know. As far as I can tell, though, no Florida prosecutor has ever tried to prosecute a "fake" service dog for fraud.
(UPDATED 5/7 to make it clear that pretending that a non-service dog is trained is an irresponsible and selfish thing to do.)
Currently, there are no Federal law in regards to this, but there are certain State statutes that make the misrepresentation of a non-service dog as a service dog or impersonating a disabled person a prosecutable crime. Some states it's felony fraud, others just a warning. Everyone agrees that it's wrong, just sometimes the laws don't fit the crime.
ReplyDeleteMissouri, has a law where there is a $1000 fine and 1 year jail time for faking a pet as a service dog. In California, it is a misdemeanor that carries up to a $2500 fine and 1 year in jail, plus a criminal record for life. Not all States are the same, but most all have some law about faking a pet as a service dog. It is like faking an injury to get a handicapped parking permit.
Florida doesn't have a specific fakers law but can use other laws connected with the incident. i.e. The person can commit purgery, lying to an officer during an investigation, and if they get VA assistance or donations for food, discounted vet service or other goods and services, related to the service dog then yes it's falls in to fraud.
FS 837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities.
873.055 False information to law enforcement during investigation.
FS 414.39 Fraud (...receive any such public assistance to which he or she is not entitled)
FS 68.081 Florida False Claims Act
The advantage that they are getting: They are elevating their rights to bring an untrained animal in to places that ban animals, which include breaking health codes, city/county/state ordinances, when they knowingly take them in, i.e. restaurants, parks.
The law doesn't catchup until the person gets caught, usually after their dog has bitten someone. At that point the police will usually ask the handler, under penalty of purgery, are you legally disabled and is this service dog trained to mitigate that disability.
If the officer is still not convinced, after the person lied to them, they can issue a summons to appear in court. At that point a judge can then demand proof of disability and training to vet the dog and handler. Lying to a judge would be another broken law in this chain.
It would be nice if Florida would add a specific penalty but until then, the police have to entrap the person using other laws. And even with a specific fakers law the police are limited in the questions they can ask, which defers the whole incident to a judge.
Now should any person, teen or their dog, fake or not, attack a valid service dog. FS 413.08 comes in. Loose pet attacks are the number one cause for retirement of service dogs, one dog fight can ruin a $40,000 service dog.
http://www.servicedogsfl.org/docs/fl-state-law.shtml
Bottom line: Service dogs are for the Disabled, Period.
Faking a dog is, unethical, immoral, and illegal in most places and down right wrong.
http://www.servicedogsfl.org/docs/fakers.shtml
Ken, thanks for commenting. I'm sorry that your comment initially got caught by Google's spam filter, but it's published now.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the cites to the additional statutes, but I still think your initial claim was wrong: it is not a crime in Florida to simply go out in public (or into a business) with a dog that is falsely identified as a service dog.
* FS 837.05 would apply only if the owner of the dog filed a criminal complaint that hinged on the dog being a service dog.
* FS 837.055 (873.055 doesn't exist) only applies in specific circumstances: a missing person or felony investigation where the owner lies.
* FS 414.39 would apply only if the owner received benefits from a government-funded assistance program. While certainly possible, it doesn't apply in the general case.
* FS 68.081 only applies to civil claims leveled against the state.
And while your attempt to claim that the right to enter with an animal is a benefit obtained for the purposes of a fraud conviction, the common law requires the person to obtain "money, goods, wares or merchandise". Being able to enter a business with an animal is none of those.
I completely agree with you that it's wrong to pretend that an untrained dog is actually a service dog. However, saying that it's already illegal in Florida when it appears not to be will only hamper efforts to institute new, better laws.