Dog license suit settled in state Supreme Court

MAT-SU — The Alaska Supreme Court sided this week with a Palmer judge who ruled in 2005 that the city of Wasilla was right in denying a woman’s kennel license appeal.

Deborah Luper, who breeds Shetland sheepdogs, or shelties, moved into a Wasilla neighborhood in 2004. Neighbors complained about too many dogs and she was cited. Wasilla municipal code requires a kennel license for anyone who keeps more than three adult dogs. Luper applied for a license and was denied.

In December of 2006, Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler ruled that the city was right in citing Luper and in denying her a permit.

Luper appealed both decisions, saying she was selectively prosecuted when she was cited and that she was wrongfully denied a permit. She alleged that then-Mayor Diane Keller had interfered with her permit application, that there wasn’t enough evidence to support denying her application, and that a imposing an arbitrary limit of three dogs was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds Cutler’s ruling.

As to the claims of selective enforcement, Justice Robert Eastaugh wrote: “Contrary to Luper’s assertions, none of the evidence that Luper presented on summary judgment demonstrates differential treatment or intent to discriminate.”

As to the claims about Keller interfering with the case, Eastaugh wrote that even if Keller did interfere: “Luper presented no evidence linking this alleged conduct with the commission’s denial.”

As for whether the city had enough evidence to deny the application, he wrote that the city’s commission correctly based its decision on three findings: (1) “There were twenty-four written comments from neighbors opposing the application and only one supporting the application; (2) there were potential groundwater contamination and drainage issues; and (3) there were potential noise and odor issues. Despite Luper’s assertions to the contrary, substantial evidence supported all three findings.”

And, on the question of constitutionality, Eastaugh wrote that the ordinance didn’t say no one could ever keep more than three dogs, but simply imposed a permit requirement. Thus, even if a three-dog limit was “numerically arbitrary” the law itself was not so arbitrary as to be unconstitutional, Eastaugh wrote.