I have no idea why the County of Los Angeles is so desperate to kill dogs in its custody that a no-kill animal shelter wants to take over and keep alive. Much less why LA would want to waste money fighting a lawsuit (and appeal) in an attempt to keep a policy in place that kills dogs that don't need to die.
What whatever its motivation, it loses today's appeal. And I'm glad it does. Because unnecessary killing seems, well, kinda unnecessary.
Plus, given the underlying statute, you'd think that LA would have figured out -- correctly -- that it was likely to lose on appeal. Section 31108 of the statute says: "Except as provided in Section 17006, any stray dog that is impounded pursuant to this division shall, before the euthanasia of that animal, be released to a nonprofit, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, animal rescue or adoption organization if requested by the organization before the scheduled euthanasia of that animal." "Shall" probably means, "shall," right? So unless the exception in Section 17006 applies, it seems like LA has to not kill the dog -- i.e., give it to the no-kill shelter -- upon request. Section 17006, in turn, creates only the following exceptions: "Animals that are irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury shall not be held for owner redemption or adoption. Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 31108 and subdivision (c) of Section 31752, newborn animals that need maternal care and have been impounded without their mothers may be euthanized without being held for owner redemption or adoption.”" But the two dogs that the approved non-profit here wanted to take over -- Gunnar and Winston -- didn't fall under that exception. They weren't ill or injured or newborns without mothers. They simply had "behavioral problems" that LA County thought meant that they wouldn't be quickly (or perhaps ever) adopted.
But, as Justice Moor rightly holds, that's irrelevant. It's not an exception under the statute. If the approved nonprofit is willing to take them, the County can't kill them. The nonprofit can try to adopt them out and take care of them in the interim. Their call, not the County's.
The trial court held otherwise, which is why (I suspect) the County thought it could win. And, maybe, there is a legitimate reason why a public entity that really cares about stray dogs would rather kill a dog than give it (upon request) to an approved no-kill animal shelter. I just can't think of any offhand.
Regardless, even if I could, that's not what the statute says. So I'd follow it. As the Court of Appeal does here.
At the same time, Justice Moor holds that the statute does not require the County to give up dogs to any nonprofit that makes a request under the statute. I'm fine with that result, but I'm fairly confident that a pure textualist would be compelled to go the other way. The full statute says: "Except as provided in Section 17006, any stray dog that is impounded pursuant to this division shall, before the euthanasia of that animal, be released to a nonprofit, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, animal rescue or adoption organization if requested by the organization before the scheduled euthanasia of that animal. The public or private shelter may enter into cooperative agreements with any animal rescue or adoption organization." That last part -- the "may" section -- nowhere qualifies the first ("shall") part, or says that the "shall" is trumped by the subsequent "may". So I agree with Justice Moor that, as a policy matter, it's kinda silly (and I don't think the Legislature's intent) were the statute to allow any nonprofit -- however abusive or whathaveyou -- a right to divert stray dogs, or to have the IRS be the only determinant of which nonprofit shelters could legitimately divert. Just because I bother to incorporate a nonprofit doesn't mean I should necessarily be entitled to grab -- as some might -- every single dog in the County that would otherwise euthanize. You gotta have space for them, food, blah blah blah.
But, to be clear, that's not the way the statute facially reads. It shall the dog "shall" be released to a nonprofit. Period. So if you're a pure textualist, seems to me like you've got to come out that way.
But I'm not, so I don't.
