Alabama Animal Advocates

Dogs-at-Large Laws

A Guide for Counties & Municipalities

When family and friends came to visit Willard Norton, the 83-year-old Town Creek resident immediately invited them inside. Norton was scared to have guests outside his home, family members said, because of the neighbor’s aggressive dogs. The family had contacted authorities several times, according to the Lawrence County Sheriff’s Office. But since the County Commission had not adopted Alabama’s dogs at large statute, deputies’ hands were tied. Steps could be taken only after the dogs attacked.

And attack they did. Willard Norton was fatally mauled as he tended to his prized roses in his front yard on June 2, 2024. A month later, the Lawrence County Commission, at the urging of Norton’s family, unanimously adopted § 3-1-5.

Since 1915, counties have been able to adopt § 3-1-5, yet more than 60% of Alabama’s counties have not. Similarly, cities and towns may adopt their own requirement, yet many have not. Some inaccurately believe that because their county has adopted the state law, it automatically applies in their town.

Based on misunderstandings about the county or municipality’s ability to enforce the law or of stepping on freedoms, these counties are unintentionally impeding law enforcement’s ability to protect citizens’ quality of life — or, as in Norton’s case, life itself. It is up to each elected official to decide whether to continue to tell residents that nothing can be done, or to unshackle law enforcement officers and protect citizens.

Dog running along farm fences.

About Dog Confinement Laws

The state’s dog confinement law, § 3-1-5, stipulates that dogs be kept on the owner’s premises or in the charge of a responsible person if off-premises. Although it is a state law, it applies only when adopted by the County Commission, and then only in unincorporated areas and in some municipalities. Violation is a misdemeanor which carries a fine of $2 to $50, plus court costs of approximately $200 to $300.

Some municipalities have an ordinance either prohibiting running at large or requiring confinement. Other municipalities have no such ordinance, and may choose to make a law. Municipalities within counties that have adopted § 3-1-5 have the additional option to simply repeal their license tag ordinance, if they have one, so that the state law applies.

Enforcement of dog confinement laws is prompted by a resident’s report or an officer’s witnessing of a dog running loose. A responding officer or agent may address the situation in a variety of ways, most commonly by speaking to and/or leaving information for the dog owner. The complainant, in turn, may be informed of the option to press charges if violations continue. If the dog owner is cited by an officer or charged in a magistrate’s office, he will be summoned to plea or to contest the charge.

Such state and local laws are often knows as “leash laws,” though this name is often a misnomer since the state confinement law is not a leash law and only some municipal laws include a leashing requirement.

Why Confinement Laws are Important

Impacts on Government & Law Enforcement

Little or no impact on ACOs, and possible reduction in calls. Without a law, officers and residents can only request neighborly consideration — which tends to be ineffective for the most troubling or potentially dangerous situations. Residents may call repeatedly about the same dog owner, leaving both complainant and officer frustrated at the lack of a remedy. With the statute, officers and residents are empowered to address ongoing issues. In the long run, this can result in fewer calls and earlier intervention, thus saving time and resources. For example, Mobile County described the law’s adoption as “increasing the productivity of Animal Control officers.”

Minimal impact on court case load. Impact on court officials is negligible, according to the court officials with whom we have spoken. Due to the conditions required for citation, few are issued; due to the requirements for bringing evidence to the magistrate, rarely are charges filed. The primary use of these laws is to address the most negligent and abusive dog owners, not to penalize the considerate neighbors whose dog accidentally was let out.

No impact on shelters, and a reduction in intakes in the long term. Similarly, we have found that fears of shelter overcrowding are unfounded, since enforcement is done through a warning or citation in response to a call and not, for example, via impoundment of every loose dog. Since dog confinement also reduces the chance of impregnation, shelter intake is decreased in the long term.

Preparation Needed for a Confinement Requirement

If calls will be answered by agents who are not APOSTC-certified, it may be desirable for those agents to be deputized (by the sheriff’s office) or authorized (by the municipality) so that they may issue citations.

Myths & FAQs

Will this law tread on the freedom of dog owners? A frequent misconception is that ACOs will, upon adoption of the law, check every property across the county’s hundreds of square miles to ensure compliance. This is never the case. Since enforcement is only according to reports, the vast majority of dog owners, especially those with acreage and/or with dogs that are not charging at people or disturbing livestock, are unaffected. The law merely allows officers to act: it does not create a duty to act. As was said by by the Blount County Commission Chairman upon adoption of the statute, “The County Commission is not in the business of implementing rules and restrictions. What we’re trying to do is put a tool in the toolbox.”

Will this law increase chaining? In our experience, no. More likely is that a small number of residents install a fence or trolley line upon learning of the law. The existence of the confinement requirement can slowly affect the culture of dog ownership in the county or municipality. Just as Alabama gradually shifted from open range for livestock to closed range between 1866 and 1941, adoption of the law can nudge residents toward keeping dogs on their own property.

Why are residents asked to document violations prior to reporting? This is a suggested step because a) it guides residents to report only repeat issues related to neighbors who are not confining their dogs, and b) documentation is usually required for pressing charges. (The one exception we are aware of is that when a resident presses charges in Lee County, Lee County Animal Control is subpoenaed to provide evidence to the court of previous efforts to address the situation, such as a record of multiple calls regarding the neighbor’s at-large dog.)

Will more ACOs be necessary to enforce this law? No. There may be a small increase in calls as residents first become aware of the statute’s adoption. Over time, calls can be expected to decrease because offending owners can be penalized rather than only asked to be considerate. Additionally, much of the frustration in the absence of the statute is due to the lack of recourse. When a recourse is placed in the hands of residents, most residents face that it is up to them to take action rather than continuing to call or to blame law enforcement.

We have no animal control. Doesn’t that need to be figured out first? Though we hope that animal control can be implemented, even for a minimal schedule at first, enforcement is possible without the support of animal control. Any officer can respond to calls, and can do so when the officer is in the area since at-large calls are not urgent. Shelby County provides another possibility: instead of dispatching an officer when a complaint is received, the county mails a letter to the suspected dog owner.