Service Dog Fraud
Yogi Wearing his New Harness to Assist his Handler (Courtesy: MobilityDog.org)
States have been enacting service dog regulations since the 1930s, when guide dogs were introduced in the U.S. Initially, state regulations governing assistance animals covered only guide dogs. Until the creation of federal regulations, varying state regulations created a crazy quilt of laws concerning assistance dogs and handlers’ disability rights.
ADA Definition
The American Disabilities Act Logo
Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 provided the first nationwide definition of service animals. The ADA defined service animals as “any guide dog, signal dog or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.” Initially, the ADA definition did not require a service animal to be of any particular species and did not require the animal to comply with identification requirements, come from a recognized training protocol or meet any other criteria established by any state law.
The ADA Amendments Act, passed in 2008, refined the definition of a service animal as a dog or miniature horse, addressing problems that had arisen concerning service turkeys, iguanas and pigs. Businesses and places of public accommodation are not permitted to require documentation of a service dog’s training or to demand documentation of the handler’s disability. (Source: ADA.gov)
Criminal Statutes
Widespread confusion still exists regarding the differences, and therefore the various access rights, enjoyed by service dogs, emotional support animals and therapy dogs. Different state regulations define these classes of assistance animals differently.
According to the Animal Legal & Historical Center, 33 states (as of 2022) have statutes addressing the fraudulent use of service animals. (Source: AnimalLaw.info) States treat violations differently, however. Some consider the issue a civil matter. In other states, fraudulent service dog representation is a misdemeanor. Moreover, some states focus on the legitimacy of the handler’s disability, whereas others pay more attention to the status of the dog.
State Laws and Fraudulent Service Dogs (Courtesy: AnimalLaw.info)
California Law
In California, service dog fraud is prohibited under California Penal Code 365.7 PC. Violation of this law can result in a criminal misdemeanor offense and a jail term of six months. PC 365.7 defines service dog fraud this way: Anyone who knowingly and fraudulently represents themselves, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed, or identified, as a guide, signal, or service dog is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. (Source: KegLawyers.com)
Conviction of violating PC 365.7 may result in:
Up to six months in county jail.
A maximum fine of $1,000.
Emotional support dogs have become more prevalent in recent years, and the California Legislature passed a law to stop people from misrepresenting their emotional support dogs as service dogs. Assembly Bill 468, which went into effect in January 2022, prescribes fines for those who fraudulently misrepresent their dogs:
$500 for the first offense.
$1,000 for a second offense.
$2,500 for a third offense.
Catch 22 – Identifying Wrongdoing
Remember, service dogs do not require licenses, certificates or identifying equipment, and the ADA does not permit public accommodation proprietors (or police officers, for that matter) to ask about the specifics of an individual’s disability.
So how then can anyone decide whether a dog or handler is who they represent themselves to be? This conundrum was noted in Hurley v Loma Linda University Medical Center, when the court observed:
Indeed, “knowingly and fraudulently representing [oneself]…to be the owner of [a] service dog” is illegal in California, but it is not clear how anyone is supposed to determine whether someone is violating California law without violating the federal regulation.” (bold added)
What Now?
Edison Riding the Bus with his Handler
A significant step in clarifying the issues associated with fraudulent service dog use would be to sort out the mishmash of various state laws defining service dogs (and differentiating them from emotional support and therapy animals). State legislatures could begin by aligning definitions with ADA guidelines. Similarly, ADA access guidelines for service dogs should be used to make state laws uniform nationwide. Finally, states should be consistent in how they treat fraudulent identification of a service dog and handler misrepresentation of a disability.
It’s in the interest of everyone with a true disability and a legitimate service dog for wrong-doers to be identified and prevented from perpetrating fraud. Let’s hope that laws aimed at weeding out cheaters continue to evolve, along with public attitudes, so that the spirit of the ADA can take full effect.