Who is Legally Responsible for a Dog?
Understanding Animal Control Liability in Pima County, Tucson, and Marana
When something goes wrong involving a dog—a bite, an attack, or a leash law violation—the first question law enforcement and animal control officers ask is, "Who is responsible?" The answer might seem simple at first glance, but Arizona law and Pima County ordinances apply a much more complex standard than just asking who "owns" the dog.
This issue comes up in criminal cases, civil liability, and municipal citations throughout Tucson, Pima County, and surrounding jurisdictions like Marana. The consequences can be serious: citations, fines, criminal charges, jail, probation, and even restitution claims. As a defense attorney handling cases in Tucson City Court, Pima County Justice Court, and Marana Municipal Court, I regularly see individuals charged or cited under animal welfare laws when they were not, in fact, legally responsible for the dog.
This article breaks down what it means to be legally responsible for a dog under Arizona state law and Pima County code. We'll examine how these laws are applied, common mistakes in enforcement, and what your rights are if you’re facing a citation or criminal charge for an incident involving a dog.
What the Law Says: Arizona and Pima County Definitions of "Owner"
Under Arizona state law, the definition of "owner" is found in A.R.S. § 11-1001(10):
"Owner" means any person who keeps an animal other than livestock for more than six consecutive days.
In contrast, the Pima County Code § 6.04.020(B) uses a much broader definition:
"Owner" means any person owning, keeping, possessing, harboring, maintaining, having custody, or otherwise having control of an animal within the county.
The Pima County ordinance casts a wide net. It does not limit responsibility to someone who adopted the dog, paid for the dog, or whose name is on the microchip. Instead, it focuses on whether the person had some degree of custody, control, or allowed the animal to remain on the property.
The inclusion of terms like "harboring" and "possessing" can lead to expansive interpretations. That is where things get complicated—and where people get wrongly charged.
Legal Terms Have Specific Meanings
Each of the words in the county ordinance carries legal weight:
Keeping usually implies regular care and maintenance of the animal.
Possessing suggests exercising physical control or dominion over the animal.
Harboring has been defined by Arizona courts (e.g., Spirlong v. Browne) as giving lodging or shelter—more than merely tolerating the animal’s presence.
Having custody or control means directing the dog's actions or taking affirmative responsibility for the animal’s behavior.
In practice, these terms are sometimes interpreted loosely by enforcement officers. A person may be cited or charged simply because they were present or because the dog was physically located on their property at the time of the incident.
When the Dog Doesn’t Live With You
A common scenario in Pima County and Tucson involves someone being cited for an animal control violation even though they are not the dog's legal owner. This often happens in domestic partner situations or roommate arrangements. For example:
A girlfriend brings her dog to stay at her boyfriend’s house for a few hours.
A roommate has a dog that the landlord or housemate doesn’t interact with or care for.
A friend drops off their dog while they run errands, and an incident happens during that window.
In each of these scenarios, the person cited may not meet the legal definition of "owner." They may not keep, harbor, possess, or control the animal in any meaningful way. Nonetheless, if animal control officers issue a citation based solely on location or assumption, the wrong person ends up facing legal consequences.
Why This Matters in Criminal Cases
These citations are not just minor nuisances. Violations such as leash law infractions, biting animal incidents, or failure to confine a dog can lead to criminal charges under local ordinances. Defendants can face not only fines but restitution claims and criminal records. In some cases, a defendant may be ordered to pay thousands of dollars for injuries caused by an animal they did not own or control.
This is why it's critical to understand that the State has the burden of proof. It is not up to the accused to prove they weren’t responsible; it’s the government’s job to prove that they were legally the "owner" under the ordinance or statute. That means establishing actual custody, control, or another qualifying relationship with the animal. If they can’t do that, the charge should not stand.
Citations Are Often Issued Without Full Investigation
In many cases, the citation is issued on the spot—based on assumption or appearance. Officers may not investigate where the dog lives, who pays for its care, or who was handling the animal at the time. Sometimes, the person who is easiest to find or who answers the door ends up being cited.
Prosecutors often rely on those initial assumptions without verifying the facts. And while the presence of graphic photos or injury reports may influence a prosecutor’s decision to pursue the case, they don’t eliminate the need for proof that the correct person was charged.
Case Law: Spirlong v. Browne
In Spirlong v. Browne, the Arizona Court of Appeals interpreted the term "keeping" as requiring some level of care, custody, or control—not mere tolerance of the animal’s presence. The court stated that if the legislature had intended to impose liability for simply "housing" a dog or allowing it to be present, it would have said so.
The court further explained that harboring involves more than passive presence; it implies an affirmative act of sheltering or caring for the animal. These distinctions are critical in a criminal or administrative setting, where liberty and property are on the line.
What You Can Do If You Are Cited or Charged
If you receive a citation or are charged with an animal control offense in Pima County, Tucson, or Marana, take it seriously. Don’t assume that accepting the citation is the simplest route. Many people don’t realize that accepting a citation can be interpreted as an admission of responsibility, even if you were not legally the owner of the animal.
You have the right to challenge the citation. A defense attorney experienced in animal welfare cases can investigate the facts, determine whether the State can meet its burden, and represent you in court to argue for dismissal or acquittal.
If the dog in question wasn’t yours, and you weren’t responsible for its care, control, or custody, then you are likely not legally liable. This is not just a moral or emotional question—it’s a legal one.
Conclusion: Know Your Rights and the Law
Animal control laws in Tucson, Marana, and Pima County are complex. The definitions of "owner," "harborer," and "keeper" are not just common sense terms—they have specific legal meanings that determine whether someone can be held responsible for a dog’s actions.
If you are facing a citation or criminal charge related to a dog that you do not own, do not assume you are stuck with it. The law requires proof that you were legally responsible. In many cases, the citation or charge is based on a surface-level assumption, not actual legal liability.
At AJB Law Firm, we defend people across Tucson, Pima County, and Marana who are wrongly cited or charged in animal control cases. If you have questions about your case, or whether the citation was correctly issued, contact us. We can help you understand your rights and fight back if the government got it wrong.
Because when it comes to criminal charges or citations, the law—not just assumptions—matters.
