Accepted Answer

Based upon what you have stated, I believe your best course of action would be to demand a hearing as your due process rights entitle you to one since you cannot be deprived of personal property without a hearing. You should obtain an attorney to represent you in this constitutional issue and if you cannot afford one you can get one at a reduced cost or free from the Legal Aid Society or the State Bar Association (call both and check). Below are the Dog statutes that may apply to your situation.

If you found my answer helpful, please click on the GREEN ACCEPT button. Your question will not close, and you will still have the opportunity to follow-up if needed. Leaving a bonus and positive feedback is not required, but doing so is certainly appreciated!

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 77-1-10 (2002)

§ 77-1-10. Vicious animals; rabid or unvaccinated dogs and cats; failure to destroy

A. It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal known to be vicious and liable to attack or injure human beings unless such animal is securely kept to prevent injury to any person.

B. It is unlawful to keep any unvaccinated dog or cat or any animal with any symptom of rabies.

C. It is unlawful to fail or to refuse to destroy vicious animals or unvaccinated dogs or cats with symptoms of rabies as prescribed by regulation of the health and environment department [department of health] for the protection of public health and safety.

§ 77-1-1. Dogs, cats, domesticated fowls, and birds deemed personal property

That dogs, cats and domesticated fowls and birds shall be deemed and considered as personal property, and all remedies given for the recovery of personal property and of damages for injuries thereto are hereby extended to them.

§ 77-1-6. Notice to health officer of animal bite; confinement; animal contact with rabid animals; animal rabies quarantine; procedure following death from rabies

The health and environment department [FN1] shall prescribe regulations for the reporting of animal bites, confinement and disposition of rabies-suspect animals, rabies quarantine and the disposition of dogs and cats exposed to rabies, in the interest of public health and safety.


§ 77-1-9. Dogs; destruction

A. Any peace officer may impound any dog found running at large unaccompanied by and not under the control of the owner or handler, and further, the peace officer shall destroy the dog if it is in the act of pursuing or wounding livestock or wounding and killing poultry or attacking humans.

B. Any peace officer may kill any dog in the act of pursuing or wounding any livestock or wounding or killing poultry or attacking humans whether or not the dog wears a rabies tag required by Section 77-1-3 NMSA 1978. There shall be no liability of the peace officer in damages or otherwise for such killing.

§ 77-1-15.1. Regulation and licensure of dogs; impoundment of animals; qualified service animals exempt

A. Every municipality and each county may provide by ordinance for the mandatory licensure of dogs over the age of three months. License fees shall be fixed by the responsible municipality or county. Proof of vaccination against rabies shall be provided by the owner or keeper before a license is issued. A combined rabies vaccination certificate and license may be provided by ordinance.

B. Every municipality and each county shall provide for the impoundment of rabies-suspect animals and shall designate a part-time or full-time animal control officer who shall be deputized to enforce animal control laws, orders, ordinances and regulations.

C. No fee shall be charged for the licensure of qualified service animals who are trained to lead partially or totally blind persons, aid hearing impaired persons or assist mobility impaired persons.


Additionally, there is no statute imposing strict liability for dog bites, but New Mexico follows the common law and provides instructions to juries as follows:
UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS--CIVIL
CHAPTER 5. ANIMALS
N.M. U.J.I. Civ. 13-506 (2003)

13-506 Liability of dog owner

An owner of a dog is liable for damages proximately caused by the dog if the owner knew, or should have known, that the dog was vicious or had a tendency or natural inclination to be vicious.

[The owner of such a dog is not liable to the person injured, if the injured person had knowledge of the propensities of the dog and wantonly excited it or voluntarily and unnecessarily put himself in the way of the dog.]

Expert:	PaulMJD
Pos. Feedback:	99.5 %
Accepts:
Answered:	6/10/2008

Attorney

JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law