North Carolina
Protection Dogs
A North Carolina family can buy a trained Malinois, Dutch Shepherd or German Shepherd from us and meet it at home, never off a freight dock: we are based in North Texas and deliver in person, by road. We found no North Carolina statute that bans owning a bite-trained dog. The state’s dangerous-dog article names one kind of training, training for dog fighting, and otherwise looks at what a dog has done. That is our reading of the sections linked below, not legal advice, so put it to a North Carolina attorney. Protection training starts to matter at the city line: Charlotte’s code has a category for any dog trained “to any extent” to bite, and Raleigh makes it unlawful for “any person” to train an attack and security dog inside its limits without a city license. Below is the North Carolina law a buyer should read first, each point linked to the text it comes from.
Protection Dogs For Sale In North Carolina:
Judged On Restraint, Then On Record
If you are weighing protection dogs for sale in North Carolina, five things decide what owning one will ask of you. None of them bars the dog outright.
- A first serious bite is not automatic liability. The strict-liability statute applies to a dog that already counted as “dangerous” before the incident, the Court of Appeals held in Mims v. Parker. Before that, an injured person sues in negligence, and the case turns on how you confined and handled the dog.
- The state’s dangerous-dog article is about conduct. The only training it names is training for dog fighting, but a dog found to have approached someone off your land “in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack” can be labeled “potentially dangerous” by local animal control without biting anyone.
- Cities ask more. Charlotte can require registration information and a six-foot fence for an aggression-trained dog, Raleigh requires a license to train an attack and security dog in the city, Cary says electronic leashes or training collars “do not constitute restraint,” and Cornelius says the same of collars “remotely controlled” by the handler.
- Insurance is a policy question. We found no mention of dogs in Chapter 58, the insurance chapter of the General Statutes; what your policy covers is a question for your carrier and an agent.
- The dog arrives by road. Charlotte is roughly 1,030 miles from Dallas, and a dog over four months old entering North Carolina should carry a current rabies certificate plus a vet’s certificate of the kind the statute describes, or else be confined on arrival, vaccinated within a week and kept confined two weeks after the shot.
A fully trained adult arrives already trained, so a local rule that turns on training, such as Charlotte’s, applies from its first day in that city. A puppy from Build Your Own Pup starts with the ordinary duties every North Carolina dog owner has, rabies shots from four months, leash and at-large rules and bite reporting, and picks up the training-based ones as its training progresses. We train dogs and the families who handle them; we do not practice law or sell insurance, so treat every reading below as a set of questions to put to a North Carolina attorney or agent.
G.S. 67-4.4 And Mims v. Parker:
Strict Liability Follows A Dog’s Record
North Carolina’s civil statute is one sentence long. Section 67-4.4 says the owner of a dangerous dog “shall be strictly liable in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal.” The weight sits on the words “dangerous dog,” which Article 1A defines (see the next section). In Mims v. Parker (2020), an American Bulldog being walked in Durham broke its collar and bit a woman several times. She argued that a dog which inflicts a severe injury becomes dangerous by doing so. The Court of Appeals disagreed: the dog had not killed or severely injured anyone before that morning, so “Defendants were not ‘owners of a dangerous dog’ subject to strict liability under Section 67-4.4.” The plaintiff had argued only that one limb of the definition, so the case does not decide the others.
Without the statute, the injured person sues in negligence. Put plainly, and in our own summary of two Court of Appeals opinions, two questions matter. Did the dog have a vicious streak that you knew about or should have known about? The Court of Appeals stated that test in Harris v. Barefoot (2010), a mail carrier’s case from Harnett County, citing the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s 1967 decision in Swain v. Tillett. And did you confine and restrain the dog reasonably? In Mims the owners won on that second question: their dog had been on a collar and leash, and even the plaintiff’s expert said that was a responsible restraint for it. The fuller quotations from both opinions are in the sources at the foot of this page.
Our reading, not a court’s: an owner who paid for a dog taught to bite on command will struggle to say they did not know its nature and habits, so in a North Carolina negligence case about a protection dog we would expect the argument to move straight to restraint. Was the gate shut, was the dog on a physical leash, and who was holding it? That is a question for a North Carolina lawyer before the dog arrives, not after a bite.
Two smaller statutes sit alongside. The UNC School of Government notes that the state has no general leash law, leaving that to cities and counties, but section 67-12 makes it a Class 3 misdemeanor to intentionally, knowingly and willfully let a dog over six months old “run at large in the nighttime” without its owner, a family member or someone the owner allowed, and makes the person who does so “liable in damages” to anyone injured. And after any bite, section 130A-196 requires both the owner and the person bitten to notify the local health director immediately, and the dog is confined for ten days wherever the health director says, which may be your own property. The big cities add their own bite rules. Charlotte’s section 3-63, Raleigh’s section 12-3025 and Cornelius’s section 91.06(C) each make it unlawful not to report a bite “as soon as possible,” to animal control or to 911 in Charlotte and Cornelius. Raleigh and Cornelius also treat a bite on someone who does not live at the dog’s home as unlawful in itself, unless the dog was provoked or the person was trespassing, and Charlotte makes it unlawful to “negligently allow” such a bite. So after any bite in one of those places, make both calls: the health director, and the city or town’s animal control.
If you rent. In Curlee v. Johnson (2021) the Supreme Court of North Carolina opened with the rule: “A landlord owes no duty of care to third parties harmed by a tenant’s animal unless, prior to the harm, the landlord (1) knew the animal posed a danger and (2) retained sufficient control to remove the animal from the premises.” It then decided the case on knowledge alone, holding the plaintiff had not shown the landlord knew the dog posed a danger, and said it “need not address the control element.” Curlee does not discuss bite-trained dogs. If you rent, ask a North Carolina lawyer what telling your landlord about the training means for both of you, and get any consent in writing.
To compare another state’s bite rules with these, see our Texas dog bite law guide or our pages for Illinois and Colorado.
G.S. 67-4.1 Through 67-4.5:
Where Bite Training Does And Does Not Appear
Under section 67-4.1, a dog becomes a “dangerous dog” in one of three ways: it has, “without provocation,” killed or inflicted severe injury on a person; it has been determined “potentially dangerous” by the person or board the county or city designates; or it is owned or harbored “primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting,” or is “trained for dog fighting.” Severe injury means “broken bones or disfiguring lacerations” or an injury that required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization.
Read that third limb narrowly. It names one kind of training, for fighting. Protection training is not dog fighting, so on our reading the clause does not reach a personal protection dog, and no other words in the section’s definitions mention training. What that does not mean is that the training is invisible. The “potentially dangerous” list includes a dog that has “approached a person when not on the owner’s property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack.” No bite is needed, but the label is not automatic either: the person or board the county or city designates has to make that determination and give you written reasons. Our reading, not a court’s: a dog that lunges or charges at someone walking past on the sidewalk is the kind of behavior that could be put to that test, which is why calm, controlled behavior in public matters as much as anything a protection dog learns. The sidewalk counts, too, because the statute excludes any public right-of-way from “owner’s real property,” along with the common areas of a condominium, apartment complex or townhouse development. Once that determination stands, the statute’s words make the dog a dangerous dog, and section 67-4.4 then applies to whatever it does next.
If you are ever handed such a decision, move fast: you can appeal it, and the deadline to object is counted in days, not weeks. Under the state procedure you have three days to file written objections. Charlotte, Raleigh and Cary also have procedures of their own, and which one applies depends on who issued your notice. Charlotte’s is the starkest: under section 3-133, a supervisor’s probable cause notice can require you to hand the dog to animal control at once, unless the supervisor lets it stay home under a containment order, and even then the bureau can still take the dog before the hearing, at once if the containment order is broken. For that probable cause notice, you have ten working days, counted from when the notice is delivered or the bureau has made reasonable efforts to deliver it, to ask the bureau in writing, during working hours, for a hearing. A Charlotte seizure for violating the bite or restraint rule runs on a much shorter clock, covered in the Charlotte section below. Raleigh and Cary give five business days, filed with the City Clerk in Raleigh and with the Town Manager’s office in Cary. Whatever this page says, the deadline printed on the notice you are handed is the one to act on. A 2025 Senate bill that would let an owner later ask to have the label lifted is in the sources below; its page showed a committee referral in March 2025 as its last action when we checked.
Police Work
“A dog being used by a law enforcement officer to carry out the law enforcement officer’s official duties”
The exemption follows the officer, not the training. A privately owned protection dog is outside it however it was trained.
A Lawful Hunt
“A dog being used in a lawful hunt”
It covers a dog while it is hunting. A protection dog out on a walk or guarding a house is not doing that.
Working Stock Dogs
“A dog where the injury or damage inflicted by the dog was sustained by a domestic animal while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog”
It covers injuries to animals only, and only in those three jobs. Guarding a family is not among them.
Trespass, Torment Or Crime
“A dog where the injury inflicted by the dog was sustained by a person who, at the time of the injury, was committing a willful trespass or other tort, was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, had tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime”
The one that speaks to a break-in. It keeps such a bite out of Article 1A; it does not settle a negligence claim or anything in the criminal code.
Those four exemptions in section 67-4.1(b) take a dog outside Article 1A altogether. The fourth matters most to anyone buying a dog for protection, and it is also the most easily overread. Our reading: it keeps a bite on a burglar from making your dog “dangerous” under the state article, but it is not a license to use the dog, it says nothing about a negligence claim, and it does not answer whether a particular use of force was lawful. That is a question for a North Carolina criminal lawyer.
For a dog that is dangerous, section 67-4.2 makes it a Class 3 misdemeanor to leave it unattended on your land unless it is “confined indoors, in a securely enclosed and locked pen, or in another structure designed to restrain the dog,” or to let it off your land unless it is “leashed and muzzled or is otherwise securely restrained and muzzled.” Selling or giving it away requires written notice to the authority and to the new owner. Section 67-4.3 makes the owner guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor when a dangerous dog “attacks a person and causes physical injuries requiring medical treatment in excess of one hundred dollars.” Last, section 67-4.5 leaves every city and county free to run “its own program for control of dangerous dogs,” which is why the rest of this page is about places.
Protection Dogs In Charlotte:
The City Code’s “Aggression-Trained Dog”
In Charlotte, the training itself is what the code looks at. Its definitions section defines an aggression-trained dog as “any dog that has been trained or conditioned, to any extent, to bite, attack or exhibit aggressive behavior towards humans or other domestic animals for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the security of business property or personal security.” A personal protection dog is trained to bite for personal security, so on the plain words we would expect Charlotte to treat one as aggression-trained. The chapter applies inside the city limits.
Section 3-64 then puts two duties on the owner and gives the bureau a power. You must provide “registration information as required by the bureau,” meaning Charlotte-Mecklenburg Animal Care and Control, and aggression-trained dogs “must be maintained in adequate confinement by anyone possessing them in any way.” The bureau, for its part, may require “a strong fence at least six feet high” and, at its discretion, an anti-climb top. Once the bureau decides a dog has been aggression trained, it may also impose the measures in section 3-135, which include tattooing or electronic tagging and either “liability insurance in the amount of at least $100,000.00,” a tattoo, or a warning sign on the premises.
Our reading, not a court’s: an appeal of an aggression-trained finding, or of the measures that come with it, goes through section 3-134, where the hearing request has to reach the bureau within three days after the notice is sent. A challenge to a containment order follows the section 3-133 rules. Act the day the notice arrives, and have a North Carolina lawyer confirm which clock applies to it.
The same short clock covers two other charges. Under section 3-132, the bureau can seize a dog that is the subject of a violation of the bite rule or the restraint rule. If the bureau seizes a dog for violating the bite rule or the restraint rule, section 3-134 applies: you must contact the bureau and ask for a hearing within three days after the notice is sent, or the dog is forfeited to the bureau. If the notice instead says the bureau believes the dog is dangerous, it is a section 3-133 probable cause notice with the ten-working-day clock described earlier on this page. Our reading: a bite could lead to either kind of notice, so check which one you were handed.
The civil side is what turns that into more than paperwork. Section 3-34 lists sections 3-64 and 3-71, and section 3-135 for “failing to comply with instructions to impose preventive measures,” and says a violation of a listed section “is negligence per se and could give rise to the recovery of damages for personal injuries in a civil action by an injured person against the person owning or having possession, charge, custody or control of the animal causing the injuries.” Our reading: in Charlotte, a protection dog that gets out of an inadequately fenced yard gives an injured person a negligence per se argument built from the city’s own code. How a court would apply that is for a lawyer, but the practical step is plain: call the bureau before the dog arrives, ask what registration information it wants, and build the fence it will ask for.
Two neighboring rules are worth knowing. Section 3-65 requires a guard dog license tag and a sign naming the owner for a dog “primarily kept for the purpose of protecting premises from intruders or for the purpose of attacking a person coming in the vicinity of the dog.” A family dog that lives indoors with its people does not obviously fit that wording, while one kept in a yard to guard the property may, so ask the bureau which applies to yours. And under the restraint section a dog at home has to be under physical restraint, in a vehicle, or “adequately contained by a fence on the premises or other secure enclosure.” Whoever holds the leash must be old enough, and big enough or able enough, to restrain the dog, and an invisible fence counts only if it works and a permanent sign on the property says it is there. Our reading: for a family whose teenagers walk the dog, that leash clause is the one to plan around. A separate exemption covers a dog out on your land with no fence or leash: it applies while a responsible adult is outdoors right beside the dog, the dog is under that adult’s “direct control,” and it “is obedient to that person’s commands.” So in an unfenced Charlotte yard, how well the dog obeys is what the exemption turns on. City parks require a leash except in designated off-leash areas.
Outside the city, check first. The city’s Animal Care and Control page lists Matthews, Huntersville and Cornelius as towns with their own animal services, says it covers Pineville and Davidson only when their police departments ask, and says the towns in Mecklenburg County “don’t all have the same laws as the city or county.”
Protection Dogs In Raleigh And Cary:
A Trainer’s License And A Collar That Does Not Count
In Raleigh, training is what needs a license. Section 12-3046 says “It shall be unlawful for any person to train in the City any dog to be used as an attack and security dog without possessing a valid attack and security dog trainer’s license.” The city’s definitions separately describe a “trainer” as someone who “holds himself available to the general public” for that work, and that defined word is what section 12-3037 uses for its kennel standards: six-foot fences with anti-climbers, and a dog in training as an attack and security dog kept confined to its kennel, run or training area at all times. Our reading, not a court’s: the license section is not limited to professional trainers, so if you or anyone else will keep up protection work with the dog inside Raleigh, ask the city’s animal control whether § 12-3046 applies before you do. That question covers any bite or protection exercise during a handover at a Raleigh home, ours included, and any trainer you hire later. The same definitions section has one more clause that matters to a buyer: its “kennel” entry ends by saying that dogs “trained or sold for attack and security shall be trained by a trainer licensed pursuant to this chapter.” Our reading, not a court’s: it is unclear whether that reaches a dog trained outside the state and bought by a household, so put that question to Raleigh animal control or a lawyer while the purchase is still being arranged.
For owners, the Raleigh rule to remember is that “voice command is not recognized as sufficient physical restraint.” Outside the city’s designated dog exercise areas, a dog off your premises without a leash or similar device is at large, which section 12-3011 makes a misdemeanor. If the city’s animal control division ever declares the dog dangerous, section 12-3022 requires a leash and a muzzle whenever it leaves your land. Raleigh’s own definition of a dangerous dog includes one that “has approached a person when not on the owner’s property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack,” so in the city that behavior alone can support the label. The definition does not apply to a dog that was provoked, and “provocation must be clearly established,” or to a dog “responding to a trespass upon the animal owner’s premises, if the victim is the trespasser.”
In Cary, next door, the definitions go further than Raleigh’s: “Electronic leashes or training collars do not constitute restraint,” and a dog off your property on an electronic leash or training collar “shall be considered at large,” which section 6-65 prohibits outside the town’s designated dog park areas. Where a dog must be kept in a secure enclosure, an invisible fence does not qualify. Cary’s dangerous-dog section does what Raleigh’s definition does: a dog that has approached a person off its owner’s property “in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack” falls within the definition of a dangerous dog itself, where the state statute puts that behavior on the potentially dangerous list. Once that determination is made and any appeal is over, the dog must be muzzled and on a leash, chain or rope off your property. The town’s care rules say a dog of 20 pounds or more should have an outdoor enclosure of at least 200 square feet, and bar tethering unless a responsible person stays outside with the dog.
A Lakefront Town And A Federal Road
With Their Own Leash Rules
Two more places with rules of their own: a lake town in Mecklenburg County and a federal parkway through the mountains. We picked them for what their rules say about leashes and collars, not because of any customer there. As the School of Government puts it, many cities and counties have their own leash laws, so a quick call to yours is worth more than anything on this page.
Cornelius, On Lake Norman
Cornelius has its own animal control unit inside its police department, and section 91.06(G) is blunt about remote collars: “Electronic collars, training collars or other like devices that are remotely controlled” by the handler “do not provide physical restraint as required by this Section.” A standard leash may be no longer than ten feet and a retractable one no longer than 26 feet fully extended, and a dog may be tethered only while a responsible adult is with it. A dog walked in Cornelius on a remote collar alone is, in the code’s words, not under physical restraint.
The Blue Ridge Parkway
The Parkway is a national park unit, where the Park Service’s pet regulation, 36 CFR 2.15, applies. A pet must be crated, caged, on a leash no longer than six feet or otherwise physically confined “at all times,” and noise that “frightens wildlife” is itself prohibited. A pet running at large and seen “killing, injuring or molesting humans, livestock, or wildlife may be destroyed” where that is necessary for public safety or to protect wildlife, livestock or park resources.
The Park Service’s own Parkway visitor page repeats the six-foot leash rule for every visit. Off the Parkway, families who hike on Wildlife Resources Commission land have a state statute to know as well. Section 67-14.1 lets a Wildlife Resources Commission officer destroy a dog that “trails, runs, injures or kills any deer or bear” on a refuge, sanctuary or management area during the closed season for hunting with dogs, and requires an unmuzzled, unaccompanied dog running at large there to be seized. A dog trained to pursue a fleeing person needs a recall that also holds against a running deer, which is the difference our training levels page draws between obedience on a quiet field and control under real distraction.
We Found No Dog Rule
In North Carolina’s Insurance Chapter
Colorado, Illinois and New York each limit what insurers may do on the basis of a dog’s breed, as our pages for Colorado, Illinois and New York explain. To see whether North Carolina does anything similar, we searched the full text of Chapter 58 of the General Statutes, the insurance chapter, on 12 October 2026 for “dog,” “dogs,” “canine” and “breed,” and found none of them. We did not search the state’s administrative code, the Department of Insurance’s rules or the policy forms insurers file. Our conclusion from that one chapter, which an agent should confirm: we saw nothing in it that settles whether a Malinois or a bite-trained dog of any breed is covered, so expect that to come down to each insurer’s own underwriting.
That puts the weight on your conversation with the carrier. Tell them in writing what the dog is and what it is trained to do, ask whether the liability section of your homeowners or renters policy covers a bite by that dog, and keep the answer. In Charlotte, remember that the bureau’s preventive measures can include $100,000 of liability insurance as one option. For what to disclose and which exclusions to look for, read our guide to protection dogs and homeowners insurance.
A Thousand Miles By Road
And A Rabies Rule At The State Line
Delivery is in person and by road. Asheville sits about 960 road miles from downtown Dallas, Charlotte about 1,030 and Raleigh about 1,210, roughly 17, 19 and 22 hours of driving before stops (figures from our own OSRM route check). Plan on two days or more each way. The handover and the family lessons then happen at your house, so the dog learns your fence line, your front door and your neighbors with you holding the leash. Deposits, timing and the rest of a long-distance purchase are covered in buying a protection dog out of state.
The state line has one rule of its own. Section 130A-193 covers any dog that must be vaccinated under state law, which section 130A-185 sets at over four months of age. Such a dog has to be confined and vaccinated against rabies within a week of entry, then kept confined for two weeks after the shot, unless it arrives with a veterinarian’s certificate showing it is “apparently free from and has not been exposed to rabies” and is currently vaccinated. The Division of Public Health page reads more loosely than the statute. It says interstate health certificates are no longer required for dogs, and that the only requirement is current rabies vaccination, or a shot within a week of entry. The statute’s confinement rule has not gone away, though, so the simple way to cover both is to travel with two papers: the dog’s current rabies certificate, and a vet’s certificate stating that the dog is apparently free from and has not been exposed to rabies and is currently vaccinated.
Once it lives here, the vaccination duty continues for every dog over four months old, and section 130A-190 says dogs “shall wear rabies vaccination tags at all times,” with the tag showing “North Carolina” or “N.C.” Our reading: that tag description is aimed at tags issued under North Carolina law, so ask a North Carolina vet or your county animal services whether the dog’s Texas tag is enough or whether it needs a North Carolina one. Charlotte and Mecklenburg County also require a pet license for dogs from four months old, issued only with proof of a current rabies vaccine.
Test The Dog Against
Charlotte, Cary And Cornelius Rules
North Carolina’s rules turn the usual sales talk into things you can test. These questions come from the codes above; ask to see each answer demonstrated rather than described.
- Will the dog hold a heel and break off a distraction on a plain six-foot leash, with no electronic or training collar doing the work, given what Cary and Cornelius say about those devices and the Parkway’s six-foot limit?
- Will the dog stay calm and non-threatening when strangers walk or jog past on a public sidewalk?
- Will the dog engage only on your command, and stop on your command, with you holding the leash rather than the trainer? Our guide to reading a protection demo shows what to watch.
- Will the seller put in writing what the dog is trained to do, so that you can hand the same description to Charlotte’s bureau, your insurer and your landlord?
- If anyone will do protection work with the dog inside Raleigh, can they tell you how the city’s trainer license applies to them?
The patterns that should end a conversation with any seller are collected in protection dog scams and red flags, and what a trophy does and does not prove is in sport titles versus real protection. Apply the same scrutiny to us: PSA trial schedules name both of our owners as decoys, with each club and date listed in our PSA record. If you are still deciding whether a family protection dog belongs in your house at all, start with whether you should actually buy one.
Buying From Us
And Other States
Buying From Us
The North Carolina Texts Behind Each Claim Above
Most entries give the exact words on the linked page that a sentence above depends on; the routing and Chapter 58 entries describe our own checks, the Senate bill quotes come from its filed text, and the Cary quotes come from a copy of Chapter 6, as noted below. Where we draw a conclusion from those words, the page says it is our reading; a North Carolina attorney, your county or city animal services and a licensed agent are the ones to confirm how any of it applies to your household.
- N.C.G.S. § 67-4.4 — Strict liability — “The owner of a dangerous dog shall be strictly liable in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal.” History note: “(1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1023, s. 1.)”
- N.C.G.S. § 67-4.1 — Definitions and procedures (Article 1A, Dangerous Dogs) — (a)(1) “Dangerous dog” means “a. A dog that: 1. Without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person; or 2. Is determined by the person or Board designated by the county or municipal authority responsible for animal control to be potentially dangerous because the dog has engaged in one or more of the behaviors listed in subdivision (2) of this subsection. b. Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting”; (a)(2) “Potentially dangerous dog” means a dog the designated person or Board “determines to have: a. Inflicted a bite on a person that resulted in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization; or b. Killed or inflicted severe injury upon a domestic animal when not on the owner’s real property; or c. Approached a person when not on the owner’s property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack”; (a)(4) “Owner’s real property” “does not include any public right-of-way or a common area of a condominium, apartment complex, or townhouse development”; (a)(5) “Severe injury” means “any physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization”; (b) the Article does not apply to “(1) A dog being used by a law enforcement officer to carry out the law enforcement officer’s official duties; (2) A dog being used in a lawful hunt; (3) A dog where the injury or damage inflicted by the dog was sustained by a domestic animal while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog; or (4) A dog where the injury inflicted by the dog was sustained by a person who, at the time of the injury, was committing a willful trespass or other tort, was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, had tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime”; (c) the determining person or Board “must notify the owner in writing, giving the reasons for the determination”; the owner may appeal “by filing written objections with the appellate Board within three days”; a hearing “within 10 days”; then superior court on a petition filed “within 10 days of the final decision,” heard “de novo.”
- N.C.G.S. § 67-4.2 — Precautions against attacks by dangerous dogs — (a) unlawful to “(1) Leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner’s real property unless the dog is confined indoors, in a securely enclosed and locked pen, or in another structure designed to restrain the dog; (2) Permit a dangerous dog to go beyond the owner’s real property unless the dog is leashed and muzzled or is otherwise securely restrained and muzzled”; (b) on a transfer, written notice to the authority and to the new owner “specifying the dog’s dangerous behavior and the authority’s determination”; (c) “Violation of this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor.”
- N.C.G.S. § 67-4.3 — Penalty for attacks by dangerous dogs — “The owner of a dangerous dog that attacks a person and causes physical injuries requiring medical treatment in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”
- N.C.G.S. § 67-4.5 — Local ordinances — “Nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for control of dangerous dogs.”
- Senate Bill 385 (2025–2026 Session) — Amend Dangerous Dog Statutes — as filed, would add § 67-4.1(d) so an owner may ask “at any time more than 18 months after the date of that determination” that a potentially dangerous designation be set aside, with “an assessment of the dog completed by a person approved by the authority and accredited by the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers or another accrediting body recognized and approved by the authority”; the decision “is final and not subject to any administrative or judicial appeal”; Last Action: “Ref To Com On Rules and Operations of the Senate on 3/25/2025.” The § 67-4.1 page above showed subsections (a) to (c) only.
- Mims v. Parker, No. COA19-317 (N.C. Court of Appeals, filed 4 February 2020) — Durham, 10 November 2009: an American Bulldog walked on a leash by the owners’ children “broke his collar and ran toward Plaintiff” and “bit Plaintiff several times”; “It is undisputed that prior to the morning of 10 November 2009, Blue had not ‘killed or inflicted severe injury on a person[.]’”; “Because Blue was not a ‘dangerous dog’ at the time of the 10 November 2009 incident under Section 67-4.1(a)(1), Defendants were not ‘owners of a dangerous dog’ subject to strict liability under Section 67-4.4”; footnote 2, “Plaintiff makes no argument that any other provision of Section 67-4.1(a)(1) defining a ‘dangerous dog’ applies here”; on negligence the court quoted Hunnicutt v. Lundberg, 94 N.C. App. 210 (1989): “the liability of the owner depends upon his negligence in failing to confine or restrain the dog. The size, nature and habits of the dog, known to the owner, are all circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether the owner was negligent”; “Plaintiff’s own expert testified even if Blue was of a breed ‘inherently more likely to be dangerous than other breeds[,]’ a ‘collar and leash’ is a responsible manner by which to restrain Blue”; and held the breed argument immaterial “because the undisputed evidence in this case shows Defendants nevertheless restrained Blue in a responsible manner.” Affirmed.
- Harris v. Barefoot, No. COA09-1313 (N.C. Court of Appeals, filed 3 August 2010) — a mail carrier was attacked by two dogs in Harnett County; “In this case, plaintiff must set forth that the dogs possessed a vicious propensity and that defendants knew or should have known of this propensity” (citing Swain v. Tillett, 269 N.C. 46, 51 (1967), a Supreme Court of North Carolina decision, for that sentence); “While our courts have found that Rottweilers are aggressive by nature and that it might be negligent not to keep them restrained, Hill v. Williams, 144 N.C. App. 45, 55, 547 S.E.2d 472, 478 (2001), plaintiff has not presented any evidence showing that Riley was indeed a Rottweiler”; summary judgment for the owners affirmed.
- Curlee v. Johnson, 2021-NCSC-32 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, filed 16 April 2021) — ¶ 1: “A landlord owes no duty of care to third parties harmed by a tenant’s animal unless, prior to the harm, the landlord (1) knew the animal posed a danger and (2) retained sufficient control to remove the animal from the premises”; ¶ 13, describing Holcomb v. Colonial Assocs., the landlord there could be liable because he “retain[ed] control over [the] tenant’s dogs” through a lease provision; ¶ 16, “Because we hold that plaintiff has not forecast sufficient evidence to establish landlord’s knowledge, we need not address the control element”; ¶ 17, “The Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.”
- N.C.G.S. § 67-12 — Permitting dogs to run at large at night — “No person shall allow his dog over six months old to run at large in the nighttime unaccompanied by the owner or by some member of the owner’s family, or some other person by the owner’s permission. Any person intentionally, knowingly, and willfully violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, and shall also be liable in damages to any person injured or suffering loss to his property or chattels.”
- UNC School of Government (Aimee N. Wall) — What may local governments do to prevent owners from letting their animals roam without a leash? — “There is no statewide leash law in North Carolina, but there are two provisions that limit dogs running at-large. One statute prohibits persons from allowing dogs to run at large, but it only applies during the night”; “Because the state laws are far from comprehensive, many cities and counties have enacted local leash laws.”
- N.C.G.S. § 130A-196 — Notice and confinement of biting animals — (a) the person bitten and the owner “shall notify the local health director immediately”; (b) the biting animal “shall be immediately confined for 10 days in a place designated by the local health director,” who “may allow the owner to confine the animal on the owner’s property”; failing to follow those instructions is “a Class 2 misdemeanor.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-3 — Definitions (Municode, version of 25 September 2026) — “Aggression-trained dog means any dog that has been trained or conditioned, to any extent, to bite, attack or exhibit aggressive behavior towards humans or other domestic animals for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the security of business property or personal security”; “Guard dogs means dogs primarily kept for the purpose of protecting premises from intruders or for the purpose of attacking a person coming in the vicinity of the dog”; “Bureau means the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Animal Care and Control Bureau.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-64 — Aggression-trained dogs — (b) “the owner, possessor or harborer of any aggression-trained dog must comply with the following”: (1) “a duty to provide registration information as required by the bureau as it pertains to aggression training of any kind of dogs”; (4) “Aggression-trained dogs must be maintained in adequate confinement by anyone possessing them in any way. The bureau shall have the authority to require all aggression-trained dogs to be confined in a strong fence at least six feet high and, at the discretion of the bureau, topped by an anticlimb enclosure”; (c) failing to comply is unlawful; (d) if the bureau determines a dog “has been aggression trained,” it may “impose the same requirements stated in section 3-135.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-135 — Protective measures for containment of animals — (b)(1) fencing “at least a minimum of four feet high,” and “If the animal is over 15 inches at the shoulder or is deemed capable of climbing a standard four-foot fence, the animal control supervisor may require a six-foot fence”; (b)(2) tattooing or electronic tagging; (b)(3) “The owner to procure liability insurance in the amount of at least $100,000.00 at the owner’s expense or to have the animal tattooed or to display a sign on the premises warning of the animal on the premises.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-34 — Negligence per se — (a) lists “3-64 Aggression-trained dogs,” “3-71 Restraint of animals,” “3-73 Exotic or wild animals” and “3-135 Protective measures for containment of animals (failing to comply with instructions to impose preventive measures)”; (b) “a violation of any of those sections listed in subsection (a) of this section is negligence per se and could give rise to the recovery of damages for personal injuries in a civil action by an injured person against the person owning or having possession, charge, custody or control of the animal causing the injuries.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-65 — Guard dogs — (a)(1) “It shall be unlawful for a guard dog kept in the city not to have a current guard dog license tag”; (a)(2) a sign on the premises “that identifies the name, address and telephone number of the owner of the security dogs.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-71 — Restraint of animals — (a) unlawful “to keep such animal on his own premises or off the premises, unless such animal is under sufficient physical restraint to controls the animal, or within a vehicle or adequately contained by a fence on the premises or other secure enclosure” (the “to controls” is the code’s own wording); also (a): “If the physical restraint used is a leash requiring a person to control the animal, the person using such restraint must be of sufficient age and physical size or ability to reasonably restrain the animal. If the secure enclosure is an invisible fence system, then all components of the system must be in working order and in proper place. Additionally, there must be a visible, permanent sign on the premises stating that there is an invisible fence”; (c) the section does not apply while “a responsible adult is physically outdoors, and immediately adjacent to the animal, on the land where the owner of the animal resides, and the animal is under the person’s direct control and is obedient to that person’s commands”; (d) in a public park a dog must be “at all times under the restraint of a leash, except while in designated off-leash areas.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-63 — Animal bite — (a) “It shall be unlawful for the owner, possessor, or harborer of an animal to negligently allow the animal to bite a human being, who does not ordinarily reside on the premises, unless the animal has been subject to provocation, or unless the victim has been trespassing, as defined in section 3-3.”; (b) “It shall be unlawful for the owner, possessor, or harborer of an animal, or for the victim if the victim is reasonably physically able, to fail to report to the bureau or 911 as soon as possible that an animal has bitten a person”; (c) “If the bureau determines that a dog has bitten a human being, the bureau shall have the authority to require protective measures pursuant to section 3-135.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-2 — Jurisdiction; interlocal agreements — (a) “This chapter shall be applicable within the corporate limits of the city.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-132 — Seizure, forfeiture, and disposition of animals — (a) “the bureau shall have the authority to summarily seize and forfeit to the bureau any animal when the bureau determines that there is probable cause to believe that the animal: (1) Under the totality of the circumstances, is dangerous or prejudicial to the public safety or public health and the bureau has issued a probable cause notice on the animal (dangerous animals). (2) Is the subject of a violation of the following sections of this chapter,” a list that includes “3-63 Animal bite” and “3-71 Restraint of animals”; (b)(1) “Dangerous animal seizures made pursuant to subsection (a)(1) of this section shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in section 3-133”; (b)(2) “Seizures made pursuant to subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in section 3-134.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-133 — Dangerous animal seizure and forfeiture procedure — (c) “The owner shall turn the animal over to the bureau immediately upon receiving a probable cause notice. The bureau shall have the authority to seize immediately any animal for which a probable cause notice has been issued”; (d) the supervisor who issued the notice “shall have the authority to authorize that an animal may remain on the premises or elsewhere prior to the seizure/forfeiture hearing if the supervisor is satisfied that the animal’s confinement shall be adequate,” and must then “issue a containment order in compliance with section 3-135”; also (d): “A failure of the animal to be kept so confined shall result in the immediate seizure of the animal. The bureau shall always have the authority to summarily seize an animal after the probable cause notice has been delivered and before the seizure hearing.”; (e) “The owner of the animal shall request a hearing by submitting a written request during normal working hours to the bureau within ten working days after the delivery of the probable cause notice or all reasonable efforts to deliver (delivery) the probable cause notice to the owner.” Separately, § 3-64(e) says an appeal of a finding that a dog “has been aggression trained” or of the measures imposed “shall be the same as that stated in section 3-134.”
- Charlotte City Code § 3-134 — General seizure and forfeiture procedure — (c) “The animal shall be held three working days, excluding the day of seizure, from the date notice is sent to the owner or from the date of seizure if the owner cannot be identified or located after reasonable efforts to do so”; (d) “A hearing shall be held if the owner has contacted the bureau within the three days and requested a hearing,” and “If the animal’s owner fails to contact the bureau and request a hearing within the three days after the notice is sent, the animal shall be forfeited to the bureau.” § 3-64(e) routes an appeal of an aggression-trained finding, or of the preventive measures imposed, to this section, and § 3-132(b)(2) routes seizures under § 3-132(a)(2), which covers violations of § 3-63 (animal bite) and § 3-71 (restraint of animals), to it as well. By contrast, § 3-135(e) says a written challenge to a containment order “must comply with all of the requirements as for a request for hearing as set out in section 3-133.”
- City of Charlotte, Animal Care and Control — Mecklenburg County Animal Ordinance — “Charlotte Mecklenburg Animal Services answers calls for service in the following areas”: the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, the Town of Mint Hill, the Town of Pineville “Upon request from Pineville Police Department” and the Town of Davidson “Upon request from Davidson Police Department”; Matthews, Huntersville and Cornelius “have their own Animal Services and Animal Services Officer”; “The townships within Mecklenburg County don’t all have the same laws as the city or county.”
- City of Charlotte, Animal Care and Control — Pet Resources — “Pet licensing is required within City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County for all dogs, cats, ferrets starting at 4 months of age”; applicants “must have proof of a current rabies vaccine to apply or update.”
- Town of Cornelius Code §§ 91.03 and 91.06(C) and (G) — Definitions; animal bite; restraint of animals (Municode) — § 91.03: “CAC. Cornelius Animal Control, a unit of the Cornelius Police Department”; § 91.06(C) “It shall be unlawful for an animal to bite a human being who does not ordinarily reside on the premises, unless the animal has been subject to provocation or the victim has been trespassing,” and (C)(2) “It shall be unlawful for the owner, possessor, or harborer of an animal, or for the victim if the victim is reasonably physically able, to fail to report to the unit or 911 as soon as possible that an animal has bitten a person”; § 91.06(G)(1) “If the physical restraint used is a leash or bridle requiring a person to control the animal, the person using the physical restraint must be of sufficient age and physical size or ability to reasonably restrain the animal. A standard leash may be no longer than ten feet in length; a retractable leash may be no longer than 26 feet in length when fully extended. Electronic collars, training collars or other like devices that are remotely controlled by a person in possession, charge, custody or control of any animal do not provide physical restraint as required by this Section”; (G)(2) a domestic animal may not be tethered “unless it is attended by a responsible adult”; history note ends “Ord. No. 2023-00815, 4-3-23.”
- Raleigh City Code § 12-3004 — Definitions (Municode) — “Animal at large. Any animal off the premises of its owner and not under sufficient physical restraint such as a leash, cage, bridle, or similarly effective device allowing the animal to be controlled. For purposes of this article, voice command is not recognized as sufficient physical restraint. This definition does not apply to any areas in City parks that have been delineated by the City Council as dog exercise and play areas”; the “Kennel” definition ends “provided, that all dogs trained or sold for attack and security shall be trained by a trainer licensed pursuant to this chapter”; “Trainer. Any individual who holds himself available to the general public for the purpose of training attack and security dogs. This does not include individuals who are in the business of obedience training only”; the city’s “Dangerous dog” definition covers a dog the animal control division has determined “has approached a person when not on the owner’s property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack,” and it “shall not apply to a dog that has been subject to provocation nor shall it apply to any dog responding to a trespass upon the animal owner’s premises, if the victim is the trespasser. Provocation must be clearly established.”
- Raleigh City Code § 12-3011 — Dogs at large — (a) “It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to allow such animal to be at large in the City or on any City property”; (d) a violation “is a misdemeanor and may also be enforced through issuance of a civil penalty.”
- Raleigh City Code § 12-3022 — Precautions against dangerous dogs — off the owner’s property a dangerous dog must be “leashed and muzzled or is otherwise securely restrained and muzzled. Voice command is not recognized as secure restraint under this article.”
- Raleigh City Code § 12-3023 — Appeal of a dangerous dog determination — (a) “A request for appeal of a determination that a dog is dangerous must be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk within five (5) business days of the action or decision complained of and must state with particularity the grounds of the appeal. An appeal hearing shall be conducted by the City Manager or his designee.”
- Raleigh City Code § 12-3025 — Animal bite notification — (a) “It shall be unlawful for an animal to bite a human being who does not ordinarily reside on the premises of the animal unless the animal has been subject to provocation, or unless the victim was trespassing at or near the time of the bite”; (b) “It shall be unlawful for a person to fail to report to animal control as soon as possible that an animal has bitten a person.”
- Raleigh City Code § 12-3046 — Attack and security dog trainer’s license — “It shall be unlawful for any person to train in the City any dog to be used as an attack and security dog without possessing a valid attack and security dog trainer’s license; provided, this section shall not apply to the City government or any of its agencies.”
- Raleigh City Code § 12-3037 — Standards for trainers of attack and security dogs — (a) runs “must have at least six (6) foot high fences completely surrounding them”; (c) a perimeter fence “of at least six (6) feet high” with “anti-climbers”; (d) “A dog in training as an attack and security dog shall at all times be confined to its kennel, run, training, or other confined area.”
- Town of Cary Code § 6-3 — Definitions (American Legal Publishing) — “Electronic leashes or training collars do not constitute restraint”; “Any animal off the owner’s property and on an electronic leash or training collar shall be considered at large”; “Neither a motor vehicle nor an electronic enclosure shall constitute a secure enclosure.”
- Town of Cary Code § 6-65 — Domestic animals at large — “It is unlawful for the owner of any domestic animal to allow such animal to be at large in the town or on any town property except that dogs may be unleashed in approved, designated areas inside Town of Cary Dog Parks.”
- Town of Cary Code § 6-70 — Dangerous dogs — (b) “The owner may appeal the determination by filing written objections with the Town Manager’s office, with a copy to the chief, within five business days after receipt of the notification”; (a)(6) a dangerous dog includes “a dog that has approached a person when not on the owner’s property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack”; (c)(2) “When the dog is off the property of the owner it must be muzzled and under restraint by a competent person who by means of a leash, chain or rope has the dog firmly under control at all times. Voice command is not recognized as adequate restraint.”
- Town of Cary Code § 6-67 — Animal abuse prohibited — (a)(1) “Each dog weighing 20 pounds or more should have an outdoor enclosure no smaller than 200 square feet in area”; (a)(12) prohibits tethering “without a responsible person remaining outside with the animal while it is tethered.”
- 36 CFR § 2.15 — Pets (National Park Service, eCFR) — (a)(2) prohibits “Failing to crate, cage, restrain on a leash which shall not exceed six feet in length, or otherwise physically confine a pet at all times”; (a)(4) prohibits noise “that frightens wildlife by barking, howling, or making other noise”; (c) “Pets or feral animals that are running-at-large and observed by an authorized person in the act of killing, injuring or molesting humans, livestock, or wildlife may be destroyed if necessary for public safety or protection of wildlife, livestock, or other park resources.”
- Blue Ridge Parkway (National Park Service) — Things To Know Before You Come — “Pets must be kept on a leash of no more than 6ft at all times for the safety of your pet, park wildlife and other visitors.”
- N.C.G.S. § 67-14.1 — Dogs on Wildlife Resources Commission management areas — (a) a dog that “trails, runs, injures or kills any deer or bear” on a refuge, sanctuary or management area during the closed season for hunting with dogs is “a public nuisance,” and a wildlife protector “may destroy, by humane method,” any such dog; (b) “Any unmuzzled dog running at large upon any wildlife refuge, sanctuary, or management area, when unaccompanied by any person having such dog in charge, shall be seized and impounded.”
- N.C.G.S. Chapter 58 — Insurance (full chapter as published on ncleg.gov) — our own text search of the whole chapter on 12 October 2026 found no occurrence of the words “dog,” “dogs,” “canine” or “breed.” We did not search the North Carolina Administrative Code, Department of Insurance rules or filed policy forms.
- N.C.G.S. § 130A-193 — Vaccination and confinement of animals brought into this State — (a) an animal brought in “shall immediately be securely confined and shall be vaccinated against rabies within one week after entry. The animal shall remain confined for two weeks after vaccination”; (b)(2) except an animal “accompanied by a certificate issued by a licensed veterinarian showing that the animal is apparently free from and has not been exposed to rabies and that the animal is currently vaccinated against rabies.”
- N.C. Division of Public Health — Import and Export Requirements (page updated 16 December 2019) — “The NC DPH is officially eliminating the requirement for incoming dogs/cats/ferrets to be accompanied by an ICVI (health certificate)”; under “Imports into North Carolina”: “Interstate Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (ICVIs) are no longer required for dogs, cats and ferrets for entry into North Carolina. The only requirement for these animals is that they be currently vaccinated against rabies when entering the state, or receive a rabies vaccination within one week of entry (if of appropriate age) in accordance with NCGS 130A-185 and 130A-193.”
- N.C.G.S. § 130A-185 — Vaccination required — (a) “The owner of an animal listed in this subsection over four months of age shall have the animal vaccinated against rabies,” and the list includes “(2) Dog.”
- N.C.G.S. § 130A-190 — Rabies vaccination tags — (a) the tag “shall show the year issued, a vaccination number, the words ‘North Carolina’ or the initials ‘N.C.’ and the words ‘rabies vaccine,’” and “Dogs shall wear rabies vaccination tags at all times.”
- Open Source Routing Machine (OSRM), OpenStreetMap data — our own driving-route query from downtown Dallas on 12 October 2026: about 960 miles and 17 hours to Asheville, 1,030 miles and 19 hours to Charlotte, and 1,210 miles and 22 hours to Raleigh, by the engine’s drive-time estimate.
All of these pages were read, and the Dallas routing query run, on 12 October 2026. North Carolina towns amend their animal chapters by ordinance, Senate Bill 385 could still move, and the Division of Public Health page was last updated in 2019. Cary’s code host would not serve our request, so the Cary sections were read from a copy of the town’s Chapter 6. If a live page now says something different, follow the live page.
This page describes no office, kennel, staff member or customer of ours in North Carolina. We work out of North Texas and bring each dog to its family in person.
Which Code Will Your Dog Live Under?
Inside Charlotte’s city limits or out, a Lake Norman lot, a Wake County subdivision with an HOA, or land near the Parkway: each changes what the dog needs to be. Send us the city or county you live in, whether there is a lease, the fence height in feet, the ages of everyone at home and the job you have in mind for the dog. From that we can say whether a Malinois, a Dutch Shepherd or a German Shepherd fits the household best, and we will be honest if the answer is that a protection dog does not fit it at all.