Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-46-3-1 (2026)

Harboring a non-immunized dog

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally harbors a dog that is over the age of six (6) months and not immunized against rabies commits harboring a non-immunized dog, a Class C infraction. However, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor if the dog causes bodily injury by biting a person.

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.6. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.94.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Boss v. State, 944 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Boss v. State, 944 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “Similarly, the rabies immunization ordinance Boss admitted violating penalizes the same conduct punished by Ind.Code § 35-46-3-1. The Indianapolis ordinance requiring anti-rabies vaccinations for dogs and cats provides: (a) It shall be unlawful to keep a dog or cat or to provide…”

Boss v. State, 964 N.E.2d 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “” I.C. § 35-46-3-1. Indiana Administrative Code section 1-5-2 requires owners to vaccinate their dogs against rabies.”

Trimble v. State, 816 N.E.2d 83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “[2] Ind.Code § 35-46-3-1. [3] We heard oral argument on August 17, 2004.”

Miller v. State, 952 N.E.2d 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 35-46-3-1 pertains to the harboring of a non-immunized dog and is not relevant to the issue before us today.”

Carolyn Boss v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “2 I.C. § 35-46-3-1. 2 it while the third dog “started nipping [her] up and down [her] body.”

Victoria M. Tidwell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “2 Ind. Code § 35-46-3-1 . 3 I.C. § 15-20-1-4(a).”

Monty Dale Maze v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “1 Ind. Code § 35-46-3-1 . 2 In light of our disposition, we do not address Maze’s other arguments.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.