How has the California Department of Justice interpreted a dog owner's request for a hearing to determine whether the dog was unlawfully seized?

We rejected the claim, finding instead that, although not expressly stated, the ordinances contemplated the right to a hearing. We held that the statutory language requiring the return of unlawfully seized animals to their owners contemplated a factual, or mixed factual and legal, determination by the department. (Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 40 Cal.2d at p. 282, 253 P.2d 464.) Under these circumstances, we interpreted the statute to provide for a hearing, when requested by the dog owner, on the issue whether the animal had been legally seized. (Ibid.)