Dog Owner Rights vs. Dangerous Dog Laws

[Michael23]

My question involves personal property located in the State of: Ohio

Here it goes. This is something I have been struggling with for a while now, but with no real representation, it is an ongoing battle.

I ahve 2 pit bull mix dogs, neither of which have ever bitten another person, or an animal. The state of Ohio is the only state in which they automatically deem "pit bull" type dogs as inherently vicious. My city has added even harsher restrictions on the current law. They make you have a 6 foot fence that is locked, have an electronic microchip inserted into the dog, muzzle the dog while off the property, and this is my main concern, you can only have one of these dogs per household.

Now, I have no problem with dangerous dog laws but, I do have a problem when my dogs are considered guilty when they have never done anything wrong. The constitution of Ohio states that dogs are property adn shall be afforded the same rights as other property....due process. How can they tell me that my dog is "vicious" based simply on the dogs appearance. The ordinace state Dogs "commonly known as" pit bull. Now, pit bull is not a breed, it is a description that includes over 25 different breeds of dog. American pit bull terrier is the only breed with the term pit bull in its name. They make people with american bulldogs, boxers, and mixed breed dogs be registered as "pit bulls" they say, if it looks like a pit bull, then it is a pit bull. Even if the owner has proof otherwise.

So how is it that my property(dogs) can be limited based on an assumption. there is no actual proof that these dogs are any more dangerous than any other breed of dog. How come I do not have a chance to prove that my dogs are not vicious? Dangeous dog laws are usually like this, any dog that has bitten, chase, scratched, or killed another person or animal is considered dangerous. I have no problem with that, but they put OR is a dog commonly known as pit bull. Who is deciding what is common knowledge?

Doesn't the constitution state no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law? 12 other states outright ban this type of legislation based on its unconstitutionality. So how is it that coucil members and politicians, people with no real knowledge about animal behavior can make laws regarding animal behavior? When I buy two dogs, regardless of breed, am I not afforded the same rights as someone with 4 rottweilers? how can these people base behavior off of appearance.

My dogs are my property, my property has done nothing to be called vicious, never bit anyone or anyting, I have never had anyone call animal contro on me, I have insurace, a fence, and am a law abiding citizen. How is this legal? How is it that my property can be limited based on the way that it looks and not on the way that it acts?

[jk]

post the germane ordinance so we can read the exact verbiage.

[BOR]

The Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling on Pitt Bulls in 2007;

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod...-Ohio-3724.pdf

[Michael23]

post the germane ordinance so we can read the exact verbiage.

618.15 DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOGS.

(a) For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.

(1) “Dangerous dog” means a dog that, without provocation, has committed any of the following:

A. Has chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack;

B. Has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person while that dog is off the premises of its owner, keeper or harborer or some other responsible person, or not physically restrained or confined in a locked pen which has a top, locked fenced yard, or other locked enclosure which has a top.

C. Has caused serious injury to another dog or caused serious injury or killed a cat or other domestic animal.

(2) “Dangerous dog” does not include a police dog that has chased or approached in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack, or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person while the police dog is being used to assist law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.

(3) “Menacing fashion” means a dog that would cause any person being chased or approached to reasonably believe that the dog will cause physical injury to that person.

(4) “Police dog” means a dog that has been trained and may be used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.

(5) “Vicious dog” means a dog that, without provocation, has committed any of the following requirements:

A. Has killed or caused serious injury to any person;

B. Has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person, or has killed another dog;

C. A dog that belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima facie evidence of the ownership, keeping or harboring of a vicious dog.

D. “Vicious dog” does not include either of the following:

1. A police dog that has killed or caused serious injury to any person or that has caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person while the police dog is being used to assist law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.

2. A dog that has killed or caused serious injury to any person while a person was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, keeper or harborer of the dog.

(6) “Without provocation” means the dog was not teased, tormented, or abused by a person, or it was not coming to the aid or the defense of a person who was not engaged in illegal or criminal activity and who was not using the dog as a means of carrying out such activity.

(Ord. 04-43. Passed 11-15-04.)

(b) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a dangerous or vicious dog shall fail to do the following:

(1) While the dog is on the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer, securely confine it at all times in an approved locked pen or approved locked fenced yard or other approved locked enclosure that has a top while the dog is on the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer, except that a dangerous dog may, in the alternative, be tied with a chain linked leash no longer than six feet so that the dog is adequately restrained.

(2) While a dangerous dog is off the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer, keep that dog on a chain-link leash or tether that is not more than six feet in length.

(3) While the vicious dog is off the premises of the owner, keeper or harborer, muzzle the vicious dog, keep the vicious dog in an approved locked pen or other approved locked enclosure or in the alternative have the vicious dog restrained by a chain linked leash no longer than six feet which is controlled by a competent adult.

(c) The owner, keeper or harborer shall be required to microchip a dog deemed vicious under this section. No owner, keeper or harborer of any vicious dog shall fail to keep such vicious dog's microchipping information current with the City of Newark's Animal Control Officer.

(d) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a vicious dog shall fail to obtain liability insurance with an insurer authorized to write liability insurance in this state providing coverage in each occurrence, subject to a limit, exclusive of interest and costs, of not less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for damage or bodily injury to or death of a person caused by the vicious dog.

(e) No person shall do any of the following:

(1) Debark or surgically silence a dog that the person knows or has reason to believe is a vicious dog;

(2) Possess a vicious dog if the person knows or has reason to believe that the dog has been debarked or surgically silenced;

(3) Falsely attest on a waiver form provided by the veterinarian under division (f) of this section that the person’s dog is not a vicious dog or otherwise provide false information on that written waiver form.

(f) Before a veterinarian debarks or surgically silences any dog, the veterinarian may give the owner, keeper or harborer of the dog a written waiver form that attests that the dog is not a vicious dog. The written waiver form shall include all of the following:

(1) The veterinarian’s license number and current business address;

(2) The number of the license of the dog if the dog is licensed;

(3) A reasonable description of the age, coloring, and gender of the dog as well as any notable markings on the dog;

(4) The signature of the owner of the dog attesting that the owner’s dog is not a vicious dog;

(5) A statement referring to Ohio R.C. 955.22(F)'s prohibition against any person from doing any of the following:

A. Debarking or surgically silencing a dog that the person knows or has reason to believe is a vicious dog;

B. Possessing a vicious dog if the person knows or has reason to believe that the dog has been debarked or surgically silenced;

C. Falsely attesting on a waiver form provided by the veterinarian under division (G) of Ohio R.C. 955.22 that the person’s dog is not a vicious dog or otherwise provide false information on that written waiver form.

(g) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of a violation of division (e) of this section for any veterinarian who is charged with the violation if said veterinarian obtained, prior to debarking or surgically silencing the dog, a written waiver form that complies with division (f) of this section and that attests that the dog is not a vicious dog.

(h) If a violation of subsection (b) of this section involves a dangerous dog, whoever violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on the first offense and of a misdemeanor of the third degree on each subsequent offense. Additionally, the court may order the offender to personally supervise the dangerous dog that the offender owns, keeps, or harbors or to cause the dog to complete dog obedience training or both.

(i) If a violation of subsection (b) involves a vicious dog, whoever violates this subsection is guilty of one of the following:

(1) A felony of the fourth degree on a first or subsequent offense if the dog kills or seriously injures a person. Such offense shall be prosecuted under State law.

Additionally, the court shall order that the vicious dog be humanely destroyed by a licensed veterinarian, the county dog warden or the county humane society; otherwise,

(2) A misdemeanor of the first degree on a first offense and a felony of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense. In the event an offender is charged with a felony of the fourth degree, such offender shall be prosecuted under State law. Additionally, the court may order that the vicious dog be humanely destroyed by a licensed veterinarian, the county dog warden or the county humane society.

(j) Whoever violates subsection (c) is guilty of a minor misdemeanor on the first offense and a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense.

(k) Whoever violates subsection (d) is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(l) Whoever violates subsection (e) is guilty of a felony of the fourth degree and shall be prosecuted under State law. Additionally, the court may order that the vicious dog be humanely destroyed by a licensed veterinarian, the county dog warden or the county humane society.

(Ord. 88-31. Passed 7-5-88; Ord. 04-43. Passed 11-15-04; Ord.06-54. Passed 10-16-06; Ord. 07-30. Passed 7-16-07.)

Statutory reference:

Confining, restraining, debarking dogs, see Ohio R.C. 955.22

Transfer of ownership certificate, see Ohio R.C. 955.11

Violations, see Ohio R.C. 959.99
(6) No more than two restricted animals that are more than three months of age are permitted on any premises within the City of Newark, except that with respect to vicious dogs only one vicious dog may be kept on any premises.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling on Pitt Bulls in 2007;

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod...-Ohio-3724.pdf

I am aware of this ruling. The law was originally ruled unconstitutional, then overtunred. The city of toledo just overturend the ordinace restricting the number of pit bulls allowed in one household. it is in appeal as of now.

The city is going above and beyond state law. I am aware that the city has the ability to add restrictions, but as long as it does not interfere with state code. The limitation of dogs, required muzzling, and labling mixed breed dogs is going above and beyond state law in my opinion. I do not agree with the state lwa either, there has been no proof that these dogs are born vicious, or more dangerous than any other dog. The laws have proven time and time again to be ineffective, and it punishes responsible dog owners while the irresponsible dog owners keep doing wrong.

I am aware that dogs are not people, but they ARE property, and it is discriminatory to lable anything vicous when they have not done any such thing to be demed so. As I said before, 12 states deem this type of legislation unconstitutional. Also, American pit bull terriers have scored higher with the american temperment testing society than beagles, labs, annd many other breeds.

as I have said before, I have no problem with the dangerous dog law, as long as the breed specific language is not in there. Could you imagine the outrage if there was an ordinace saying that in order to have a black man in your home, you had to have insurance since so many of them are in prison, or that you can only have one in at a time? I know I know people and animals, but it is the same concept. Actions need to be recognzed, that is what determines behavior, not looks alone.

[BOR]

The city is going above and beyond state law. I am aware that the city has the ability to add restrictions, but as long as it does not interfere with state code. The limitation of dogs, required muzzling, and labling mixed breed dogs is going above and beyond state law in my opinion.

Ohio's constitutional Home Rule authority, Article 18, sec.3, gives Municipalities the right to pass law as long as they are not in conflict with the general laws.

Adding restrictions is constitutional as long as they comply with Due Process, etc.

Just like in Ohio, you can turn right on red after stopping, but a Municipality can have a posting of no turn on red.

[Michael23]

Ohio's constitutional Home Rule authority, Article 18, sec.3, gives Municipalities the right to pass law as long as they are not in conflict with the general laws.

Adding restrictions is constitutional as long as they comply with Due Process, etc.

Just like in Ohio, you can turn right on red after stopping, but a Municipality can have a posting of no turn on red.

But how is it due process if I am not given an opportunity to prove to anyone that my dogs are not dangerous? Just saying that they are because words in an ordinance say so does not make it so. Would people not be up in arms if Ohio was to put a limit on how many red cars you could own, since they are in the most wrecks? It wouldn't fly would it?

Does the right to property not apply here even though dogs are considered property?

[jk]

It would be the same as any law applied to a foreign or aggressive animal. I don't know if alligators are banned in Ohio but presuming they are. It would be because they tend to be mean vicious animals.

So, if I wanted an alligator, should I have the right to prove that MY alligator is not mean and vicious and if my alligator is not mean and vicious, I must be allowed to have my allogator? Of course not.

since the supreme court of Ohio has accepted the fact that "pit bull" type dogs are involved in more aggressive acts and those acts tend to result in more severe injuries, they can apply a ruling to all pit bull type dogs.

[Michael23]

Once ruled it UNconstitutional? Do you have a citation for that, meaning a case such as I posted!

[Tuesday, March 07, 2006] http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/do...6-ohio-975.pdf
The Sixth District Court of Appeals in Ohio handed responsible dog owners a monumental victory last week when it ruled that local and state breed-specific "vicious" dog laws were unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision, the Court held that Toledo Municipal Code 505.14a. (limiting ownership to one "pit bull" per household) and Ohio Revised Code 955.11 and 955.22 (failure of pit bull owner to provide liability insurance) violated several constitutional rights, including the right to due process. The Appellate Court held, just as the Ohio State Supreme Court did in 2004, that such laws do not provide owners with an opportunity to appeal a "vicious" dog finding before being penalized or charged with non-compliance, thereby violating their right to be heard and to defend their property.

The Appellate Court went on to declare these laws unconstitutional for two other reasons, both of which are extremely significant to those who have argued against breed-specific legislation for many years. First, the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner's right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws "have in the past been enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls." The Court found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or limiting pit bull ownership was therefore "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."

A final important ruling was the Court's determination that these breed-specific laws were unconstitutionally vague due to the fact that there is no accurate way to properly identify a pit bull. "Based on the facts presented," wrote Judge William Skow, "we conclude that the subjective identification of pit bulls may often include both non-pit bulls or dogs which are not vicious, to the extent that an ordinary citizen would not understand that he was breaking the law and which would result in the occurrence of arbitrary arrest and criminal charges."

For years, the American Kennel Club, many animal organizations, and countless responsible dog owners have opposed breed-specific laws in favor of reasonable, enforceable dangerous dog laws that hold all owners responsible for their dogs' behavior, regardless of breed. The Court's ruling last week supports those arguments, and AKC applauds its decision. Although the City of Toledo has indicated it will appeal, this case will hopefully serve as a precedent for legislators in their future efforts to address dangerous dog issues in their communities and states.

Then, after this ruling, it was overturned. I tend to agree with the first ruling. As I do with the 12 other states that feel the same way.

Last time I checked, my kitchen table did not have the right to due process. My kitchen table and your dog are both property.

Last time I checked the 14th amendment said no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Now, what if your city said your table was dangerous just because it looked that way....maybe old? What if they said you could face fines if you did not get rid of it?

Why are people comparing domesticated animals to wild animals and tables? I would hate to have one of you as a lawyer? Geeeeezzz

[jk]

where is the Ohio Supremes case where they ruled it unconstitutional? If you are going to claim the supremes ruled it unconstitutional, don't bring up a court of appeals case. Cite the Ohio Supreme court ruling where it was ruled unconstitutional.

Why are people comparing domesticated animals to wild animals and tables? I would hate to have one of you as a lawyer? Geeeeezzz

because you are arguing immaterial points.

[StephenFosterJD]

Are you really going to invest the money to fight it, even if winning was possible? Which it isn't likely to be... maybe the Ohio Supreme Court will reverse itself eventually... that's an awfully expensive longshot to take.... I would think...