Tiara
12-07-2005, 10:12 AM
Ohio tries to plug hole in vicious dog law
Court says owners have right to appeal
BY JIM PROVANCE (jprovance@theblade.com)
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051205/NEWS08/512050319
COLUMBUS - A dispute over Ohio's 17-year-old practice of automatically labeling pit bulls "vicious" has stalled a bill designed to plug an enforcement loophole created by a state Supreme Court ruling last year.
Ohio is the only state with a breed-specific dangerous dog law.
The bill pits dog wardens and law enforcement groups against veterinarians, dog breeders, and kennels.
"Folks who are determined to be irresponsible for one breed will be irresponsible for another breed," said Stephanie Lane, legislative director for the American Kennel Association. "Singling out a single breed does not teach people to be more responsible."
In a case involving two German shepherds, the court voted 4-3 that allowing dog enforcement officers to unilaterally determine that a dog is dangerous or vicious, cite the owner, and confiscate the animal represented an unconstitutional taking of property without due process.
Dog owners must have the right to appeal such a determination, the court ruled.
The Lucas County Prosecutor's Office, however, advised Dog Warden Tom Skeldon that the ruling doesn't apply to pit bulls found alone or not properly leashed and muzzled while off the owner's property, or not properly confined while on the owner's property.
Lucas County has continued to enforce the pit bull portion of the law, despite a Sept. 22, 2004, decision of the Ohio Supreme Court striking down another section of the law.
Since lawmakers decided in 1987 that pit bulls are legally vicious, a decision to pick up such an animal would not be deemed arbitrary, the prosecutor's office said.
The bill to amend the law has stalled in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, despite increasing pressure to correct the flaw that was flagged by the Ohio Supreme Court.
To close the loophole, House Bill 189 would authorize counties to appoint hearing officers to consider appeals from dog owners of the labeling of their dogs as "dangerous" or "vicious."
Alternatively, counties could allow local municipal or common pleas courts to hold the hearings independently of hearings on citations against the owners for failing to meet stringent confinement, restraint, and insurance requirements that don't apply to other dog owners.
Through Nov. 26, Mr. Skeldon's office has picked up 3,332 dogs - 829, or 25 percent, of which were deemed pit bulls, distinguished by their short-haired, stocky, muscular, square-jawed appearance. A majority of those pit bulls were ultimately put to death.
"Under Ohio law, pit bulls are prima facie vicious," he said. "They are assumed by the state, courts, and law enforcement to be vicious. The burden of proving they're not goes to the owner."
The argument for singling out the pit bull, a variety of terrier and other mixed breeds, is that they've been bred over the years to be tenacious, fierce fighters.
In more recent years, the pit bull has been strongly associated with the drug and dog-fighting culture.
Under current law, any dog is deemed "dangerous" if, without provocation, it has chased, threatened, or attempted to bite or endanger someone while off its owner's property.
It's deemed "vicious" if it has killed or seriously injured a person or another dog that was not trespassing at the time. This category automatically includes the pit bull.
"It's wrong to have discrimination against one breed," said state Rep. Shawn Webster (R., Hamilton), co-sponsor of the bill.
"One shoe doesn't fit all. As a practicing veterinarian, I've seen a number of pit bulls that are good family pets, and to paint them all with the same brush is wrong," Mr. Webster said. "I understand the drug culture is associated with the pit bull, and that's unfortunate for the pit bull," he said. "I empathize with animal control officers and law enforcement who get involved in those circumstances, but I don't think this should be in state law."
Court says owners have right to appeal
BY JIM PROVANCE (jprovance@theblade.com)
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051205/NEWS08/512050319
COLUMBUS - A dispute over Ohio's 17-year-old practice of automatically labeling pit bulls "vicious" has stalled a bill designed to plug an enforcement loophole created by a state Supreme Court ruling last year.
Ohio is the only state with a breed-specific dangerous dog law.
The bill pits dog wardens and law enforcement groups against veterinarians, dog breeders, and kennels.
"Folks who are determined to be irresponsible for one breed will be irresponsible for another breed," said Stephanie Lane, legislative director for the American Kennel Association. "Singling out a single breed does not teach people to be more responsible."
In a case involving two German shepherds, the court voted 4-3 that allowing dog enforcement officers to unilaterally determine that a dog is dangerous or vicious, cite the owner, and confiscate the animal represented an unconstitutional taking of property without due process.
Dog owners must have the right to appeal such a determination, the court ruled.
The Lucas County Prosecutor's Office, however, advised Dog Warden Tom Skeldon that the ruling doesn't apply to pit bulls found alone or not properly leashed and muzzled while off the owner's property, or not properly confined while on the owner's property.
Lucas County has continued to enforce the pit bull portion of the law, despite a Sept. 22, 2004, decision of the Ohio Supreme Court striking down another section of the law.
Since lawmakers decided in 1987 that pit bulls are legally vicious, a decision to pick up such an animal would not be deemed arbitrary, the prosecutor's office said.
The bill to amend the law has stalled in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, despite increasing pressure to correct the flaw that was flagged by the Ohio Supreme Court.
To close the loophole, House Bill 189 would authorize counties to appoint hearing officers to consider appeals from dog owners of the labeling of their dogs as "dangerous" or "vicious."
Alternatively, counties could allow local municipal or common pleas courts to hold the hearings independently of hearings on citations against the owners for failing to meet stringent confinement, restraint, and insurance requirements that don't apply to other dog owners.
Through Nov. 26, Mr. Skeldon's office has picked up 3,332 dogs - 829, or 25 percent, of which were deemed pit bulls, distinguished by their short-haired, stocky, muscular, square-jawed appearance. A majority of those pit bulls were ultimately put to death.
"Under Ohio law, pit bulls are prima facie vicious," he said. "They are assumed by the state, courts, and law enforcement to be vicious. The burden of proving they're not goes to the owner."
The argument for singling out the pit bull, a variety of terrier and other mixed breeds, is that they've been bred over the years to be tenacious, fierce fighters.
In more recent years, the pit bull has been strongly associated with the drug and dog-fighting culture.
Under current law, any dog is deemed "dangerous" if, without provocation, it has chased, threatened, or attempted to bite or endanger someone while off its owner's property.
It's deemed "vicious" if it has killed or seriously injured a person or another dog that was not trespassing at the time. This category automatically includes the pit bull.
"It's wrong to have discrimination against one breed," said state Rep. Shawn Webster (R., Hamilton), co-sponsor of the bill.
"One shoe doesn't fit all. As a practicing veterinarian, I've seen a number of pit bulls that are good family pets, and to paint them all with the same brush is wrong," Mr. Webster said. "I understand the drug culture is associated with the pit bull, and that's unfortunate for the pit bull," he said. "I empathize with animal control officers and law enforcement who get involved in those circumstances, but I don't think this should be in state law."