Shon
07-09-2004, 12:29 PM
Assuming pit bulls are vicious dogs may be unfair, but it's not unconstitutional, a local judge ruled yesterday.
In handing down his nine-page opinion, Judge Francis X. Gorman of Toledo Municipal Court upheld the Toledo law's "adverse effect on responsible Pit Bull owners" requiring them to lock up their dogs, muzzle them when they leave their property, and carry a minimum $100,000 liability insurance.
"It is perhaps not the best legislation; it may not be the fairest legislation," Judge Gorman wrote in summarizing the arguments for and against the extra restrictions on pit bulls.
"It is not," he added, "unconstitutional."
Because the Toledo law is loosely based on the Ohio Revised Code, the decision may have statewide ramifications as other communities struggle with their own laws limiting the ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier, or pit bull.
Under Ohio law, dogs of other breeds are considered vicious only if they have killed another dog or have bitten or killed a human.
In the ruling, Judge Gorman held that dog ownership is a property right, rather than a fundamental constitutional right involving personal liberty.
Therefore, those rights can be limited by a government's responsibility to protect its public. And though not all pit bulls are vicious, they are a choice among dog-fighters and gang members, he noted.
Judge Gorman also found that, although the law presumes the breed is vicious, owners can bring evidence to court that their pit bull is not vicious, thereby relieving them of the extra responsibility of owning a vicious dog.
Karla Hamlin, pound manager for Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, yesterday lauded the ruling.
"I think it's going to help us protect the public," she said.
Though the breed is popular with drug dealers and gang members, responsible pit bull owners also are protected by the law, she said.
"If you have people who are getting them as a fad, they may not be able to keep that dog confined, or to direct that behavior," she said.
Mr. Skeldon, who has been an unrelenting and outspoken advocate for tough laws against pit bulls, was out of the country yesterday and could not be reached for comment.
The case began two years ago when Paul Tellings, 30, whose address at the time was in the 200 block of Maryland Avenue, was charged with violating a section of the Toledo Municipal Code that states a person may keep only one vicious dog.
The owner of two pit bulls, he also failed to obtain liability insurance that is required by pit bull owners, according to charges.
But Mr. Telling argued that his dogs were family pets that played with children. One even protected a group of squirrels in the backyard.
His attorney, Sol Zyndorf, argued that the charges should be dismissed because a breed-specific law was overbroad, and therefore, unconstitutional.
Mr. Zyndorf said he doesn't "fully agree with everything" in yesterday's decision, but said that the ruling "actually helps [Mr. Tellings'] case in that we can show that his dogs weren't vicious."
Mr. Tellings yesterday would not comment on the ruling, itself, but he said he's willing to appeal his case until the law is overturned.
"This is a law that is unjust, and it's [being driven by] only one man - Tom Skeldon - who's got a personal vendetta against pit bulls."
In handing down his nine-page opinion, Judge Francis X. Gorman of Toledo Municipal Court upheld the Toledo law's "adverse effect on responsible Pit Bull owners" requiring them to lock up their dogs, muzzle them when they leave their property, and carry a minimum $100,000 liability insurance.
"It is perhaps not the best legislation; it may not be the fairest legislation," Judge Gorman wrote in summarizing the arguments for and against the extra restrictions on pit bulls.
"It is not," he added, "unconstitutional."
Because the Toledo law is loosely based on the Ohio Revised Code, the decision may have statewide ramifications as other communities struggle with their own laws limiting the ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier, or pit bull.
Under Ohio law, dogs of other breeds are considered vicious only if they have killed another dog or have bitten or killed a human.
In the ruling, Judge Gorman held that dog ownership is a property right, rather than a fundamental constitutional right involving personal liberty.
Therefore, those rights can be limited by a government's responsibility to protect its public. And though not all pit bulls are vicious, they are a choice among dog-fighters and gang members, he noted.
Judge Gorman also found that, although the law presumes the breed is vicious, owners can bring evidence to court that their pit bull is not vicious, thereby relieving them of the extra responsibility of owning a vicious dog.
Karla Hamlin, pound manager for Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, yesterday lauded the ruling.
"I think it's going to help us protect the public," she said.
Though the breed is popular with drug dealers and gang members, responsible pit bull owners also are protected by the law, she said.
"If you have people who are getting them as a fad, they may not be able to keep that dog confined, or to direct that behavior," she said.
Mr. Skeldon, who has been an unrelenting and outspoken advocate for tough laws against pit bulls, was out of the country yesterday and could not be reached for comment.
The case began two years ago when Paul Tellings, 30, whose address at the time was in the 200 block of Maryland Avenue, was charged with violating a section of the Toledo Municipal Code that states a person may keep only one vicious dog.
The owner of two pit bulls, he also failed to obtain liability insurance that is required by pit bull owners, according to charges.
But Mr. Telling argued that his dogs were family pets that played with children. One even protected a group of squirrels in the backyard.
His attorney, Sol Zyndorf, argued that the charges should be dismissed because a breed-specific law was overbroad, and therefore, unconstitutional.
Mr. Zyndorf said he doesn't "fully agree with everything" in yesterday's decision, but said that the ruling "actually helps [Mr. Tellings'] case in that we can show that his dogs weren't vicious."
Mr. Tellings yesterday would not comment on the ruling, itself, but he said he's willing to appeal his case until the law is overturned.
"This is a law that is unjust, and it's [being driven by] only one man - Tom Skeldon - who's got a personal vendetta against pit bulls."