Shon
05-05-2004, 02:58 PM
ACLU snarls at Pawtucket?s Pit Bull law
PAWTUCKET -- The local pit bull ordinance approved last December is rough around the edges and should be re-examined, according to objections raised by the Rhode Island affiliate of the ACLU.
City Councilor Paul Wildenhain, who helped create the ordinance, agreed the objections had merit and said they could likely be accommodated without undermining the law?s chief intent.
The ordinance prohibits introduction of new pit bulls in the city except those for existing owners "grandfathered" by the city law, and has sharp penalties for violators and those who refuse to register their dogs. Those central elements did not come under direct fire from the ACLU.
The objections raised by the ACLU came in an April 16 letter to Mayor James E. Doyle, which has been referred to the City Council.
"While the ACLU takes no position on the city?s decision to prospectively ban the ownership of pit bulls in the city," wrote Steven Brown, ACLU executive director, "a review of the ordinance did uncover particular problems with a few specific provisions."
Brown called "clearly unconstitutional" a section of the law that bars pit bull owners without a city license for their dog from driving any of the animals through the city.
That would, for example, put in violation anyone who merely passes through Pawtucket on I-95 with a pit bull in the car, Brown noted.
"I trust you can appreciate," Brown wrote the mayor, "that the City of Pawtucket has no authority to interfere with travelers through your city in the way this provision suggests."
The ACLU director also expressed concerns with the section of the law allowing a city animal control officer, "upon reasonable suspicion of a violation" and with an order from the Municipal Court, to "enter any residence or business" for enforcement purposes.
Such action would violate "Fourth Amendment standards limiting governmental intrusions into the home," Brown said. He said the Fourth Amendment standard is probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, and a valid court warrant, not merely an unspecified order, is required for such entry.
Wildenhain, who worked to develop the ordinance after Animal Control Officer John Holmes sought the restrictions following several severe cases of pit bull attacks, said Brown?s objections may be on target.
"I think we can accommodate them. It doesn?t look like he?s asking for anything extreme. If we can satisfy his purpose, and I don?t see why we can?t," such changes in the law should be made, Wildenhain said.
On the intrusion issue, "I sort of agree with (Brown) on that," Wildenhain said. "I don?t think we want to break into people?s homes without sufficient (authority)," nor was that the intent behind the law.
The councilor said he also agreed with Brown?s point about pit bulls passing through the city in a car on the highway.
"How do you patrol something like that?" he added. "You can?t check for a pit bull in every trunk and I don?t think we want to either."
Wildenhain said he would refer the matter to the council Ordinance Committee and ask that City Solicitor Margaret Lynch-Gadaleta review the language. Lynch-Gadaleta drew up the ordinance based on a Denver law that withstood legal challenge.
As for how the law has been accomplishing its goals, Wildenhain said that Holmes, the ACO, told him a few days ago that "it?s working out very well. We?re getting a good handle on what we wanted to go after.
"Even the ?good? pit bull owners seem to agree it?s not infringing on their rights," Wildenhain said.
The number of illegal pit bulls taken off the streets is "in the 50s," Wildenhain said Holmes related, while the number properly registered has jumped from some 42 last year to about 140 now.
PAWTUCKET -- The local pit bull ordinance approved last December is rough around the edges and should be re-examined, according to objections raised by the Rhode Island affiliate of the ACLU.
City Councilor Paul Wildenhain, who helped create the ordinance, agreed the objections had merit and said they could likely be accommodated without undermining the law?s chief intent.
The ordinance prohibits introduction of new pit bulls in the city except those for existing owners "grandfathered" by the city law, and has sharp penalties for violators and those who refuse to register their dogs. Those central elements did not come under direct fire from the ACLU.
The objections raised by the ACLU came in an April 16 letter to Mayor James E. Doyle, which has been referred to the City Council.
"While the ACLU takes no position on the city?s decision to prospectively ban the ownership of pit bulls in the city," wrote Steven Brown, ACLU executive director, "a review of the ordinance did uncover particular problems with a few specific provisions."
Brown called "clearly unconstitutional" a section of the law that bars pit bull owners without a city license for their dog from driving any of the animals through the city.
That would, for example, put in violation anyone who merely passes through Pawtucket on I-95 with a pit bull in the car, Brown noted.
"I trust you can appreciate," Brown wrote the mayor, "that the City of Pawtucket has no authority to interfere with travelers through your city in the way this provision suggests."
The ACLU director also expressed concerns with the section of the law allowing a city animal control officer, "upon reasonable suspicion of a violation" and with an order from the Municipal Court, to "enter any residence or business" for enforcement purposes.
Such action would violate "Fourth Amendment standards limiting governmental intrusions into the home," Brown said. He said the Fourth Amendment standard is probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, and a valid court warrant, not merely an unspecified order, is required for such entry.
Wildenhain, who worked to develop the ordinance after Animal Control Officer John Holmes sought the restrictions following several severe cases of pit bull attacks, said Brown?s objections may be on target.
"I think we can accommodate them. It doesn?t look like he?s asking for anything extreme. If we can satisfy his purpose, and I don?t see why we can?t," such changes in the law should be made, Wildenhain said.
On the intrusion issue, "I sort of agree with (Brown) on that," Wildenhain said. "I don?t think we want to break into people?s homes without sufficient (authority)," nor was that the intent behind the law.
The councilor said he also agreed with Brown?s point about pit bulls passing through the city in a car on the highway.
"How do you patrol something like that?" he added. "You can?t check for a pit bull in every trunk and I don?t think we want to either."
Wildenhain said he would refer the matter to the council Ordinance Committee and ask that City Solicitor Margaret Lynch-Gadaleta review the language. Lynch-Gadaleta drew up the ordinance based on a Denver law that withstood legal challenge.
As for how the law has been accomplishing its goals, Wildenhain said that Holmes, the ACO, told him a few days ago that "it?s working out very well. We?re getting a good handle on what we wanted to go after.
"Even the ?good? pit bull owners seem to agree it?s not infringing on their rights," Wildenhain said.
The number of illegal pit bulls taken off the streets is "in the 50s," Wildenhain said Holmes related, while the number properly registered has jumped from some 42 last year to about 140 now.