Shon
06-04-2004, 02:47 PM
PAWTUCKET -- Reacting to criticisms raised by the state ACLU chapter, a City Council panel has approved changes in the city?s new pit bull law while retaining its chief restrictions.
The panel voted to send the changes to the full council, with a recommendation for approval, after the language is redrawn by the city Law Department.
Passed by the council last December, the ordinance banned entry of new pit bulls in the city except those of existing owners "grandfathered" by the city law. It also sharpened penalties for violators, including those who refuse to register their dogs.
Animal Control Officer John Holmes, who pushed for the legislation, said it has helped drive unregistered dogs out of the city and fostered compliance among remaining owners.
In an April 16 letter to Mayor James E. Doyle, Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU, did not take aim at the ban of new pit bulls in the city, centerpiece of the legislation. But Brown raised objections to two other provisions.
He called "clearly unconstitutional" a section barring pit bull owners without a city license from driving any of the animals through the city. Brown said that would, for example, put in violation anyone driving through Pawtucket on I-95.
The ACLU director also expressed concerns with a 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" and its standard of probable cause, not the more broad reasonable suspicion, for securing a valid court warrant, Brown said.
Last Wednesday was the first time the council Ordinance Committee, which drew up the pit bull law with help from City Solicitor Margaret Lynch-Gadaleta, met to take up the ACLU objections.
Lynch-Gadaleta said the ACLU had raised valid legal points. "Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard, so we need the higher standard of probable cause," she agreed.
Councilor Thomas Hodge, the panel chairman, said he was concerned that the city?s hands should not be tied if someone raised allegations about an illegal pit bull in a particular house. But Lynch-Gadaleta noted such allegations could lead to an investigation to determine if they were true.
Hodge said he did not want to hold up the changes. "I don?t want them (ACLU) to think we?re stalling this," he said. "Nor do I want a lawsuit against the city based on their comments."
Several pit bull advocates threatened to sue the city over the ban aspect of the law, although no claims have yet surfaced.
The council panel voted 3-0 to change the standard to probable cause. As for the requirement that anyone riding through the city with a pit bull needed a license to do so, panel members, also including Councilors Paul Wildenhain and Donald Grebien, also agreed unanimously it should be dropped.
Wildenhain said the intent of the law was never to enter people?s homes without sufficient authority, while the pit bull transportation provision was largely unenforceable.
Lynch-Gadaleta drew up the ordinance based on a Denver law she said had withstood legal challenge.
Under the law, a recent tally showed the number of illegal pit bulls taken off the streets had topped 50, while the number properly registered had jumped by almost 100, to about 140.
The panel voted to send the changes to the full council, with a recommendation for approval, after the language is redrawn by the city Law Department.
Passed by the council last December, the ordinance banned entry of new pit bulls in the city except those of existing owners "grandfathered" by the city law. It also sharpened penalties for violators, including those who refuse to register their dogs.
Animal Control Officer John Holmes, who pushed for the legislation, said it has helped drive unregistered dogs out of the city and fostered compliance among remaining owners.
In an April 16 letter to Mayor James E. Doyle, Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU, did not take aim at the ban of new pit bulls in the city, centerpiece of the legislation. But Brown raised objections to two other provisions.
He called "clearly unconstitutional" a section barring pit bull owners without a city license from driving any of the animals through the city. Brown said that would, for example, put in violation anyone driving through Pawtucket on I-95.
The ACLU director also expressed concerns with a 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" and its standard of probable cause, not the more broad reasonable suspicion, for securing a valid court warrant, Brown said.
Last Wednesday was the first time the council Ordinance Committee, which drew up the pit bull law with help from City Solicitor Margaret Lynch-Gadaleta, met to take up the ACLU objections.
Lynch-Gadaleta said the ACLU had raised valid legal points. "Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard, so we need the higher standard of probable cause," she agreed.
Councilor Thomas Hodge, the panel chairman, said he was concerned that the city?s hands should not be tied if someone raised allegations about an illegal pit bull in a particular house. But Lynch-Gadaleta noted such allegations could lead to an investigation to determine if they were true.
Hodge said he did not want to hold up the changes. "I don?t want them (ACLU) to think we?re stalling this," he said. "Nor do I want a lawsuit against the city based on their comments."
Several pit bull advocates threatened to sue the city over the ban aspect of the law, although no claims have yet surfaced.
The council panel voted 3-0 to change the standard to probable cause. As for the requirement that anyone riding through the city with a pit bull needed a license to do so, panel members, also including Councilors Paul Wildenhain and Donald Grebien, also agreed unanimously it should be dropped.
Wildenhain said the intent of the law was never to enter people?s homes without sufficient authority, while the pit bull transportation provision was largely unenforceable.
Lynch-Gadaleta drew up the ordinance based on a Denver law she said had withstood legal challenge.
Under the law, a recent tally showed the number of illegal pit bulls taken off the streets had topped 50, while the number properly registered had jumped by almost 100, to about 140.