Omaha BSL Enforcement is Arbitrary

The dog pictured to the left is named Ruckus. On the Nebraska Humane Society website (it's currently on page 2, but they change dogs out regularly), it calls Ruckus a "male, brown Weimaraner and Pit Bull Terrier" that "is not required to comply with Omaha Breed Specific regulations.

The second dog pictured is a dog that I fostered for awhile that currently lives in Omaha that is targeted by the Omaha Breed Specific regulations -- so, unless he passes the Canine Good Citizen Test, he will have to wear a muzzle everywhere he goes outside.

If the picture of the victim dog wasn't in black and white, you'd note that the dogs are exactly the same color -- and have nearly identical facial features. I obviously can't tell a lot about the body type on the dog at NHS.

But the point is, who decides?  Who decides that the first dog is not a victim of BSL and the dog in the bottom picture is?

The Void for Vagueness Doctrine is a conctrine derived from the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Doctrine states that a law if "void for vagueness" if a person of ordinanry intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited or what punishment may be imposted under a particular law.

One specific purpose of the Doctrine is to curb "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" of criminal statutes. This, combined with an image of four puppies from the same litter last  month where three were deemed to be "pit bulls -- subject o regulations" and one was not, it appears that the enforcement of Omaha's law is definitely vaguely and discriminately enforced.  The final photo in this set a screen shot of the NHS website, just in case they take Ruckus' picture down or change his ID. Best of luck to Ruckus...

Comments

[EmilyS]

I wish the Colorado and Ohio Supreme Courts had taken the "void for vagueness" clause more seriously when they ruled that the local laws were not unconstitutionally vague....

[Brent]

Emily, I agree. I just don't think they could have had enough information to really realize how these laws are being enforced. With all the data being presented (because each case was against a variety of reasons why BSL was unconstitutional), I don't think these types of situations would have been given their due. It would seem pretty cut and dry if you are looking at letters of the law and not dogs in a kennel. But even the Aurora, CO AC admitted they were selectively enforcing their law...

[MichelleD]

NHS is now realizing they can't move all these "pit bulls" and their kill rates are going up. They know their goose is going to be cooked if their numbers come out...which they have so far refused to release. Or probably the poor staff at NHS is having to kill dogs based on their looks and is doing anything to get them out - what did they EXPECT?!

DON'T DONATE MONEY TO NHS and any org that supports death legislation!