I've read through the 11 page legal verdict and am going to pull out some quotes (all kept as in-context as I can) to give folks a feel for the verdict. I'll have some comments at the end. If someone knows of a place where this is housed online please post a link here so people can read it in its entirety on their own. The results of this are very frustrating, as you'll see from some of the quotes:
The verdict begins with some follow-up from the Court of Appeals and why it overturned the breed specific law as unconstitutional. It then begins its rational for it being overturned.
"The fact that such legislation may have an adverse affect on a segment of the dog population not presenting a danger to the public does not make the legislation overboard. Legislation will only be considered overboard if it is applicable to conduct protecting a fundamental constitutional right -- and this does not include the category of ownership of dogs."
The document then sums up that the appeals court deamed it unconstitutional because Tellings "Did not have an opportunity to offer evidence that his pit bulls were not vicious in order to refute charges". "The Court of appeals also stated that the evidence presented at the trial court had disproved the presumption that pit bulls are inherently dangerous" and also because the court was "troubled by the lack of an exact statutory definition of "pit bull" and the highly subjective nature of the identification process."
The court started out by saying that cities were given the right to exercise police power as long as the laws are "rationally related to legitimate interest of the state and the city in the public's health, safety, morals or general welfare, they are constitutional," and "the legislature is the primary judge of the needs of the public welfare, and this court will not nullify the decision of the legislature except in the case of a clear violation of a state or federal constitutional provision."
"Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution states: "Private property shall ever be heald inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare. As a result of this subordination, police power regulations are upheld although they may interfere with the enjoyment of liberty or the acquisition, possession and production of private property."
"Dogs are personal property, and the state or the city has the right to control thos that are a threat to the safety of the community: although dogs are private property to a qualified extent, they are subject to the state police power...as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens."
So based on the evidence presented, the courts ruled that for these four reasons, pit bulls cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people:
1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dog
2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog
3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined
4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other breed of dog.
The trial court also found that pit bulls are "found largely in urban settings where there are crowded living conditions and a large number of children present" which increases the risk of injury caused by pit bulls.
Thus "pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."
In response to whether or not the determinination that a "pit bull" violates due process because it is constitutionally vague: "In sum, we beleive that the physical and behavioral traits of pit bulls together with the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders are sufficient to inform a dog owner as the whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog."
There's more that I'll get into later (one judge concurred in judgment only, but not with the entire decision). But I want to discuss a couple of things.
Basically the court ruled that BSL is constitutional in Toledo, Ohio, because the city has the right to invoke restrictions on ownership of private property IF it is in the best moral, safety or health interest of the community. And, they admitted that they would overturn the city law ONLY if it was in clear violation of the constitution (so the burden of proof goes on the people, not the city).
Based on the following evidence, pit bulls WERE determined to be a public safety issue because:
1) When they attack, they cause more damage (I'd LOVE to see the proof of this, no idea how they would get that when there are many other larger, more muscular breeds of dogs out there)
2) Pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog
(To put this in perspective, according to Karen Delise's Book, Fatal Dog Attacks, which is easily the most reliable information on this subject, between 1965 and 2001, Ohio had 15 fatalities due to dog attacks. These 15 fatalities had 19 different dogs involved -- a couple of incidences involved multiple dogs). Those 19 different dogs were comprised of 11 different "breeds" of dogs. While "pit bulls" (which comprise multiple different breeds) were the leaders in this category, you can see that 11 different breeds of dogs comprising 15 fatal dog attacks over a 25 year period is hardly a statistically sound sample size for basing a law around).
3) Toledo police officers shoot at pit bulls more than other breeds of dogs. (So we're assigning a dog trait "dangerous" based on a human action "fear, over-reaction". If we deemed that police shoot at black people more than white people or hispanics, would we conclude it was because more cops are white and racist, or would we conclude that black people are more dangerous? You can't assign characteristics on others based on human reactions...)
4) Pit bulls are shot more during drug raids than other dogs. (Which should promote that this is an owner issue, not a "breed" issue). Plus, it overlaps/explains #3.
Plus, their next point: "pit bulls are more likely to be in urban areas and in close proximity to children". Ok, so more drug busts happen in inner cities. More pit bulls live in inner cities. This equals more pit bulls in drug houses. Also, if more pit bulls live in urban areas, in close proximity to children, you would thus EXPECT that they would be involved in more major attacks. They've used completely circular logic.
Folks, as Emily noted in her comments on the previous post, its well past time to think the courts will save us from politicians and circular logic. We must, MUST, be responsible by voting for politicians that will listen and understand animal legislation. We can do it, city by city, city council member by city council member. It's our job and responsibility.
Recent Comments