| Home » |
Dogs Bite Blog ::
browse:
comments,
sticky,
fatal attacks,
victims of attacks,
senior attacks,
postal attacks,
dog laws,
dogfighting,
pit bull owners,
police shootings,
animal groups,
roaming dogs,
horse attacks,
livestock attacks,
pet attacks,
family dog attacks,
trials
|
Monday, June 23, 2008
CHAKO vs. The City and County of San Francisco
Pit Bull Sterilization Law Victorious
San Francisco, CA - On June 3rd, 2008 the San Francisco Office of the City Attorney released a statement regarding the CHAKO case -- a pit bull advocacy group that sued San Francisco over its mandatory pit bull sterilization law. CHAKO challenged the validity of the ordinance, alleging that it violated numerous federal and state constitutional provisions, including the right to happiness.
US District Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted the City's motion to dismiss all claims with the exception of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim. Both parties have since settled the remaining claim, which resulted in dismissal of the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the City agreed not to enforce the sterilization ordinance against any person with a mobility-related disability who: (i) owned an unsterilized pit bull service dog at the time the ordinance was enacted; (ii) uses that unsterilized pit bull service dog to accommodate his/her mobility-related disability; and (iii) had registered his/her unsterilized pit bull service dog with the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control by the time the ordinance was enacted. Any person who does not fall within this specific category remains subject to the ordinance. City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated that although he continues to believe the ordinance is fully valid, the settlement is in San Francisco's best interest. "There is nothing about this ordinance that interferes with the ability of any disabled person to obtain assistance from service animals, and therefore it is fully consistent with the ADA," Herrera said.
CHAKO fits the bill of an egregious pit bull lobbying group. They stop at nothing when it comes to challenging the regulation of their breed, including misusing the rights of people with disabilities to prop up their goals. One can hardly stoop much further than this.
Related articles:
02/26/08: United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling that Breed-Specific Legislation is ConstitutionalLabels: Constitutional, dog law
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments
|
|   
|
|
|
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Aurora Fighting Breed Ban Goes to Court
Now The Ugly Guys Show Up
Aurora, CO - The American Canine Foundation (ACF), a Washington-based pit bull PAC, is back to their old tricks of filing lawsuits in attempts to intimidate city officials who have passed breed specific laws. The ACF seems to be in litigation on a constant basis, but does not have much to show for their efforts. Probably the most significant case they "assisted" in is the Ohio, Tellings case, which recently got overturned by the Ohio State Supreme Court.
Furthermore, if you visit some hardcore pit bull forums and type in "American Canine Foundation" or "ACF," you may come across some deep-seated resentment. The organization hardly sounds liked by the very people they represent. Currently, they are down in Aurora, causing a ruckus and likely wasting taxpayers dollars. One would think that every angle of "breed-specific" law that could be litigated in Colorado already has.
In a partial summary judgment order dated May 29, Colorado District Judge Wiley Daniel responded to five separate claims filed against the city of Aurora by Florence Vianzon and the American Canine Foundation. In the order, Daniel found reason to hear arguments for two of the plaintiffs' five claims against the city, specifically that the current ban does not have a legitimate purpose and that it fails to properly compensate an owner for "property seized."
Daniel denied hearing several claims, including that the current ban is overly vague and that it violates state commerce laws and doctrines of separation of state powers (claims Colorado courts have already addressed). The aspects he did choose to hear, however, will be interesting to follow. Daniels wrote that while other cities with similar bans have had to show a direct relationship between pit bulls and a threat to public safety, Aurora relied largely on legal precedents.
City attorney Charlie Richardson said that this week's decision by Daniels will determine the city's strategy in August. He had hoped the whole case would be dismissed, but said, "The stage is now set to have that trial proceed. I think it's only one issue -- will the city prove that pit bulls represent an enhanced threat to public safety." While DogsBite.org is not a legal eagle, it seems there ought to be a precedent in public safety that allows laws to be developed to prevent future tragedies.
Related articles:
02/26/08: United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling
01/05/08: Arkansas Group (ROADS) Files in Federal Court to Stop Pit Bull BanLabels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
1 comments
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, April 11, 2008
Federal Judge Lets Pit Bull Bans In Arkansas Cities Stand
Pit Bull Lobby Argues Same Bogus Arguments
Arkansas - A federal judge says the cities of Beebe, Jacksonville, North Little Rock and Lonoke can continue to enforce their bans on pit bulls for now. Several US District Courts have upheld pit bull bans as constitutional. As recently as March 2008, Sonya Dias Vs. The City and County of Denver, the US District Court of Colorado dismissed a similar case.
The suit, brought by Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADS), alleges the ordinances' definitions of prohibited breeds are vague. It also says the ordinances interfere with due process by allowing property to be seized without notice, a hearing or fair compensation. It argues, as usual, that breed-specific laws violate the Fifth and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The suit alleges exactly the same grievances that are consistently upheld by State Supreme Courts and US District Courts as constitutional: Vagueness, Due Process & Equal Protection. U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes also denied a request from a group of dog owners and breeders to temporarily stop the cities from enforcing their bans while the group pursues its federal lawsuit challenging the local laws. Attorney Andrew L. Clark, who represents ROADS and four dog owners, said the case is tentatively set for trial December 1.
Related articles:
02/26/08: United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court's...
01/05/08: Arkansas Group (ROADS) Files in Federal Court to Stop Pit Bull BanLabels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Texas Supreme Court: Dog Owner Can't "Watch" Attack and Do Nothing
 Rules Against Dog Owner Whose Dogs Injured Visitor
Austin, TX - The Supreme Court of Texas gets the "one-free bite" rule right. The court in this instance overturned two lower court decisions that held that the dog owner was not negligent after her three dogs attacked a woman while on-property. The Supreme Court ruled:Texas' "first free bite" rule -- allowing dog owners to escape most legal liability if a previously gentle dog attacks -- does not free owners from the responsibility of stopping an attack once it begins. The unanimous and emphatic opinion reversed two lower courts, which ruled that Genevia Bushnell (pictured) could not sue the owner of three dogs that attacked her in Fredericksburg in 2001, leaving wounds on her legs, arms and back that took more than two years to heal.
Bushnell said Janet Mott watched the attack from several feet away, did nothing to intervene and even scolded Bushnell's son for trying to calm the dogs so he could help his mother. Mott argued that prior court rulings excused dog owners from responsibility to stop an attack or render aid afterward -- if the owner had no previous indication that the pet was potentially violent.
In a state Supreme Court brief, Bushnell writes:"The sweep and barbarity of Mott's position is breathtaking. Under the logic of Mott's argument, a dog owner can even watch her dogs kill someone who did not provoke the attack and was lawfully on the premises and still be free of civil liability." Without addressing Bushnell's argument, the Texas Supreme Court said a pet owner "owes a duty to stop the dog from attacking a person after the attack has begun." Knowledge of a dog's nature -- whether violent or not -- plays no role in this basic duty, the court said in an unsigned ruling. The ruling reinstates Bushnell's lawsuit against Mott, whose lawyer declined to comment.
On a Sunday afternoon in March 2001, Bushnell, a health products distributor, arrived at Mott's mobile home to deliver items Mott had requested via e-mail. When Mott opened the door, three dogs pushed through, circled behind Bushnell, pulled her down the porch steps and began biting her "from all directions."
Mott did not intercede and later admonished Bushnell to get up, saying she had not been bitten. The breed of dog is not mentioned in the article, but with a scenario like this, it ain't rocket science: pit bulls. Bushnell was taken to an emergency room and was treated for 15 dog bites, including one that needed 31 stitches to close. She then sued Mott for the $50,000 limit on her homeowners insurance, alleging that the attack left her with nerve damage, continued swelling in her foot and infections that required repeated operations.
Gillespie County trial court tossed out the lawsuit, as did the 4th Texas Court of Appeals, ruling that Bushnell failed to provide evidence that Mott knew her dogs were dangerous. In its opinion, the state Supreme Court said the lower courts mistakenly cited cases involving owners who failed to restrain their dogs. They also failed to address that Mott was negligent for failing to intervene in the attack.Labels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling that Breed-Specific Legislation is Constitutional
For years, the pit bull lobby has claimed that breed-specific legislation (also known as BSL) is unconstitutional -- but now the Supreme Court of Ohio has joined courts in Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Kentucky in ruling that BSL is, indeed, constitutional when properly written. On February 19, 2008 the United States Supreme Court handed the pit bull lobby another defeat when it refused to hear their appeal from the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, August 1, 2007).The high court’s order simply stated: “The motion of American Rottweiler Club, Inc. for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.” Tellings v. Toledo, Ohio, No. 07-8545. Basically, the high court said -- no, we’re not going to hear the pit bull lobby’s appeal, but if we had heard it, the ARC could have filed a friend-of-the-court brief. The U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal, viewable here, makes the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision final. There is no further appeal.
The Tellings case arose from Toledo’s pit bull ordinance, which limits every person to owning no more than one pit bull and requires that pit bulls be muzzled when they are off their owners’ property. Pit bull advocates had argued that the law was unconstitutional on several grounds, all of which the Ohio Supreme Court rejected:- Procedural due process: Procedural due process means that when a government agency is going to deprive people of a property or liberty interest, it must give them notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Ohio Supreme Court found that the text of the law itself gives sufficient notice, because it subjects all pit bulls to the ownership and restraint requirements. Paul Tellings had notice of what he had to do, and he had the opportunity to be heard when he defended himself against the criminal charges that were brought when he violated the law.
- Substantive due process: Substantive due process means that when a legislature is making a law, there’s a constitutional limit to the controls it can place on the citizenry. To be constitutional, a law governing dogs only has to be “rationally related to a legitimate government interest.” The Ohio Supreme Court found that the City had a legitimate goal of protecting humans from dog attacks, and that special regulation of pit bulls is rationally related to that goal because pit bulls, compared to other breeds, “cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people.”
- Equal protection of the laws: Equal protection of the laws means that the government can’t apply the law unequally to different people; it also means that a legislature can’t single out a group of people for unfair disadvantage. However, that doesn’t mean that the law can’t make distinctions between people – all laws do that. If the law doesn’t single out a “suspect class” (such as groups based on sex, age, race, religion, or ethnic background), it doesn’t violate equal protection if it’s rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Pit bull advocates claimed that the law violated equal protection because not all pit bulls are vicious, and other breeds also bite. The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed – just like on the substantive due process question, the special classification of pit bulls has a rational relationship to the law’s goal, and so doesn’t deny equal protection.
- Void for vagueness: To satisfy due process, a law must clearly tell people which acts are allowed and which are prohibited; a law that is too vague is called “void for vagueness.” Pit bull advocates claimed that it was too difficult to tell which dogs were pit bulls and which were not. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that the term “pit bull” can be understood from physical and behavioral traits combined with “the commonly available knowledge of dog breeds typically acquired by potential dog owners or otherwise possessed by veterinarians or breeders” which would be “sufficient to inform a dog owner as to whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog.” Tellings, 871 N.E.2d at 284, quoting State v. Anderson, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio, 1991).
So, let’s put to rest the tired claim that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional -- that’s just plain wrong, and court after court has said so.
The truth is that although the pit bull lobby loves to say that breed-specific legislation is unnecessary, and that it is irresponsible owners who cause the trouble, we don’t hear any ideas from them as to how to actually draft a law that effectively targets bad pit bull owners and prevents the horrific injuries that these dogs can inflict. For all the energy and money that the pit bull lobby puts into litigating BSL all over the country, one would think that they could put their heads together and come up with some bright ideas. Until they do, those of us back in the real world will probably continue to rely on breed-specific legislation, even if it does inconvenience good pit bull owners.
Related material:
US Supreme Court Denial: Tellings v. Toledo, Ohio, No. 07-8545Labels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
11 comments
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Why Lubbock Officials Can't or Won't Take a Stance on Pit Bulls
Meanwhile, People and Animals Suffer
Lubbock, TX - Despite a growing outcry for local leaders to get involved, city and county officials say they can't ban pit bulls or impose breed specific restrictions. They say this is due to state law. What officials can't or won't do in Lubbock, however, was done by the city of Denver:Under Colorado's "home rule authority" provision, the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled that Denver's pit bull ban ordinance superceded state law that prohibited local governments from regulating dangerous dogs by specific breeds. Not only did the Colorado State Supreme Court uphold Denver's pit bull ban, it set aside 14 unique characteristics pit bulls display "when they attack" that distinguish them as a greater public threat than other breeds. This paved the way for many communities nationwide to enact their own pit bull legislation.
While the differences between state laws in Colorado and Texas are likely significant, one important factor stands out between the attitudes of officials from each state. In Denver, officials were steadfastly committed to the ban as a public safety measure, and were willing to fight court battles that interfered.
Citizen's of Lubbock on the other hand, are left with Mayor David Miller who is expected to "urge residents to be responsible with the pets they have." They are also left with Councilman Floyd Price who says, "There's nothing the council can do until there is a state law."
Such attitudes come at the high cost of creating future victims.
Related article:
03/21/08: Pit Bull Epidemic in Lubbock, Texas (Jan-Mar 2008)Labels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
2 comments
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Arkansas Group (ROADS) Files in Federal Court to Stop Pit Bull Ban
 Court Dogfight Over Ban Targets 4 Cities
UPDATED: 1/18/08: In the second time this week, a constitutional challenge has been filed in federal court against ordinances that regulate pit bulls. In this instance, a challenge has been filed concerning ordinances that ban pit bulls in four central Arkansas cities.
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADS), an organization that calls itself an "animal welfare group" -- not to be confused with Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States (RDOWS), who purports to protect the civil and constitutional rights of dog owners -- is behind the court filing. Roger Schnyer, the founder and director of ROADS claims that misinformation lies behind such bans.Mr. Schnyer also claims that many breed-specific bans are enacted without legal consultation. DogsBite.org greatly challenges this statement. State Supreme Courts in Colorado, Washington, Iowa and Ohio are just a few state Supreme Courts that have upheld the constitutionality of pit bull bans. Moreover, city and district attorney's who help write and enact such legislation are by definition "legal consultants." In the instance of Arkansas, Lonoke City Attorney Randy Grice drafted the ban on pit bulls based upon legislation upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Mr. Grice said: "We relied heavily on Maumelle’s city ordinance, which was upheld as constitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court. We went to great lengths to ensure due process is met. We didn’t just haphazardly draw this up." Though this is exactly what Mr. Schnyer and his followers would have the public believe. Additionally, he would have us believe that it is "scientifically impossible to determine the breed of a mixed-breed dog or its origin." This is completely inaccurate -- multiple State Supreme Courts have agreed. Labels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Are pit bull restrictions a question for the US Supreme Court?
Proponent of Pit Bulls Seeks High Court Test
In a desperate act, former Toledoan Paul Tellings has taken his fight against the city's pit bull ordinance to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging its constitutionality as a "breed-specific" law because it allows only one of those types of dogs per household.
DogsBite.org says, "Have at it! If the US Supreme Court doesn't turn down the request, it will uphold the Ohio State Supreme Court, which planted Tellings outside of Toledo because he refused to abide by the law.
Lucas County Dog Warden, Tom Skeldon is unfazed by Tellings recent announcement. In fact, he's drafting additional legislation (to be implemented by April 2008) that requires all pit bulls over the age of 6 months old to be spayed or neutered. Unlike other Ohio cities, who have outright banned pit bull ownership, Toledo places restrictions on these dog owners.Labels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Ohio State Supreme Court Reactivates Legislation
Ohio Counties Enforce New Pit Bull Restrictions
Hocking County, OH - The Ohio State Supreme Court recently reactivated legislation that deems pit bulls inherently more aggressive than other dog breeds. Franklin and Hocking counties are now enforcing new policies. Expect many other Ohio counties to follow.
In Hocking County, pit bulls must be confined in a fully enclosed pen (with padlock and roof) when on their owner's property; they must be muzzled when taken off property. The regulations stem from sections 951.11 and 955.22 of the Ohio Revised Code -- an item of legislation the 6th District Court of Appeals deemed unconstitutional for a number of years before it was recertified by the Ohio Supreme Court in August 2007.
The reactivated legislation defines pit bulls as "vicious dogs" that have been known to "cause serious injury to any person," or "kill other dogs" without provocation. The recent state Supreme Court ruling turned back the clock to the original intent of the legislation, based on the belief that some dogs, such as pit bulls, are inherently more aggressive than others.
Franklin and Hocking counties are now enforcing restrictive policy on the following breeds commonly known as pit bulls: American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bulldog and any other pure bred or mixed breed dog that is a combination of these dogs.
Hocking County Dog Warden Don Kiger says that a lot of people think the way they're raised will keep them from being aggressive, but it doesn't. Pit bulls are dog-aggressive dogs. He adds that pit bull mixes possess the same aggressive tendencies as pure-breds. Labeling the dog "a lab mix," doesn't change its propensity toward aggression, nor does it exclude it from the pit bull policy."People hide them now by disguising the name of their breed," he said. "They call them 'boxer mixes,' 'terrier mixes' and 'lab mixes,' but once you see the frame, posture, build and distinct head and jaw sizes of a pit bull - it's obvious." The Hocking County dog shelter has taken in about 30 pit bulls this year, but because of the breed's reputation for aggression, they are euthanized instead of adopted out. This is a policy shared by 80 other counties in Ohio. Kiger says that they do it for liability reasons, not because they want to. "We have to protect ourselves and protect the county."Labels: Constitutional
|
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
0 comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| recent posts |
|
 |
|
|
| recent archives |
|
|
|
|
|
