Toldeo pit bull law struck down

An Ohio appellate court recently held unconstitutional provisions in state and local law which automatically treat pit bulls as "vicious dogs." Toledo v. Tellings, 2006-Ohio-975 (pdf). The lower court in the case had heard expert testimony from sixteen witnesses and found that pit bulls were not inherently more dangerous than other animals [i.e., dogs --ed.] but nonetheless held it was rational to single the animals out, given that they are kept by drug dealers and dog fighters and present a threat when "in urban settings with crowded living conditions and a large number of children." The appeals court agreed that pit bulls are not more inherently dangerous than other breeds, explicitly renouncing precedent and one influential law review article as outdated or wrong. The opinion makes a strong stand for stare decisis yielding to scientific development:

As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence.

Given the lack of evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous, the court rejected the law making pit bulls automatically "vicious dogs" as lacking a rational basis. It further did not adopt the "urban setting" rationale of the trial court, noting that dogs of any breed may create problems in such a a setting but that "these problems are attributable to the actions of the owners." So goes the "guilt by association" rationale. The court also found the statute unconstitutionally vague. (More on category problems here.)

An article in the Toledo Blade quotes an official from the American Canine Foundation as saying "This is the first time ever in the United States that a published opinion has ruled that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional." We are no experts but a quick read through an excellent 2004 article  (pdf) by Devin Burstein on breed discrimination laws reveals no successful challenges which ended up being published, and only one unreported one. This opinion, provided it is not reversed on appeal, should provide a clear, well-reasoned precedent for other plaintiffs challenging pit bull laws.

Comments

[Yhanks you]

Great boys44865248238778c2d24537426d9ee2a1