2006 Ohio 975
FACTS: Defendant owned three pit bull type dogs, which were family pets who had no history of aggressive or unlawful behavior. Upon a report of the dogs' presence being filed with the county dog warden, one dog was given away, one was confiscated and destroyed, and one was kept by defendant. Defendant was charged by the city with local and state statutory violations. The trial court denied defendant's dismissal motion, finding that Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii), and Toledo, Ohio, Code § 505.14(a) were constitutional, although it noted that pit bulls were not, as a breed, more dangerous than other breeds. On appeal, the court found that the statutes were unconstitutionally violative of procedural due process, as defendant could not rebut the presumption that his dogs were "vicious" before being charged. Further, the statutes were void for vagueness under that constitutional principle due to the subjective identification procedures. The statutes also violated equal protection and substantive due process where there was no rational basis to single out the pit bull as inherently dangerous, based on the current evidence regarding the breed.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and vacated defendant's convictions.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?