Dog with Muzzle - Gjirokastra - Albania (28539288958)

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a type of law that prohibits or restricts particular

breeds A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance ( phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species. In literature, there exist several slig ...

types Type may refer to: Science and technology Computing * Typing, producing text via a keyboard, typewriter, etc. * Data type In computer science and computer programming, a data type (or simply type) is a set of possible values and a set of allo ...

of dog. Such laws range from outright

ban Ban, or BAN, may refer to: Law * Ban (law), a decree that prohibits something, sometimes a form of censorship, being denied from entering or using the place/item ** Imperial ban (''Reichsacht''), a form of outlawry in the medieval Holy Roman ...

s on the possession of these dogs, to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establishes a legal presumption that such dogs are dangerous or vicious to prevent dog attacks. Some

jurisdictions Jurisdiction (from Latin 'law' + 'declaration') is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels. Ju ...

have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of fatalities or maulings involving pit bull–type dogs or other dog breeds commonly used in

dog fighting Dog fighting is a type of blood sport that turns game and fighting dogs against each other in a physical fight, generally to the death, for the purposes of gambling or entertainment to the spectators. In rural areas, fights are often staged i ...

, and some government organizations such as the

United States Army The United States Army (USA) is the land service branch of the United States Armed Forces. It is one of the eight U.S. uniformed services, and is designated as the Army of the United States in the U.S. Constitution.Article II, section 2, ...

and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. Due to opposition to such laws, anti-BSL laws have been passed in 21 of the 50 state-level governments in the United States, prohibiting or restricting the ability of jurisdictions within those states to enact or enforce breed-specific legislation.

Background

It is generally settled in

case law Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of ...

that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries is disputed. One point of view is that certain dog breeds are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spaying/neutering for all dogs of these breeds, mandatory microchip implants and

liability insurance Liability insurance (also called third-party insurance) is a part of the general insurance system of risk financing to protect the purchaser (the "insured") from the risks of liabilities imposed by lawsuits and similar claims and protects the in ...

, or prohibiting people convicted of a

felony A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law (from the French medieval word "félonie") to describe an offense that res ...

from owning them. Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution than breed-specific legislation to the problem of dangerous dogs. A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely, but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, e.g., forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas in which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places. Finally, some governments, such as that of Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and require all existing dogs of these breeds to be spayed/neutered in an attempt to eliminate the population slowly through natural attrition. Rottweiler3

Approximately 550 jurisdictions in the United States have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull–type dogs, and some government organizations such as the

U.S. Army The United States Army (USA) is the land service branch of the United States Armed Forces. It is one of the eight U.S. uniformed services, and is designated as the Army of the United States in the U.S. Constitution.Article II, section 2, cl ...

and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of pit bull–type dogs, to restrictions and conditions on pit bull ownership. They often establish a legal presumption that a pit bull–type dog is ''

prima facie ''Prima facie'' (; ) is a Latin expression meaning ''at first sight'' or ''based on first impression''. The literal translation would be 'at first face' or 'at first appearance', from the feminine forms of ''primus'' ('first') and ''facies'' (' ...

'' a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. In response, 16 states in the U.S. prohibited or restricted the ability of

municipal government A municipality is usually a single administrative division having corporate status and powers of self-government or jurisdiction as granted by national and regional laws to which it is subordinate. The term ''municipality'' may also mean the ...

s within those states to enact BSL, though these restrictions do not affect military installations located within the states.

Studies

In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community". In 2012, the

American Bar Association The American Bar Association (ABA) is a voluntary bar association of lawyers and law students, which is not specific to any jurisdiction in the United States. Founded in 1878, the ABA's most important stated activities are the setting of aca ...

passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety". In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective. A 2017 study examining dog-bite characteristics in Ireland has suggested that targetting specific dog breeds can have significant negative outcomes. The study found that no significant difference existed between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds for the type of bite inflicted, and the medical treatment needed after the bite. The authors found that non-legislated dog breeds were less likely to be reported to the authorities both before and after the bite compared to legislated dog breeds. The publication suggests there is no scientifically valid basis for breed-specific legislation, and suggests significant negative consequences may result from its introduction. A study by the US

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the national public health agency of the United States. It is a United States federal agency, under the Department of Health and Human Services, and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georg ...

(CDC) in 2000 concluded that fatal attacks on humans appeared to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull–type dogs and Rottweilers accounted for half of all fatal dog attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998). However, they also concluded that fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and suggested that there may be better alternatives for prevention of dog bites than breed-specific ordinances. Given many media sources reported that this study suggested that pit bull–type dogs and Rottweilers are disproportionately more dangerous than other dog breed
Fatal dog attacks in USA & Canada 1982 – 2019
.The

American Veterinary Medical Association The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), founded in 1863, is a not-for-profit association representing more than 99,500 veterinarians in the US. The AVMA provides information resources, continuing education opportunities, publicati ...

, whose journal published the original article, released a statement detailing that this study "cannot be used to infer any breed specific risk for dog bite fatalities" (for lack of sufficient data on total breed ownership).

Legislation

Fifty-two countries have some form of breed-specific legislation, and 41 of those have BSL at the national level, as of December 2018.

North America

Bermuda

Bermuda ) , anthem = "God Save the King" , song_type = National song , song = "Hail to Bermuda" , image_map = , map_caption = , image_map2 = , mapsize2 = , map_caption2 = , subdivision_type = Sovereign state , subdivision_name = , es ...

, since, July 21, 2003, importing or breeding of any "breed of dog that may be perceived as dangerous" is prohibited. Prohibited breeds include:

American Pit Bull Terrier The American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) is a dog breed recognized by the United Kennel Club (UKC) and the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA), but not the American Kennel Club (AKC). It is a medium-sized, short-haired dog, of a solid build ...

, American Bulldog,

American Staffordshire Terrier The American Staffordshire Terrier, also known as the AmStaff or American Staffy is a medium-sized, short-coated American dog breed. The height of an American Staffordshire Bull Terrier is tall and weighs between . The American Kennel Club (AKC) ...

, Dogo Argentino, Boerboel, Fila Brasiliero,

Cane Corso The Cane Corso is an Italian breed of mastiff. It is usually kept as a companion dog or guard dog; it may also be used to protect livestock. In the past it was used for hunting large game, and also to herd cattle. History According to the ...

Presa Canario The Presa Canario is a Spanish breed of large dog of mastiff or catch dog type. It originates in the autonomous region of the Canary Islands, and is found mostly in the islands of Gran Canaria and Tenerife. It was formerly known as the Dogo Can ...

Neapolitan Mastiff The Neapolitan Mastiff or is an Italian breed of large dog of mastiff type. It descends from the traditional guard dogs of central Italy. It was recognised as a breed by the Ente Nazionale della Cinofilia Italiana in 1949, and accepted by the ...

, Tosa Inu,

Wolf The wolf (''Canis lupus''; : wolves), also known as the gray wolf or grey wolf, is a large canine native to Eurasia and North America. More than thirty subspecies of ''Canis lupus'' have been recognized, and gray wolves, as popularly un ...

or Wolf hybrid, and crossbreeds thereof, as well as "any exotic or uncommon breed" at the government's discretion. Another category, restricted breeds, may be imported/kept once the conditions for keeping these dogs have been fulfilled, new acquisitions require pre-approval, and they may be bred only with a Breeder’s permit. Restricted breeds include:

Akita is a Japanese name and may refer to: Places * 8182 Akita, a main-belt asteroid * Akita Castle, a Nara period fortified settlement in Akita, Japan * Akita Domain, also known as Kubota Domain, feudal domain in Edo period Japan * Akita, Kumamoto ...

Australian Cattle Dog The Australian Cattle Dog (ACD), or simply Cattle Dog, is a breed of herding dog originally developed in Australia for droving cattle over long distances across rough terrain. This breed is a medium-sized, short-coated dog that occurs in two ...

Belgian Malinois The Belgian Shepherd (also known as the Belgian Sheepdog, Belgian Malinois, or the Chien de Berger Belge) is a breed of medium-sized herding dog from Belgium. While predominantly considered a single breed, it is bred in four distinct variet ...

Bouvier Des Flandres The Bouvier des Flandres is a herding dog breed originating in Flanders, Belgium. They were originally used for general farm work including cattle droving, sheep herding, and cart pulling, and nowadays as guard dogs and police dogs, as well a ...

Bull Terrier The Bull Terrier is a breed of dog in the terrier family. There is also a miniature version of this breed which is officially known as the Miniature Bull Terrier. Appearance The Bull Terrier's most recognizable feature is its head, descri ...

, Bullmastiff,

Chow Chow The Chow Chow is a spitz-type of dog breed originally from northern China. The Chow Chow is a sturdily built dog, square in profile, with a broad skull and small, triangular, erect ears with rounded tips. The breed is known for a very dense ...

Doberman Pinscher The Dobermann (; ), or Doberman Pinscher in the United States and Canada, is a medium-large breed of domestic dog that was originally developed around 1890 by Louis Dobermann, a tax collector from Germany.Dogue De Bordeaux The Dogue de Bordeaux, Bordeaux Mastiff, French Mastiff or Bordeauxdog is a large French mastiff breed. A typical brachycephalic mastiff breed, the Bordeaux is a very powerful dog, with a very muscular body. This muscular breed has been put to ...

German Shepherd The German Shepherd or Alsatian is a German breed of working dog of medium to large size. The breed was developed by Max von Stephanitz using various traditional German herding dogs from 1899. It was originally bred as a herding dog, for ...

English Mastiff The English Mastiff, or simply the Mastiff, is a British dog breed of very large size. Likely descended from the ancient Alaunt and Pugnaces Britanniae, with a significant input from the Alpine Mastiff in the 19th century. Distinguished by i ...

Rhodesian Ridgeback The Rhodesian Ridgeback is a large dog breed bred in the Southern Africa region. Its forebears can be traced to the semi-domesticated ridged hunting and guardian dogs of the Khoikhoi. These were interbred with European dogs by the early colon ...

Rottweiler The Rottweiler (, ) is a breed of domestic dog, regarded as medium-to-large or large. The dogs were known in German as , meaning Rottweil butchers' dogs, because their main use was to herd livestock and pull carts laden with butchered meat ...

Staffordshire Bull Terrier The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, also called the Staffy or Stafford, is a purebred dog of small to medium size in the terrier group that originated in the northern parts of Birmingham and in the Black Country of Staffordshire, for which it is ...

, and any cross of these.

Canada

The Canadian federal government does not regulate pit bull–type dogs, but two provincial governments and some

s in Canada have enacted breed-specific legislation banning or restricting pit bull–type dogs. The following table discusses a sampling of the restrictions in force.

United States

As of 2018 there is some level of breed-specific legislation in 37 states and over 1,000 cities. Though the

Federal Government of the United States The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government or U.S. government) is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, a city within a fede ...

has not enacted breed-specific legislation, four of the five branches of the

United States Armed Forces The United States Armed Forces are the military forces of the United States. The armed forces consists of six service branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard. The president of the United States is ...

have restricted certain breeds at almost 300 installations (mostly with respect to on-base housing and privatized housing). Over 20 American Indian Reservations have also enacted BSL. The following 17 states prohibit their municipalities from passing breed-specific laws: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah and South Dakota. California prohibits most breed-specific laws, but allows breed-specific spay/neuter. There have been at least 60 municipality BSL repeals in the U.S. since 2018. Below are summaries of some of the breed-specific legislation enacted in the United States. This is ''not'' an all-inclusive list of BSL throughout the USA.

Central and South America

Europe

Republic of Ireland

The ''Control of Dogs Regulations, 1998'' place controls on 12 breeds of dogs:

English Bull Terrier The Bull Terrier is a breed of dog in the terrier family. There is also a miniature version of this breed which is officially known as the Miniature Bull Terrier. Appearance The Bull Terrier's most recognizable feature is its head, described ...

, Dogo Argentino,

Bull Mastiff The Bullmastiff is a British breed of dog of mastiff type and large size, with a solid build and a short muzzle. It was developed as a guard dog in the nineteenth century by cross-breeding the English Mastiff with the now-extinct Old English Bu ...

Japanese Akita The is a historic breed of dog, dog breed of large size originating from the mountains of northern Japan. The two separate varieties of Akita are a pure Japanese strain, commonly called Akita-ken (''ken'' is the on'yomi for ''inu'' meaning dog in J ...

, Japanese Tosa, and

Bandog A mastiff is a large and powerful type of dog. Mastiffs are among the largest dogs, and typically have a short coat, a long low-set tail and large feet; the skull is large and bulky, the muzzle broad and short ( brachycephalic) and the ears dr ...

. These dogs, or strains and crosses thereof, must be kept on a strong, short lead (less than 2 metres / 6′ 7″) by a person over 16 years of age who is capable of controlling them. The dogs must be securely muzzled and wear a collar with the name and address of the owner.

United Kingdom

In the

United Kingdom The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in Europe, off the north-western coast of the continental mainland. It comprises England, Scotland, Wales and ...

the main piece of breed-specific legislation is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which makes it illegal to own any 'Specially Controlled Dogs' without specific exemption from a court. The dogs have to be muzzled and kept on a lead in public, they must be registered and insured, neutered, tattooed and receive microchip implants. The Act also bans the

breeding Breeding is sexual reproduction that produces offspring, usually animals or plants. It can only occur between a male and a female animal or plant. Breeding may refer to: * Animal husbandry, through selected specimens such as dogs, horses, and r ...

, sale and exchange of these dogs, even if they are on the 'Index of Exempted Dogs'. via Internet Archive Wayback Machine Two types of dogs are specifically identified by the Act: * Pit Bull Terrier * Japanese Tosa In addition, the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) Order 1991, a

statutory instrument In many countries, a statutory instrument is a form of delegated legislation. United Kingdom Statutory instruments are the principal form of delegated or secondary legislation in the United Kingdom. National government Statutory instrumen ...

made under this Act, designated two more types as "appearing to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of types bred for that purpose": * Dogo Argentino *

Fila Brasileiro The Fila Brasileiro () is a Brazilian breed of large working dog of mastiff type. It is used as a guard dog, for cattle herding and for big-game hunting; it may also be kept as a companion dog or pet. In the eighteenth century, when slavery wa ...

The Act also covers cross-breeds of the above four types of dog. Dangerous dogs are classified by "type", not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is prohibited under the Act will depend on a judgement about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited "type". This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court. The Act applies in England, Wales and Scotland, with the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 having a similar effect in Northern Ireland.

Other European countries

Asia

Oceania

Opposition

Legal challenges, Ontario 2007-2009

In ''Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General)'', 2007 CanLII 9231 (ON S.C.), Ms. Catherine Cochrane sued the

Province of Ontario Ontario ( ; ) is one of the thirteen provinces and territories of Canada.Ontario is located in the geographic eastern half of Canada, but it has historically and politically been considered to be part of Central Canada. Located in Central Cana ...

to prevent it from enforcing the Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA) ban on pit bull–type dogs, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally broad because the ban was grossly disproportionate to the risk pit bulls pose to public safety, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to provide an intelligible definition of pit bulls. She also argued that a provision allowing

the Crown The Crown is the state in all its aspects within the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth realms and their subdivisions (such as the Crown Dependencies, overseas territories, provinces, or states). Legally ill-defined, the term has differ ...

to introduce as evidence a veterinarian's certificate certifying that the dog is a pit bull violates the

right to a fair trial A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, th ...

and the presumption of innocence. The presiding judge ruled that the DOLA was not overbroad because,

"The evidence with respect to the dangerousness of pit bulls, although conflicting and inconclusive, is sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute a 'reasoned apprehension of harm'. In the face of conflicting evidence as to the feasibility of less restrictive means to protect the public, it was open to the legislature to decide to restrict the ownership of all pit bulls."

The presiding judge found the term "a pit bull terrier" was unconstitutionally vague since it could include an undefined number of dogs similar to the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The judge also ruled that the government's ability to introduce a veterinarian's certificate certifying that the dog is a pit bull created a mandatory presumption that the dog was a pit bull, and that this placed an unconstitutional burden of proof upon the defendant. In 2008, both Ms. Cochrane and the Attorney General of Ontario

appeal In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed by a higher authority, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and ...

ed different aspects of the decision to the

Court of Appeal for Ontario The Court of Appeal for Ontario (frequently referred to as the Ontario Court of Appeal or ONCA) is the appellate court for the province of Ontario, Canada. The seat of the court is Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto, also the seat of the Law Soc ...

. In ''Cochrane v. Ontario'' (2008 ONCA 718), the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's ruling: * It agreed with the lower court judge in finding that the "overbreadth" claim failed because the legislature had acted on a "reasonable apprehension of harm". * It disagreed that the definition of pit bull in the Act was insufficiently precise and restored the original wording of "pit bull terrier" on the basis that, when read in the context of "a more comprehensive definition", the phrasing "a pit bull terrier" was sufficiently precise. * It reversed the trial court and found that the government's ability to introduce a veterinarian's certificate certifying a dog was a pit bull would constitute proof only if the defendant failed to answer the claim: it was therefore a tactical burden, rather an evidentiary burden. On June 11, 2009 the

Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ...

declined to hear further appeal of the case, thereby upholding the Ontario ban on pit bulls.

Legal challenges, USA

Court challenges to breed-specific legislation on constitutional grounds have been largely unsuccessful. Dana M. Campbell summarized the legal challenges and the general court findings as of July 2009:

Court cases challenging BSL have focused on constitutional concerns such as substantive due process, equal protection, and vagueness. Most BSL will survive the minimum scrutiny analysis allowed by the due process clauses of the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because there is no fundamental right at issue. This analysis requires that the law being challenged must be rationally related to a legitimate government goal or purpose. Because state and local jurisdictions enjoy broad police powers, including protecting the public's safety and welfare, courts have not had trouble finding that BSL is rationally related to the goal of protecting the public from allegedly dangerous breeds. This has caused big problems for many who use them as police, guide or other service dogs, as they are not always excluded, and in some cases are confiscated and put down. Challenges based on equal protection arguments are similarly difficult to sustain. Here courts are looking at whether there is a rational purpose for treating pit bull breeds differently from other dog breeds. Dog owners have attacked the rational purpose requirement by arguing either that BSL is over-inclusive, because it bans all dogs of a breed when only certain individuals within the breed have proven to be vicious, or under-inclusive, because many types of dogs have injured people and the BSL fails to include those other breeds. However, again under minimum scrutiny review, BSL will survive as long as the government can establish that the BSL is rationally related to its purpose, even if the law is found to be over-inclusive or under-inclusive. Claims that BSL is unconstitutionally vague have brought dog owners mixed success. Procedural due process requires that laws provide the public with sufficient notice of the activity or conduct being regulated or banned. Here owners of pit bulls or other banned breeds argue that the breed ban laws do not adequately define just what is a "pit bull" (or other banned breed) for purposes of the ban. Another argument is that the laws are too vague to help the dog-owning public or the BSL enforcement agency—such as animal control or police—to be able to identify whether a dog falls under the BSL if the dog was adopted with an unknown origin or is a mixed breed.

Federal courts

=''Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company''

In ''Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company'', 166 U.S. 698 (1897), Mr. Sentell sued the

New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad The New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad (originally Rail Road) was one of six short-line rail systems built to connect the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, with surrounding neighborhoods, in this case, four-and-a-half miles to the resort village of ...

Company to recover the value of his female Newfoundland dog that he alleged to have been negligently killed by the railroad company. The company claimed that Louisiana law held that only people who licensed their dogs were entitled to sue for compensation if the dog were killed, and that Mr. Sentell was not entitled to damages since he had not licensed his dog. The trial court in

Orleans Parish New Orleans ( , ,New Orleans

found for Mr. Sentell and awarded him $250 US, so the railroad company appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of the trial court. The

Louisiana Supreme Court The Supreme Court of Louisiana (french: Cour suprême de Louisiane) is the highest court and court of last resort in the U.S. state of Louisiana. The modern Supreme Court, composed of seven justices, meets in the French Quarter of New Orl ...

declined to hear the case, so Mr. Sentell then appealed to the

Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. Federal tribunals in the United States, federal court cases, and over Stat ...

, which agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Sentell and established the precedent in U.S.

jurisprudence Jurisprudence, or legal theory, is the theoretical study of the propriety of law. Scholars of jurisprudence seek to explain the nature of law in its most general form and they also seek to achieve a deeper understanding of legal reasoning ...

that the regulation of dogs was within the police power of the state, and that the dogs were not as valuable as horses, cattle, sheep, or other domesticated animals:

It is true that under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, but in determining what is due process of law, we are bound to consider the nature of the property, the necessity for its sacrifice, and the extent to which it has heretofore been regarded as within the police power. So far as property is inoffensive or harmless, it can only be condemned or destroyed by legal proceedings, with due notice to the owner; but, so far as it is dangerous to the safety or health of the community, due process of law may authorize its summary destruction.... Although dogs are ordinarily harmless, they preserve some of their hereditary wolfish instincts, which occasionally break forth in the destruction of sheep and other helpless animals. Others, too small to attack these animals, are simply vicious, noisy, and pestilent. As their depredations are often committed at night, it is usually impossible to identify the dog or to fix the liability upon the owner, who, moreover, is likely to be pecuniarily irresponsible ot responsible for financial compensation In short, the damages are usually such as are beyond the reach of judicial process, and legislation of a drastic nature is necessary to protect persons and property from destruction and annoyance. Such legislation is clearly within the police power of the state. It ordinarily takes the form of a license tax, and the identification of the dog by a collar and tag, upon which the name of the owner is sometimes required to be engraved, but other remedies are not uncommon.

=''Vanater v. Village of South Point''

In ''Vanater v. Village of South Point'', 717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989), the Ohio federal district court held that the criminal ordinance of South Point, Ohio, prohibiting the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers within the village limits was not overly broad, concluding:

The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them. While it may be true that some definitions contain descriptions which lack "mathematical certainty," such precision and definiteness is not essential to constitutionality.

The court made the following findings of fact when it determined the village showed that pit bull terriers are uniquely dangerous and therefore, are proper subjects of the village's police power for the protection of the public's health and welfare:

* Pit Bulls ... possess the quality of gameness, which is not a totally clear concept, but which can be described as the propensity to catch and maul an attacked victim unrelentingly until death occurs, or as the continuing tenacity and tendency to attack repeatedly for the purpose of killing. It is clear that the unquantifiable, unpredictable aggressiveness and gameness of Pit Bulls make them uniquely dangerous. * Pit Bulls have the following distinctive behavioral characteristics: a) grasping strength, b) climbing and hanging ability, c) weight pulling ability, d) a history of frenzy, which is the trait of unusual relentless ferocity or the extreme concentration on fighting and attacking, e) a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct, f) the ability to be extremely destructive and aggressive, g) highly tolerant of pain, h) great biting strength, i) undying tenacity and courage and they are highly unpredictable. * While these traits, tendencies or abilities are not unique to Pit Bulls exclusively, Pit Bulls will have these instincts and phenotypical characteristics; most significantly, such characteristics can be latent and may appear without warning or provocation. * The breeding history of Pit Bulls makes it impossible to rule out a violent propensity for any one dog as gameness and aggressiveness can be hidden for years. Given the Pit Bull's genetical physical strengths and abilities, a Pit Bull always poses the possibility of danger; given the Pit Bull's breeding history as a fighting dog and the latency of its aggressiveness and gameness, the Pit Bull poses a danger distinct from other breeds of dogs which do not so uniformly share those traits. * While Pit Bulls are not the only breed of dog which can be dangerous or vicious, it is reasonable to single out the breed to anticipate and avoid the dangerous aggressiveness which may be undetectable in a Pit Bull.

=''American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.''

= In ''American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.'', 728 F.Supp. 1533 (S.D.Fla.,1989), dog owners sued in the federal district court of Florida to prevent Dade County from enforcing a pit bull ban, claiming that there is no such thing as a pit bull dog but rather three separate breeds; however, their own expert witnesses repeatedly identified dogs from the three separate breeds as "pit bull dogs" during the trial. The court upheld the Dade County ordinance, concluding:

Based upon the substantial evidence presented at trial, this court finds that Dade County Ordinance No. 89-022 provides sufficient guidance to dog owners, both in its explicit reference to pit bull dogs, and in its definitional section, to enable pit bull owners to determine whether their dogs fall within the proscriptions of the ordinance....Certainly there are some applications of the ordinance which pass constitutional muster. As long as the enactment is not impermissibly vague in all its applications, this court must uphold its constitutionality. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the pleadings, memoranda, exhibits and arguments of counsel and upon application of the controlling authority, this court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof and that the Court is required to uphold the constitutionality of Dade County Ordinance No. 089-22.

=''American Canine Federation, v. City of Aurora, CO''

= In ''American Canine Federation and Florence Vianzon v. City of Aurora, Colorado'', 618 F.Supp.2d 1271 (2009), the plaintiffs sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to prevent

Aurora, Colorado Aurora (, ) is a home rule municipality located in Arapahoe, Adams, and Douglas counties, Colorado, United States. The city's population was 386,261 at the 2020 United States Census with 336,035 residing in Arapahoe County, 47,720 residing in ...

, from enforcing a pit bull ban on the grounds that the law was unconstitutionally vague, that the law was an abuse of the city's police power, and that the ban represented an unconstitutional taking of property. The court rejected each of these claims based on existing legal precedents and upheld the city's ordinance.

State courts

=Arkansas

= In ''Holt v. City of Maumelle'', 817 S.W.2d 208 (AR., 1991), Mr. Steele Holt sued the city of Maumelle, Arkansas, in 1988 in an attempt to have its prohibition against pit bulls overturned on the grounds that the ordinance was impermissibly vague, that it was unreasonable to ban pit bull–type dogs, and that the city's Board of Directors committed a

breach of contract Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other part ...

by passing a pit bull ordinance that it had previously agreed to forego; Mr. Holt also asked that the city pay

compensatory damages At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at ...

punitive damages Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. ...

, and his

attorney's fees Attorney's fee is a chiefly United States term for compensation for legal services performed by an attorney ( lawyer or law firm) for a client, in or out of court. It may be an hourly, flat-rate or contingent fee. Recent studies suggest that whe ...

. The Pulaski County circuit court made a

summary judgment In law, a summary judgment (also judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition) is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of ...

dismissing the suit, and Mr. Holt appealed. In 1991, the

Arkansas Supreme Court The Supreme Court of Arkansas is the highest court in the state judiciary of Arkansas. It has ultimate and largely discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all state court cases that involve a point of state law, and original jurisdiction o ...

affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding that the pit bull ordinance was not impermissibly vague, that the restrictions were reasonable, and that any agreement made by the city to limit its own legislative powers was null and void since the city's first duty was to protect the public interest.

=Colorado

= In ''Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver'', 820 P.2d 644, Colo., 1991, the

Colorado Supreme Court The Colorado Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Colorado. Located in Denver, the Court consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. Powers and duties Appellate jurisdiction Discretionary appeals The Court ...

upheld a

Denver Denver () is a consolidated city and county, the capital, and most populous city of the U.S. state of Colorado. Its population was 715,522 at the 2020 census, a 19.22% increase since 2010. It is the 19th-most populous city in the Unit ...

city ordinance that dog owners had complained was unconstitutional, along the following lines: * the dog owners claimed the ordinance was fundamentally unfair and therefore violated their right to procedural due process by forcing them to meet the burden of proving their dog was not a pit bull; however, the higher court found the ordinance was not fundamentally unfair provided the city was required to prove that dogs were pit bulls by the civil standard of "preponderance of evidence" rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." * the dog owners claimed the ordinance violated substantive due process by creating a legislative presumption that a pit bull owner knowingly and voluntarily possesses a pit bull, and because it allowed the use of non-scientific evidence (''e.g.'', expert opinion) to prove a dog is a pit bull; however, the higher court determined the ordinance preserves substantive due process by providing dog owners with a constitutionally adequate post-impoundment hearing, and reversed the trial court's imposition of a pre-impoundment hearing; in addition, the city was not required to prove a dog was a pit bull with mathematical certainty, and could use expert opinion and non-scientific evidence to prove its case in court. * the dog owners felt the city ordinance treated all pit bulls and substantially similar dogs as inherently dangerous and was, therefore, unconstitutionally overbroad; however, the higher court ruled that outside the limited area of fundamental constitutional rights such as, for example, first amendment rights of speech or association, a statute may not be attacked as overbroad. * the dog owners felt the term "pit bull" was imprecise and, thus, unconstitutionally vague because the average dog owner is not afforded fair warning of the act prohibited by the ordinance; however, the higher court found the standards for determining whether a dog is a pit bull are readily accessible to dog owners, and because most dog owners are capable of determining the breed or phenotype of their dog, the trial court properly determined that the ordinance provides adequate notice to dog owners and is not unconstitutionally vague. * the dog owners argued that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by creating an irrational distinction between one who owns a dog with the physical characteristics of a pit bull and one who owns a dog lacking those characteristics; however, the higher court ruled that there was ample evidence to establish a rational relationship between the city's classification of certain dogs as pit bulls and the legitimate governmental purpose of protecting the health and safety of the city's residents and dogs, and thus the ordinance did not violate the dog owners' right to equal protection of the laws. * the ordinance is an abuse of the city's police power and constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property; however, the higher court noted that, in Colorado, dogs are accorded qualified property status and are, thus, subject to the proper exercise of police power for the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare. In ''City & County of Denver v. State of Colorado'', 04CV3756, Denver challenged a 2004 law passed by the

Colorado General Assembly The Colorado General Assembly is the state legislature of the State of Colorado. It is a bicameral legislature that was created by the 1876 state constitution. Its statutes are codified in the ''Colorado Revised Statutes'' (C.R.S.). The se ...

that prohibited breed specific laws on the grounds that the state law violated the city's home rule authority in regard to animal control legislation. The Denver District Court Judge ruled in favor of Denver, finding that: * the State failed to provide any new evidence to undermine the original 1990 trial court's decision regarding the differences between pit bulls and other dogs. * the City had provided new evidence to provide additional support for the original 1990 trial court's decision. * the 2000 CDC study on fatal dog bite attacks was irrelevant to the narrow issues identified in the 1990 trial court's decision * the State of Colorado had failed to meet its burden of proof to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that no rational basis for Denver's pit bull ban existed

=Florida

= In ''State of Florida v. Peters'', 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988), the

Florida Third District Court of Appeal The Florida Third District Court of Appeal is headquartered in Miami, Florida. Its ten judges have jurisdiction over cases arising from Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. History The Third District Court of Appeal (DCA) was one of the first three ...

reviewed the city of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city limits, and held: (1) the ordinance did not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution since the city's action in light of the evidence was neither arbitrary or irrational; (2) the ordinance's requirement to obtain liability insurance did not violate due process since the city had the right to regulate dogs under its police powers; (3) the definition of "pit bull" was not unconstitutionally vague, citing substantial precedent that laws requiring "substantial conformance" with a standard are not considered vague; and that mathematical certainty of a dog's identity as a pit bull was not required for a legal determination that a dog was in fact a pit bull.

=Kansas

= In ''Hearn v. City of Overland Park'', 772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989), the

Supreme Court of Kansas The Kansas Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the state of Kansas. Composed of seven justices, led by Chief Justice Marla Luckert, the court supervises the legal profession, administers the judicial branch, and serves as the st ...

reviewed the ruling of a county court that overturned an ordinance of the city of

Overland Park Overland Park ( ) is the second-most populous city in the U.S. state of Kansas. Located in Johnson County, Kansas, it is one of four principal cities in the Kansas City metropolitan area and the most populous suburb of Kansas City, Missouri. ...

regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city limits, and held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).

=Kentucky

= In ''Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court'', 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky.App.,2006), the

Kentucky Court of Appeals The Kentucky Court of Appeals is the lower of Kentucky's two appellate courts, under the Kentucky Supreme Court. Prior to a 1975 amendment to the Kentucky Constitution the Kentucky Court of Appeals was the only appellate court in Kentucky. Th ...

reviewed a Bracken County ordinance that banned pit bull terriers. The appellants (Mr. Bess and Mr. Poe) had sought a temporary injunction against the ordinance in the Bracken County Circuit Court. The court dismissed the motion on the grounds that the police power of the

Fiscal Court There are 120 counties in the U.S. Commonwealth of Kentucky. Despite ranking 37th in size by area, Kentucky has 120 counties, fourth among states (including Virginia's independent cities). The original motivation for having so many counties wa ...

allowed it to ban pit bull terriers and seize them without compensation. The appellants appealed on the grounds that: # that the ordinance is inconsistent with KRS (

Kentucky Revised Statutes Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) is the name given to the body of laws which govern the Commonwealth of Kentucky, United States. They are created pursuant to the Kentucky Constitution and must conform to the limitations set out in the Constitutions ...

) Chapter 258 and specifically with the definition of "vicious dog" contained in KRS 258.095; # that it impermissibly allows the forfeiture of property without compensation; # that it denies dog owners procedural due process; and # that it impedes the right of nonresident owners of pit bull terriers to travel through Bracken County. The Appeals court upheld the Bracken County ordinance, finding that: # the breed-specific ordinance supplemented, rather than replaced or superseded, the definition of a "vicious dog" in the state statute; # the banning of pit bull terriers was permissible under the police power, and that property seized under the police power was not subject to compensation; # dog owners had the right of appeal to the Circuit Court under the ordinance, so the right of due process was preserved; and # the ordinance did not discriminate against non-resident pit bull owners, and that the appellants had not provided any evidence that traveling with a pet "occupies a position fundamental to the concept of a federal union."

=Massachusetts

= In ''American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Lynn'', 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass.,1989), the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Although the claim is disputed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the SJC claims the distinction of being the oldest continuously func ...

reviewed a series of ordinances enacted by

Lynn, Massachusetts Lynn is the eighth-largest municipality in Massachusetts and the largest city in Essex County. Situated on the Atlantic Ocean, north of the Boston city line at Suffolk Downs, Lynn is part of Greater Boston's urban inner core. Settled by E ...

, targeting dogs variously referred to as "American Staffordshire Terrier a/k/a American Pit Bull Terrier or Bull Terrier (July 1985); "American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier or Bull Terrier, hereinafter referred to as 'Pit Bulls'" (June 1986); and ""American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier or any mixture thereof" (September 1986). The Supreme Judicial Court determined that the issue was technically moot since each of the ordinances in question had been repealed by passage of a subsequent "pit bull" ordinance in June 1987; however, the court specifically observed (but did not rule) that the 1987 ordinance relied on the "common understanding and usage" of the names of the breeds in question, and warned that

the Lynn Pit Bull ban ordinance depends for enforcement on the subjective understanding of dog officers of the appearance of an ill-defined "breed," leaves dog owners to guess at what conduct or dog "look" is prohibited, and requires "proof" of a dog's "type" which, unless the dog is registered, may be impossible to furnish. Such a law gives unleashed discretion to the dog officers charged with its enforcement, and clearly relies on their subjective speculation whether a dog's physical characteristics make it what is "commonly understood" to be a "Pit Bull."

As a result of this case, breed-specific legislation in the United States often relies on the published standards of the

American Kennel Club The American Kennel Club (AKC) is a registry of purebred dog pedigrees in the United States. In addition to maintaining its pedigree registry, this kennel club also promotes and sanctions events for purebred dogs, including the Westminster Ke ...

and

United Kennel Club The United Kennel Club (UKC) is a kennel club founded in 1898 in the United States. In contrast with the American Kennel Club, which is non-profit and which only clubs can join, the United Kennel Club is a profit-making corporation, open to individ ...

to clearly identify the characteristics of dogs subject to regulation as "pit bulls."

=New Mexico

= In ''Garcia v. Village of Tijeras'', 767 P.2d 355 (1988), the

New Mexico Court of Appeals The New Mexico Court of Appeals (in case citation, N.M. Ct. App.) is the intermediate-level appellate court for the state of New Mexico. History The court of appeals was created by a constitutional amendment submitted to the electorate in ...

reviewed an ordinance of the Village of Tijeras that banned the ownership or possession of a breed of dog "known as American Pit Bull Terrier"; any dog found in violation of the ordinance after a court hearing would be euthanized. The court held against each of the defendants' claims and upheld the ordinance on the following grounds: # The defendants claimed the ordinance violated their due process rights because it was vague in how it defined "pit bull"; however, the ordinance was not vague because vagueness applies in the sense of "to whom does the law apply." The law was therefore not vague since the defendants knew the ordinance applied to them. # The defendants claimed the ordinance was not rationally related to the purpose of preventing pit bull attacks because environment and training are more important than genetics in determining how a dog acts; however, the court held there was substantial, credible evidence of breed-specific issues that the Village's actions were warranted. # The defendants claimed that the ordinance violated equal protection rights because it singled out the owners of pit bulls; however, the court ruled that there was substantial, credible evidence that pit bulls posed a special threat to the people of Tijeras and that there were no grounds to overturn the ordinance. # The defendants claimed the ordinance denied them procedural due process against the loss of property; however, the court ruled that the court hearings specified by the ordinance were sufficient due process to ensure the owners had "the opportunity to be heard and present evidence would occur at a meaningful time, that is, prior to the destruction of the dog." # The defendants claimed the ordinance would deprive them of property without compensation; however, the court ruled that well-established precedent did not require compensation for property seized under a city's police powers.

=New York

The

New York City Housing Authority The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is a public development corporation which provides public housing in New York City, and is the largest public housing authority in North America. Created in 1934 as the first agency of its kind in the U ...

updated their pet policy in 2010 to exclude dogs over 25 pounds and specifically prohibit

Doberman Pinscher The Dobermann (; ), or Doberman Pinscher in the United States and Canada, is a medium-large breed of domestic dog that was originally developed around 1890 by Louis Dobermann, a tax collector from Germany.Pit bull Pit bull is a term used in the United States for a type of dog descended from bulldogs and terriers, while in other countries such as the United Kingdom the term is used as an abbreviation of the American Pit Bull Terrier breed. The term was f ...

s, and any mixes thereof.

=Ohio

= In ''Toledo v. Tellings'' – Reversed – 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007), the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeal struck down a portion of the Toledo,

Ohio Ohio () is a U.S. state, state in the Midwestern United States, Midwestern region of the United States. Of the List of states and territories of the United States, fifty U.S. states, it is the List of U.S. states and territories by area, 34th-l ...

, municipal code that limited people to owning only one pit bull. The law relied on a state definition of a vicious dog as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a Pit Bull dog." The court held that the legislation was void for violation of a Pit Bull owner's right to due process since the owner could not appeal a designation of his pet as a vicious dog. The court held that,

"Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."

The

Supreme Court of Ohio The Ohio Supreme Court, Officially known as The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio is the highest court in the U.S. state of Ohio, with final authority over interpretations of Ohio law and the Ohio Constitution. The court has seven members, a ...

reversed the Court of Appeal (''Toledo v. Tellings'', 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724), and reinstated the Toledo ordinance for the following reasons:

* The court of appeals found R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 unconstitutional with respect to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection, and under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. We disagree. * First, the court of appeals declared that the laws violated procedural due process pursuant to ''State v. Cowan'', 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, 814 N.E.2d 846. In ''Cowan'', a Portage County deputy dog warden determined two dogs to be vicious following a complaint that the dogs had attacked a woman. Id. at ¶ 1. The dogs were determined to be vicious because of the alleged attack, not because they were pit bulls. We held that when a dog is determined to be "vicious" under R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a), procedural due process requires that the owner have notice and an opportunity to be heard before the owner is charged with a crime. Id. at ¶ 13. * In ''Cowan'', the dogs were determined to be vicious under the first two subsections of R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a) because they had caused injury to a person. Thus, the case concerned the dog warden's unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious. However, in this case, the "vicious dogs" at issue are those classified as pit bulls under the third subsection of R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a). Unlike the situation in ''Cowan'', the General Assembly has classified pit bulls generally as vicious; there is no concern about unilateral administrative decision-making on a case-by-case basis. The clear statutory language alerts all owners of pit bulls that failure to abide by the laws related to vicious dogs and pit bulls is a crime. Therefore, the laws do not violate the rights of pit bull owners to procedural due process. * Second, R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are not unconstitutional for violating substantive due process or equal protection rights. Laws limiting rights, other than fundamental rights, are constitutional with respect to substantive due process and equal protection if the laws are rationally related to a legitimate goal of government. See ''State v. Thompkins'' (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 558, 560–561, 664 N.E.2d 926. As we discussed previously when evaluating whether the statutes and ordinance in question are valid exercises of state and city police power, R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 January Term, 2007 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to a legitimate government interest. * Finally, the court of appeals erred in holding that R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are void for vagueness. This court has previously held that the term "pit bull" is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. In ''State v. Anderson'', we stated: "In sum, we believe 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 to whether he owns a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog." 57 Ohio St.3d 168, 173, 566 N.E.2d 1224. * In conclusion, the state and the city of Toledo possess the constitutional authority to exercise police powers that are rationally related to a legitimate interest in public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Here, evidence proves that pit bulls cause more damage than other dogs when they attack, cause more fatalities in Ohio than other dogs, and cause Toledo police officers to fire their weapons more often than people or other breeds of dogs cause them to fire their weapons. We hold that the state of Ohio and the city of Toledo have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the dangers associated with pit bulls, and that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 are rationally related to that interest and are constitutional.

Mr. Tellings appealed the case to the

, which declined to hear the case.

=Texas

= In ''City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas'', 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1990), several people ("Responsible Dog Owners") sued the city of

Richardson, Texas Richardson is a city in Dallas and Collin counties in the U.S. state of Texas. As of the 2020 United States census, the city had a total population of 119,469. Richardson is an inner suburb of the city of Dallas. It is home to the University ...

, to prevent it from enforcing restrictions on pit bulls within its city limits on the grounds that the Texas state legislature had passed legislation preempting the a city's power to adopt an ordinance regulating the keeping of dogs. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, but the

Texas Court of Appeals The Texas Courts of Appeals are part of the Texas judicial system. In Texas, all cases appealed from district and county courts, criminal and civil, go to one of the fourteen intermediate courts of appeals, with one exception: death penalty cases. ...

reversed the trial court's decision (781 S.W.2d 667). The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the original decision on the grounds that

Under article XI, section 5 of the Texas Constitution, home-rule cities have broad discretionary powers provided that no ordinance "shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State...." Thus, the mere fact that the legislature has enacted a law addressing a subject does not mean that the subject matter is completely preempted....Although there is a small area of overlap in the provisions of the narrow statute and the broader ordinance, we hold that it is not fatal.

=Texas Health and Safety Code

= In the state of Texas, the State Health and Safety Code prohibits breed-specific legislation as stated

Sec. 822.047. LOCAL REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS. A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions:
(1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and
(2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 916, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 1991.

=Washington

= In ''McQueen v. Kittitas County'', 115 Wash. 672, 677 (1921), the

Washington Supreme Court The Washington Supreme Court is the highest court in the judiciary of the U.S. state of Washington. The court is composed of a chief justice and eight associate justices. Members of the court are elected to six-year terms. Justices must retire ...

established the broadly accepted precedent that cities have the power to regulate dogs, even to the point of banning specific breeds.

gs do not stand on the same plane as horses, cattle, sheep, and other domesticated animals...On the general question, it is the almost universal current of authority that dogs are a subject of the police power of the state, and their keeping subject to any kind of license or regulation, even to absolute prohibition...since dogs are a subject of the police power, we see no reason why the legislature may not make distinctions between breeds, sizes and the localities in which they may be kept. The object of the statute is protection. The purpose is to prevent injuries to persons and property by dogs. Any distinction founded upon reasons at least, is therefore valid..."

In ''American Dog Owners Ass'n v. City of Yakima'', 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash.1989, ''en banc''), the Washington Supreme Court reviewed a pit bull ban in the city of Yakima. The dog owners asked a state court to prevent Yakima from enforcing its ban on pit bull dogs. The trial court issued a temporary injunction against the city and accepted motions for summary judgment from both the dog owners and the city. The court decided in favor of the city and lifted the injunction, whereupon the dog owners appealed to the Washington Supreme Court on the grounds that the ordinance was vague because a person of ordinary intelligence could not tell what was prohibited, and that the trial court had improperly decided the summary judgment in favor of the city. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it specified the dog breeds that together fit the definition of "pit bull", whereas an earlier case in Massachusetts, ''American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Lynn'', 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (1989), had resulted in the pit bull ban being annulled because the ordinance did not specify in sufficient detail what a "pit bull" was; in addition, the higher court ruled that the summary judgment had been properly awarded, thus upholding the Yakima pit bull ban.

=Wisconsin

= In ''Dog Federation of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee'', 178 Wis.2d 353, 504 N.W.2d 375 (Wis.App.,1993), the

Wisconsin Court of Appeals The Wisconsin Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court that reviews contested decisions of the Wisconsin circuit courts. The Court of Appeals was created in August 1978 to alleviate the Wisconsin Supreme Court's rising number of appe ...

reviewed the appeal of a trial court decision upholding a pit bull ban in

South Milwaukee, Wisconsin South Milwaukee is a city in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, United States. The population was 20,795 at the 2020 census. History South Milwaukee was laid out in 1891 by the South Milwaukee company within the Town of Oak Creek, with the purpose o ...

. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court on the following grounds: * The dog owners claimed that the definition of "pit bull" in the ordinance was too vague in its description of a "pit bull"; however, the Court of Appeals found that the ordinance's reference to the breed descriptions of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club were enough to allow someone to know whether they owned a "pit bull" or not * The dog owners claimed the pit bull ban ordinance was overbroad because it treated "all pit bulls as if they are inherently dangerous, and more prone to cause harm than other dogs as a matter of law"; however, the higher court found that the prohibition against "overbroad" ordinances protected only fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech, and that there was no fundamental right to own a particular breed of dog. * The dog owners claimed the pit bull ban violated their right to equal protection since pit bulls were singled out for prohibition, for which there was "no scientific or empirical basis" and that dangerousness is a function of "environment, training, and upbringing." The Court of Appeals found that the evidence of the unique danger posed by pit bull–type dogs was sufficient that the dog owners could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the discrimination was unfounded, as required by previous court precedent.

References

{{DEFAULTSORT:Breed-Specific Legislation Dog law de:Rasseliste es:Perro peligroso