United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling that Breed-Specific Legislation is Constitutional

family files lawsuit after toledo woman dies after pit bull attack
The United States Supreme Court affirms breed-specific ordinance 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. 07-8545

2008 Dog Bite Fatality: Kelli Chapman Killed by Two Pit Bulls

kellie chapman mauled to death by own pit bulls
Kelli Chapman, 24-years old, was killed by her pet pit bulls while sleeping in her bed.

New Information
UPDATE 1/23/08: Investigators say this wasn't the first time officers had to shoot a dog at the Chapman's home. Police reports show that in October 2006, the Beauregard-DeRidder narcotics task force and the SWAT team raided the Chapman home, where they found methamphetamine and other drug items. Both Kelli and Jason were arrested. During the raid, one of the couple's pit bulls bit an officer and tried to attack a second officer. Officers shot and killed the animal.

1/23/08: Authorities Reveal Defensive Wounds
Preliminary autopsy results show Kelli Chapman, 24-years old of Longville, died of bite trauma injuries and blood loss. Chapman had injuries to her forearms as well, indicating possible defensive wounds, according to Chief Deputy Robert McCullough. He said there was damage to the furniture and other items in the bedroom where the attack occurred, another sign she was trying to defend herself. McCullough stated that no foul play is suspected at this time.

      McCullough said Kelli Chapman suffered bite and puncture wounds. She had injuries to her forearms, indicating possible defensive wounds, McCullough said.
      "It is possible, and there was other damage to furniture and stuff in the bedroom, where the attack occurred, so it is possible that she was defending herself," he said.
      Her body was taken to the Calcasieu Parish Coroner's Office in Lake Charles for an autopsy. Preliminary results indicate that she died as a result of bite trauma and blood loss. - Elona Weston, Lake Charles American Press, January 22, 2008

1/22/08: Dogs Maul, Kill Owner
Longville, LA - 24 year old Kelli Chapman was killed by her two pit bulls while sleeping in her home. Her husband discovered her body when he returned home from work. She had been fatally mauled by the pair's two pit bulls, a female and a male. Relatives of the woman claim they think they know why the pit bulls fatally attacked her. Apparently, Kelli suffered from seizures. They think she may have had a seizure while sleeping and the dogs reacted to it by killing her.

      
"There's a certain small percentage of aggressiveness in any breed, whether it's a Chihuahua, a Rottweiler or a Pit Bull," said veterinarian Dr. Ted Hoerner.
      "The difference is the degree of damage that a certain animal can inflict. Pit bulls are huge, they're strong, their musculature is such they can inflict deadly damage. Unfortunately, that's what we've seen happen." - KFDM, January 21, 2008

Prior to the deadly attack, Kelli and her husband Jason let the pit bulls stay in their home and sometimes sleep in their bed. One has to wonder if a spaniel or other breed would have reacted similarly in these circumstances. Furthermore, many dog breeds help seizure victims; they do not kill them. As one commenter points out, "Did the seizure cause the attack or did the attack cause the seizure?" Frankly, was there even a seizure at all? There were no witnesses to the attack.

2008 Dog Bite Fatality: Justin Mozer Killed by Jack Russell Terrier

Autopsy Results archived
UPDATE 1/20/08: Officials say a 6-week old baby boy in Lexington died of suffocation and blood loss after being attacked by a family dog. Justin Mozer was sleeping in a bedroom Friday when a Jack Russell terrier attacked him. An autopsy was done Saturday on the infant's body. The Fayette County coroner's office says it showed that he died of traumatic asphyxia, or suffocation, and blood loss due to the dog attack. The manner of death is being investigated as accidental.

Though the baby had a crib, it was napping on a king-size bed that afternoon, said the baby's uncle Jeff Mozer. Without any warning, the dog attacked the baby, he said. The boy's father was at work when the attack occurred, Jeff said. Justin Mozer Senior kept a pit bull in the backyard for protection, Jeff explained. Both dogs were taken into custody by Fayette County Animal Control at the owner's request, reports the Herald-Leader. Jeff said the baby's parents are inconsolable.

Jeff Mozer said Justin Mozer had owned the Jack Russell for six or seven years. "The dog has been around my baby and other babies in the family. There has never been any reason for alarm."

Jeff Mozer said his brother bought the family home at Seven Pines Drive, near Versailles Road and Alexandria Drive, about a year ago and was remodeling it.

The former president of The Lane neighborhood association, Pete Hagan, said that in September 2007, the association sent Justin Mozer a letter complaining about the behavior of pit bulls kept in the back yard. The letter, which Hagan e-mailed to the Herald-Leader on Saturday, said pit bulls routinely got out of the yard and frightened neighbors. But Hagan said he had no problems with the Jack Russell terrier, and he had noticed no problems with the pit bulls since November. - Valarie Spears, Lexington Herald-Leader, January 20, 2008

01/19/08: Family Dog Kills Infant
Lexington, KY - A family dog killed a 6-week old baby yesterday. The attack happened at a home on Seven Pines Drive at about 3:50 pm. Witnesses told police that Justin Mozer was sleeping in a bedroom when the family's Jack Russell terrier attacked him. His mother was in the bathroom, bathing another child at the time. It is unknown if the baby was sleeping in a crib. The family also owns a pit bull. Fayette County Animal Control removed both dogs by request of the owner.

Lillian's Law - Texas State Dangerous Dog Law

Austin, TX - Lillian's Law (HB 1355) is the new Texas State dangerous dog law. Under the law, the owner of a loose dog that causes injury or death can be prosecuted if the owner is found to be "criminally negligent" in failing to prevent the dog from escaping. The third-degree felony charge can bring a sentence of 2 to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. If the victim dies, a dog owner can be charged with a second-degree felony, bringing up to 20 years in prison.

Lillian's Law stems from the brutal attack of 76-year old Lillian Stiles, who was killed by a pack of loose pit bull-rottweiler mixes while mowing her front lawn. Lillian's family was shocked to learn after her death that Texas laws do not, in most cases, hold the dog owner responsible for injuries caused by their dogs even when death results. Lillian's family formed a group, Texas Families Against Dangerous Dogs, and succeeded in helping the new legislation get passed.

Note: Lillian's Law did not abolish the Texas "one bite" rule. To gain a conviction under Lillian's Law, prosecutors still must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dog owner knew or should have known that his dog was going to cause death or severe bodily injury.

Related articles:
10/11/08: Fatal Dog Mauling Trial of Tanner Joshua Monk, 7 Years Old