In the last two decades, many cities have passed breed specific bans or limitations on dog owners. Pit bulls are the most common cited breed and one owner is now taking his dogs and his case to the Supreme Court. Paul Tellings likes his pit bulls and has challenged a Toledo law as baseless and biased. While the odds are against a grant of cert in the case, it would allow review of a highly controversial trend across the country.
Tellings has lost in the lower courts, which upheld the Toledo law. In the meantime, Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, wants to require all pit bulls over the age of 6 months to be spayed or neutered — at the owner’s expense.
It is an interesting case. However, the most difficult aspect for Tellings is the test. Without a claim of religious or racial or gender discrimination, the city needs only to show that there is a rational basis for the law — an exceptionally low standard. The owners have prevailed on an appellate court on the basis of the vagueness of the law, which is a better tact. However, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the city’s ordinance on Aug. 1st.
The common law treats these cases under a strict liability standard. An owner is strictly viable for a dog with known vicious tendencies. This is sometimes called (inartfully) the “one free bite rule” since after the first bite, an owner has obvious knowledge. However, it sometimes does not require a bite to have such knowledge. Indeed, these laws can serve as such warnings.
One of the most infamous cases involved two lawyers. Lawyers Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel were successfully prosecuted after their huge “Presa Canario” dogs mauled and killed neighbor, Diane Whipple, in the hallway of her San Francisco apartment building in January 2001. Whipple was bitten 77 times and the dogs nearly severed her vertebrae.
Jurors found Marjorie Knoller’s husband, Robert Noel, guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and found Knoller guilty of second-degree murder.
The common law rule also applies to wild animals. Defining some animals as wild can be done with reference to statutes or the lack of animus revertendi (the habit of return). The most common category in the United States is the possession of wolves or part-wolf animals as pets.
For the full story, click here
Pitbulldogs can never be banned heres why……
——————————————————————————–
IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS WHO OWN PARTICULER BREEDS OF DOGS ..IF THERE IS A BAN AGAINST ONE BREED THE LAW MUST APPLY TO ALL BREEDS BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR OWNING A PARTICULER BREED (IE OREGON STATE )..THEY HAD TO MAKE THEIR BITE LAWS ALL INCLUSIVE FOR ALL BREEDS BECAUSE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION THAT AFFECTED CITIZENS RIGHT TO NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR OWNING A PARTICULER BREED…THE BREEDS , DOGS THEMSELVES HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IT IS THE CITIZEN THAT DOES… AND ALL BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION CAN BE FOUGHT AND WON BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST…AS A PITBULL OWNER OR OWNER OF ANY BREED “DON’T FORGET THIS” AND THE ACLU WILL HELP BASED ON THIS…..IT WAS DONE IN OREGON AND CAN BE DONE EVERYWHERE SO LONG AS YOU FIGHT FOR (YOUR RIGHT ) NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, NOT THE (BREEDS RIGHT) THE BREEDS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS…UNDERSTAND? I HOPE SO.. INDEPENDENT DOG BREEDERS ASSOCIATION,AMERICAN DOG BREEDERS ASSOCIATION …
PEACE MANDY
AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO, MR. DUKE!
I SAY,
HAPPY NEW YEAR DR. GONZO!
roflmao
Thanks, Bob. I needed that.
“Shouting makes you look like a loon. Especially when you are wrong.”
WHAT?
“It’s perfectly legal to regulate animal ownership.”
LEGAL TO REGULATE? ISN’T THAT REDUNDANT REDUNDANT?
“Try to keep a crocodile in your apartment and then call Wildlife and Fisheries and your state animal authorities. Try it with a tiger or a bear. Even an owl.”
I SAY, YOU SOUND LIKE DR. SEUSS.
“Pitbulls are not a Constitutionally protected property right no matter how loudly you scream.”
WHAT? I CAN’T HEAR YOU. DID YOU IMPLY THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS PROTECTS PROPERTY OTHER THAN REAL PROPERTY VIA THE 5TH AMENDMENT? WHAT?
“The government is free to ban ownership of (or trading in) just about anything other than guns.”
WHAT? WHICH GOVERNMENT; THE ONE IN OHIO? WHAT? I SAY SON, DID I MISS A MEMO? WHEN DID THE SECOND AMENDMENT BECOME APPLICABLE TO THE STATES? SAY AGAIN?
“Simple fact. And those rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government are retained by the States individually.”
I SAY SON, YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF; SEEING HOW THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS YET TO BE INCORPORATED.
“But please, feel free to show how dog ownership by breed is a protected class according to the U.S. Constitution.”
WHAT? SON, THE MERE FACT THAT THE GERMAN SHEPHERD IS DEPICTED AS A POLICE OFFICER IN ANIMATED AND REAL ACTION FILMS IS TESTIMONY TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE ‘POLICE POWERS’ OF THE CONSTITUTION. OH WAIT, ARE THERE ANY POLICE POWERS SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION; OTHER THAN WITHIN THE 13TH AMENDMENT? I SAY SON, I’M CONFUSED. HOW DID FEDERAL PENAL LAWS COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT POLICE POWERS SON? SOMETHING SOMETHING TAX ACTS? I SAY SON, WHAT HAPPENED TO ARTICLE V?
WHAT? I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
Shouting makes you look like a loon. Especially when you are wrong.
It’s perfectly legal to regulate animal ownership.
Try to keep a crocodile in your apartment and then call Wildlife and Fisheries and your state animal authorities. Try it with a tiger or a bear. Even an owl. See how well that works out for you if you don’t have the requisite licenses, proper facilities and adequate insurance.
Pitbulls are not a Constitutionally protected property right no matter how loudly you scream. The government is free to ban ownership of (or trading in) just about anything other than guns. Simple fact. And those rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government are retained by the States individually. Unless your state has a pitbull specific proviso, you’re outta luck.
But please, feel free to show how dog ownership by breed is a protected class according to the U.S. Constitution.
That ought to be a hoot.
Especially with animals not being people legally speaking but rather chattel.
Pitbulldogs can never be banned heres why……
——————————————————————————–
IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS WHO OWN PARTICULER BREEDS OF DOGS ..IF THERE IS A BAN AGAINST ONE BREED THE LAW MUST APPLY TO ALL BREEDS BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR OWNING A PARTICULER BREED (IE OREGON STATE )..THEY HAD TO MAKE THEIR BITE LAWS ALL INCLUSIVE FOR ALL BREEDS BECAUSE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION THAT AFFECTED CITIZENS RIGHT TO NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR OWNING A PARTICULER BREED…THE BREEDS , DOGS THEMSELVES HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IT IS THE CITIZEN THAT DOES… AND ALL BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION CAN BE FOUGHT AND WON BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST…AS A PITBULL OWNER OR OWNER OF ANY BREED “DON’T FORGET THIS” AND THE ACLU WILL HELP BASED ON THIS…..IT WAS DONE IN OREGON AND CAN BE DONE EVERYWHERE SO LONG AS YOU FIGHT FOR (YOUR RIGHT ) NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, NOT THE (BREEDS RIGHT) THE BREEDS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS…UNDERSTAND? I HOPE SO.. INDEPENDENT DOG BREEDERS ASSOCIATION,AMERICAN DOG BREEDERS ASSOCIATION …
PEACE MANDY
One day we Humans, that are supposedly the most intelligent life form on earth, will be fired by God, as care takers of this planet. We never accept responsiblity for our own actions. We simply blame the bad things we do on the innocent creatures of God we are suppose to be caring for.
No one blames the parent that stands by and lets their child poke at a dog or yell and swing at a dog. Instead they rally around that same parent when the dog can not take any further abuse and strikes back. They scream sue and kill the dog.
It is time to start being the intelligent life forms here and teach our young to do what is right and teach our adults that they are to be held responsible for their actions.
Now we use the poor pit bulls as a scape goat for our bad behavoir, which poor breed will be next. When will it end.
What are we teaching the future decision makers of this planet???
But seriously,
I live next door to a pitbull and his owners..all are really nice people (dogs are people too, better believe it) and the breed has come in for a bad rap.
I am in a dangerous mood tonight. An old employee who I had to let go years ago, had the temerity to write me requesting a recommendation letter! This irritates me.
So to pitbull fanciers:
A questionaire for you.
Do you drive an
(a) Subaru, or
(b) Hummer or other SUV, F-series truck etc.
Do you vote
(a) Democrat, or
(b) Republican
Do you approve of
(a) strict regulation on gun ownership, or
(b) unlimited and unregulated gun ownership
When one of your friends tells a sexist or racist joke, do you
(a) squirm inwardly and remain silent, or
(b) compete with the rest of the guys in laughing loudly
Do you get your information from
(a) books written by academics, or
(b) talk radio
The biggest tragedy of the last year was when,
(a) you missed an issue of the Nation, or
(b) your meth lab blew up.
Your second pet is,
(a) A cat named “Mr Slinkster”
(b) A boa constrictor you feed live hamsters too
Do you blame pitbull regulations on
(a) actuarial statistics on pitbull attacks, or
(b) “Elitest” liberal snobs.
scoring: 1-2 “a” answers: you’ve got a point. I will listen to your arguments. 3-6 “a” answers: you mistook the breed: its probably a black lab. 1-2 “b” answers: I don’t want to argue with you, you’ll probably sic’ your pitbull on me if you lose; 3-6 “b” answers, tell us about the 50 cal machine gun that you got at the gun show.
I, personally…
Am an American Pit Bull Terrier owner…
Today, I had an unwanted visit from the “Dog Catcher”…
Basically, I have until Friday, its Tuesday now, to have locks on my gates, a muzzle for my dog, 100,000 dollar insurance, a chain-link leash, a “vicious” dog license…Or they will take and Kill my pet…
Too much…
Just for owning a dog? Are you serious?
Not only do “Pit Bulls” pass the temperament tests with an 82% while Golden Retrievers pass with a 76%, they are probably the most loving, loyal and protective animal you could own…
It is crazy to me to punish good owners because of others mistakes…
To me, this is the same as killing every black person we see because some of them are “gangsters”…
America: Home to Useless Stereotypes…
We teach our children in school about the maniac Hitler and all the wrong he did…When our whole country follows in his footsteps, but with animals…
My “Pit Bull” is a member of my family, I have 3 kids…2 little boys, and Soldier the American Pit Bull Terrier…And its sad to know a member of my family is not accepted in today’s society…
I would like to point out that although not highly publicized, the Ohio Tellings case involves far more than what appears on the surface. Evidence was taken from the court file and a video tape was destroyed as well. Someone burned down Mr. Tellings’ residence after he left Ohio. Proponents and the group which helped procure the canine experts for Tellings know that these cases are extremely political. Most barristers don’t realize that major so-called animal activist groups such as PETA and HSUS are in favor of eliminating all pitbull dogs. HSUS purports to say otherwise but that’s nonsense. Cases are known where dogs are tortured or killed to prove that pitbull dogs should not exist. This type of extremist activity is covered by the federal AETA. It is a known fact that dog warden Skeldon of Toledo was taped on video torturing a dog. The S of L lapsed and he could not be prosecuted. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Tellings’ case shows there was NO rational basis for the law and unless you have the transcript, you would be guessing. A current case in Aurora, CO and another in Denver, CO are both active; Aurora has a trial date set for later this year. There is no rational basis for the Aurora ordinance. That ordinance has named 10 breeds of dogs without any justification whatsoever. If anyone attempts to challenge any canine law involving BSL, be forewarned that you will need to know everything re what led up to the passage of the law. The reason we know this, is because we have worked on it for so long, and most so called experts out there, are not experts when it comes to genetics of canines. [It has also been proven that a pitbull dog cannot be identified beyond a reasonable doubt, thus a criminal charge will not stand if handled properly.] And as some of you may know, Kory Nelson of Denver (city atty) has made it his job to engage his own Yahoo groups re dangerous dogs in an effort to convince other municipalites to use BSL. The Colorado Legislature in 2004, passed a bill prohibiting such laws (breed specific canine laws) from being used in Colorado. Denver’s law allegedly passed review because they have home rule. However, that may change if we have anything to say about it down the line.
Doesn’t get along with my Pug-weiler!
Jan,
I do hope you weren’t thinking I was advocating euthanasia for selected dog breeds.
I am a “dog person” since youth.
Although I am very, very disappointed with my designer Corgie-man Pinscher!!
I hope they do call the “mutts” as witnesses so the court can see how wonderful and people-friendly these dogs are and how awful it would be to euthanize such dogs. Most pit bulls are friendly around people and they should see that. I would completely trust my dogs in the courtroom and would not worry at all about one of them “angrily fastening himself” to the SG.
“The passage of a breed-specific law or breed bans are “artificial” (having no basis in science) in nature but then trigger violations of such laws by anyone merely possessing such a dog.”
Having been nearly licked to death, myself, by dozens upon dozens of vicious canines of various breeds, including several of the most notorious and noteworthy offenders listed by homeowner insurance carriers across America.
Finally, the public interest has come front and center.
Breed-specific laws have a hidden objective,which is to bypass the need to obtain a warrant.
Breed-specific laws = warrantless search and seizure.
As Mr. Turley clearly lays out, municipalties that pass or defend such laws only must show they are “reasonable”, not whether they are based on fact.
(btw – neither the CDC nor the AVMA support breed-specific laws (BSL) as an effective means of reducing dog bites or preventing fatalities (avg. 24 per year nationally).
The passage of a breed-specific law or breed bans are “artificial” (having no basis in science) in nature but then trigger violations of such laws by anyone merely possessing such a dog.
Breed specific laws and measures allow municipalities and police to engage in criminal and racial profiling based on the breed of dog present in the home or on the front porch – AND and the same conduct warrantless searches and seizures while denying due process.
EXAMPLE:
Police are cruising a neighborhood and pass by a property where a suspected drug dealer resides. The suspects have a dog – which looks like a “pitbull”.
WITHOUT a breed-specific law:
To search the suspect’s premises or make an arrest, police would be required to obtain enough evidence to obtain a warrant.
WITH a breed-specific law:
To seach the premises or make an arrest, the police need only meet the threshold of the violation of the breed specific law – in other words possession of an “illegal” dog.
Breed-specific laws are often used in poor or minority neighborhoods or are also used to drive minorities out of certain towns or cities.
By criminalizing the dog, one then criminalizes the owner.
You are certainly right! But I am not sure they would “duck the issue” as you suggested. More likely they would be wary of “setter” ing a precedent or appearing “pug”nacious in overriding the state court!
The consequences of pitbull prejudice especially if backed by the force of law might give legislators, and jurists too, ideas of a dangerous nature: like not all breeds are created equal nor people either.
We might be tempted to legislate mandatory incarceration or “neutralization” of rabid political figures such as Boehner, or Coburn, or…the list is just too long.
But all levity aside your point is well taken although if the mutts were called as witnesses and then one angrily fastened himself to the SG or worst one of the Bench, it might prejudice the case ir-“retriever” ably.
I am heart-broken to see our nation torn apart and disrespected in the world, all because of Pres. Bush and his cohorts. This pit bulls case is an ideal fit for the present Supreme Court. The nation and especially the Supreme Court “have gone to the dogs”, so for this dog case to go to the Supreme Court is the ultimate irony. The newest members of the court have swayed it decidedly to the right, against individual liberties and in favor of an uncontrollable presidency, so it is likely they will just duck the issue and leave it to the states. That would be very inconsistent with the rulings of the court on the election reform and seat-belt laws where the court and the federal government intruded on the states where those matters should have been left to the states. Maybe if the Supreme Court accepts this case for cert, the dogs will be called as witnesses and the whole world can see that such dogs can be very gentle and loyal, unlike the members of the Court, the White House or the Congress. The entire Bush Administration and all of its appointees are committing crimes against the Constitution every day. Maybe these pitbulls can lead the way for the rest of America to stem the tide and reverse course. We need a government that really champions individual liberty and democracy snd not just give lip service to such high-minded ideals while doing exactly the opposite in reality. Breed specific laws are outrageous, just as it would be offensive to enact laws banning hispanics or blacks, or Jews, etc.
I would doubt that the Court will grant cert in this case (which after all is a poster child for the Federalist position that such issues are best left to the locals).
To paraphrase a former Justice: The court must avoid the kennels of pooch regulations!