Posted On: July 31, 2006, 5:06 pm CDT

Posted By: john more

The Appellate Court went on to declare these laws unconstitutional for two other reasons, both of which are extremely significant to those who have argued against breed-specific legislation for many years. First, the Court ruled that the laws violated an owner's right to equal protection since there is no rational basis to single out pit bulls as inherently dangerous. It stated that breed-specific laws "have in the past been enacted based on outdated information that perpetuates a stereotypical image of pit bulls." The Court found no new evidence to prove that these breeds are any more dangerous than others. Regulating or limiting pit bull ownership was therefore "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."

On appeal, Tellings challenged the constitutionality of two of the laws. The appellate court, in reaching it's decision, considered the transcript of the trial court, which reflected five days of testimony by 16 witnesses, many of them experts. In the process of reviewing this record, the court learned that many of the "beliefs and 'myths' about pit bulls [were] simply untrue and unsupported by now accepted scientific, genetic, medical, or canine behavior principles".

Although the court concluded that since pit bulls, which are either an American Staffordshire Terrior, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or an American Pit Bull Terrior, have qualities like gameness, or stick-to-it-ness, as well as an affinity to "bite and hold," most public opinions about this highly obedient, eager to please breed are not based facts. For example, the court found the pit bull has neither a locking jaw, nor more strength different from other dogs of it's size and build. The court also discussed at length how ten breeds of non-pit bull dogs are easily confused with a pit bull. The court noted that although some pit bulls have unsavory owners, many are well behaved family pets.

The court also berated reliance upon "bare statistics" about the pit bull breed, which do not reflect the relationship between the incidents and the total breed population. The court noted that the assertion that pit bulls have a bite force of 2,000 pounds per square inch is not supported by scientific evidence.

In terms of the court's constitutional analysis, the court found that the state laws denied Tellings' his constitutional procedural due process rights, which include the meaningful oppor-tunity to be heard before a determination of vicious dog is made. The court pointed to a 2004 Ohio Supreme Court decision, State v. Cowen, which addressed this issue.

The court expressed disdain for the "regulation and limitation on a specific breed for reasons unrelated to that breed, but related to human misconduct or negligence in ownership of the breed". The court determined that these kinds of laws, based upon mere ownership, were "arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory". Thus, the court found R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) unconstitutional as the law bore no real or substantive relationship to a state interest.

For similar reasons, the court struck down T.M.C. Section 505.14, which limited a person to own only one vicious dog. Laws which "relied on the now disproved presumption that pit bulls, as a breed, are inherently dangerous, are unconstitutional since they lack a rational or real and substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest".

And, finally, the court determined that the "statutes violate the defendant's rights to due process because there is no rational basis to identify a pit bull." Essentially, this is a void for vagueness standards, since so many dogs look like pit bulls. In summary, the court struck down both breed-specific statutes and ordinances pertaining to unconstitutional vicious dog laws, based upon lengthy legal consideration of fact and fiction about pit bulls.