Post by RealPitBull on Jan 30, 2008 16:21:43 GMT -5
Cities With Pit Bull Bans Monitor Federal Lawsuit
This article was published on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:50 PM CST in News
By John Lyon
THE MORNING NEWS
www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/01/29/news/013008lrdogbanlawsuit.txt
LITTLE ROCK - Arkansas cities prohibiting ownership of pit bulls are closely watching a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of breed-specific bans.
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, a nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit in December against four cities -- Jacksonville, Lonoke, North Little Rock and Beebe -- alleging each has an unconstitutional ordinance banning ownership of pit bull-type dogs. Four individual dog owners are also plaintiffs in the suit.
Several other Arkansas cities not named in the suit have similar bans.
The group's suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Little Rock, claims the ordinances violate the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment by discriminating against different classes of individuals without a rational government interest.
The suit also alleges the ordinances violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and are unconstitutionally vague and broad.
"They are seizing property -- and the dogs are valuable property -- without a proper warrant or anything else," said Chairman Roger Schnyer of Lonoke. "There is no proper trial being held because the dogs are being killed. ... They're destroying the evidence before any trial, so you can't have a fair trial."
No breed of dog is inherently vicious, Schnyer said. Doberman pinschers and Rottweilers also have had their turn in the spotlight as supposedly vicious dogs, he noted.
"Now it's just the pit bull's turn, and it's totally unfair," he said.
Arkansas Municipal League Attorney Michael Mosley, who is representing the defendants, denied the suit's allegations in an answer he filed Friday. Mosley declined a request for an interview Tuesday, saying he did not want to argue the case outside of court.
Schnyer said the suit was filed against just four cities because the individual plaintiffs live in those cities and claim to have been harmed by their breed bans. However, the outcome of the suit should have far-reaching effects, he said.
"I am interested, and I will be watching it," Maumelle City Attorney JaNan Davis said of the suit.
Though not named in the suit, Maumelle has had an ordinance banning ownership of dog breeds commonly known as pit bulls -- "pit bull" is not an official breed name -- since the 1980s.
Davis said Maumelle's ordinance was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1991, in the case Holt v. Maumelle. The Supreme Court rejected that suit's allegation the ordinance was too vague and said the city had a reasonable basis for including specific breeds of dog in its ban.
Davis acknowledged Arkansas' highest court does not have the final say on interpreting the U.S. Constitution, but she said she believes Maumelle's ordinance would stand up to a challenge at the federal level.
"I feel like the ordinance is constitutionally sound," she said. "My gut-level feeling is that it would pass an equal-protection challenge, but I haven't researched it and I couldn't give you my argument on that at this stage, because it hasn't been challenged that way."
Davis said the ordinance does not violate due process rights.
"If we were to confiscate a dog after notice was given that it was an illegal animal ... then we would give the owner appropriate notice of what would be done, and then go forward from that point giving them an opportunity to be heard," she said.
Pine Bluff has had an ordinance banning pit bull-type dogs since 2006. City Attorney Carol Billings said the ordinance does not ban show dogs or dogs residents owned before the law went into effect, though it does require owners to register the dogs with the city.
"I think we've made enough exceptions in ours that it would probably pass muster" if challenged in court, Billings said.
Hot Springs does not ban ownership of pit bulls, but it does prohibit the adoption of pit bulls from its animal shelter. If a pit bull winds up in the shelter and no one can prove ownership of it, the dog is euthanized, City Attorney Brian Albright said.
Albright said the city used to have a problem with people adopting dogs in order to train them to be aggressive.
"I think that gangs do it, think that street thugs do it, and I think that dog fighters do it," he said.
Albright said he does not believe the dogs are inherently vicious, but their bad reputation has made them popular with criminals.
"I think it's the reputation more than anything," he said. "I'm sure that any animal could be taught to be aggressive."
This article was published on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:50 PM CST in News
By John Lyon
THE MORNING NEWS
www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/01/29/news/013008lrdogbanlawsuit.txt
LITTLE ROCK - Arkansas cities prohibiting ownership of pit bulls are closely watching a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of breed-specific bans.
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, a nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit in December against four cities -- Jacksonville, Lonoke, North Little Rock and Beebe -- alleging each has an unconstitutional ordinance banning ownership of pit bull-type dogs. Four individual dog owners are also plaintiffs in the suit.
Several other Arkansas cities not named in the suit have similar bans.
The group's suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Little Rock, claims the ordinances violate the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment by discriminating against different classes of individuals without a rational government interest.
The suit also alleges the ordinances violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and are unconstitutionally vague and broad.
"They are seizing property -- and the dogs are valuable property -- without a proper warrant or anything else," said Chairman Roger Schnyer of Lonoke. "There is no proper trial being held because the dogs are being killed. ... They're destroying the evidence before any trial, so you can't have a fair trial."
No breed of dog is inherently vicious, Schnyer said. Doberman pinschers and Rottweilers also have had their turn in the spotlight as supposedly vicious dogs, he noted.
"Now it's just the pit bull's turn, and it's totally unfair," he said.
Arkansas Municipal League Attorney Michael Mosley, who is representing the defendants, denied the suit's allegations in an answer he filed Friday. Mosley declined a request for an interview Tuesday, saying he did not want to argue the case outside of court.
Schnyer said the suit was filed against just four cities because the individual plaintiffs live in those cities and claim to have been harmed by their breed bans. However, the outcome of the suit should have far-reaching effects, he said.
"I am interested, and I will be watching it," Maumelle City Attorney JaNan Davis said of the suit.
Though not named in the suit, Maumelle has had an ordinance banning ownership of dog breeds commonly known as pit bulls -- "pit bull" is not an official breed name -- since the 1980s.
Davis said Maumelle's ordinance was upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1991, in the case Holt v. Maumelle. The Supreme Court rejected that suit's allegation the ordinance was too vague and said the city had a reasonable basis for including specific breeds of dog in its ban.
Davis acknowledged Arkansas' highest court does not have the final say on interpreting the U.S. Constitution, but she said she believes Maumelle's ordinance would stand up to a challenge at the federal level.
"I feel like the ordinance is constitutionally sound," she said. "My gut-level feeling is that it would pass an equal-protection challenge, but I haven't researched it and I couldn't give you my argument on that at this stage, because it hasn't been challenged that way."
Davis said the ordinance does not violate due process rights.
"If we were to confiscate a dog after notice was given that it was an illegal animal ... then we would give the owner appropriate notice of what would be done, and then go forward from that point giving them an opportunity to be heard," she said.
Pine Bluff has had an ordinance banning pit bull-type dogs since 2006. City Attorney Carol Billings said the ordinance does not ban show dogs or dogs residents owned before the law went into effect, though it does require owners to register the dogs with the city.
"I think we've made enough exceptions in ours that it would probably pass muster" if challenged in court, Billings said.
Hot Springs does not ban ownership of pit bulls, but it does prohibit the adoption of pit bulls from its animal shelter. If a pit bull winds up in the shelter and no one can prove ownership of it, the dog is euthanized, City Attorney Brian Albright said.
Albright said the city used to have a problem with people adopting dogs in order to train them to be aggressive.
"I think that gangs do it, think that street thugs do it, and I think that dog fighters do it," he said.
Albright said he does not believe the dogs are inherently vicious, but their bad reputation has made them popular with criminals.
"I think it's the reputation more than anything," he said. "I'm sure that any animal could be taught to be aggressive."