You are on page 1of 7
Get a Document - by Citation - 57 Ohio St. 3d 168 Page | of 8 = ar — UL tor V Transactional Advisor ¥ Counsel Selector mh Focus Tes Search witin onpaiesits c=) BME Avance. Service: Got by LEXSEE® Caton: §7 ome st. 30168 57 Ohio St. 3d 168, *; 566 N.E.2d 1224, **; 11991 Ohio LEXIS 251, *** ‘THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. ANDERSON, APPELLEE No, 89-2113 Supreme Court of Ohio 57 Ohio St. 36 168; 566 N.E.20 1224; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 251 December 11, 1990, Submitted February 13, 1991, Decided Notice: rea SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended. PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Nos. 88AP-711 and SBAP-712. On October 21, 1987, the appellee, George M. Anderson, was charged wit, inter ala, falling to confine 2 vicious dog pursuant to R.C. 955/220) and failing to obtain ablity insurance for a vicious dog pursuant to RC. 965.2218). On February 17, 1988, the defendant filed 2 motion to dismiss these charges on the ground that R.C, 955.11, which defines a vicious dog and which is incorporated into these provisions by reference, is unconstitutionally vegue. On April t and 18, 1988, the trial court heard testimony from various witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense. On July 19, 1988, the trial court issued a written opinion finding R.C. 955.12(A)C4)(2)(u) to be lunconstitutionally void for vagueness. Accordingly, the court issued an order dismissing the charges against the appeliee concerning RC. 955.22(0) and (E). ‘The appellant, the state of Ohio, filed 2 notice of appeal in the court of appeals on August 9, 1988. On October 12, 1989, the Tenth District Court of [*##2] Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and declared R.C, 955,31 (8)¢4).9)(il) to be unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Finding its decision to be in confict with the decision of the ‘Twelfth District Court of Appeals in State v. Robinson (1989), 44 Onla App. 36 128, 541 N.E, 2d 1092, the court certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination. DISPOSITION: Judgment reversed and cause remanded. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The State of Ohio challenged a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeals (Ohio), which affirmed a trial court's finding that Ohio Rev. Code Ann, § 955.11(4)(4)(a)(il) was unconstitutionally ‘vague. Based on its finding, the trial court dismissed the charges against defendant under § 995.22(D)-(E), which Incorporated the vicious-dog definition of § 955,11¢4)(4)(a)(il), Including its reference to pit bull dogs. OVERVIEW: Defendant who owned pit bull dogs was charged with failure to confine a vicious dog, in violation of 5 955.22(D), and failure to obtain liability insurance for a vicious dog, in violation of § 955.22(E). Both of these ‘sections incorporated by reference the definition of a vicious dog under § 955.12(A)(4)(a)(ii), including its reference to pit bull dogs. The trial court found that § 955.11(A)(4)(2)(il) was unconstitutionally void for vagueness, and thus dismissed the charges against defendant. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, ruling that there was no dog commonly known as a pit bull dog and that therefore an individual of ordinary intelligence ‘would not be able to conduct his affairs so as to comply with the vicious-dog provisions. Upon further appeal, the court reversed. Specifically, the court held that pit bull dogs possessed unique and readily identifiable physical ‘and behavioral traits that were capable of recognition by both dog owners of ordinary intelligence and law enforcement personnel. Accordingly, the court concluded that the inclusion of pit bull dogs within the definition of vicious dogs under § 955.11(A)(4)(2)(il) was not unconstitutionally vague. OUTCOME: The court reversed the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case for a tral on the charges Get a Document - by Citation - 57 Ohio St. 3d 168 Page 2 of 8 against the defendant. In particular, the court held that the state law definition of a vicious dog, which included pit bull dogs, was not unconstitutionally vague because such dogs possessed unique and readily identifiable traits that were capable of recognition by both dog owners of ordinary intelligence and law enforcement personnel. CORE TERMS: dog, pit bull, commonly known, trait, dog owner, ownership, kennel clubs, vagueness, ordinance, behavioral, pit, unconstitutionally, void, ordinary intelligence, jaw, bull terrier, register, viclous, arrest, private Property, police power, appearance, village, bull, bite, harboring, precision, fighting, animal, notice LEXISNEXIS@ HEADNOTES = Hide emina Lan & Frocedure > Criminal Cfenses > Piscelaneaus Gtfenses > General Overview ‘tt &.See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.11(A)(4)(a)II). Constitutional Law > Bil of Rights > Fundamental Rights > Procedural Due Process > Scope of Protection Sa) ernments > Local Governments ® Police Power Sh Sovernments » Stats 8 Tecrtoral Govemmnts > Poice Power #8) "2.4 Private property is held subject to the general police power of a state and may be regulated pursuant to that power. Ohio Const. art 1, § 19, specifically recognizes the subordination of private property to the ‘general welfare. As a result of this subordination, police power regulations are upheld although they may Interfere with the enjoyment of liberty or the acquisition, possession and production of private property. Any exercise of the police power will be valid if it bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public and if it is not unreasonable or arbitrary. ore Like This Meadacte | shepards: Rest By Heainote Indamentel Rights > Procedure Owe Process > Scope of rotection #2 Governments > Agncuiture & Fond > Animal rote Hs SSoversments > State & Teritral Governments > Police Power fa 2 4 Among the regulations which are legitimate exercises of police power are those regulations addressing the ownership and control of dogs. ‘ore Like Ths Mescnote | Sheserize Reset By Hexdnote Rights > Fundamental Rights > Procedural Oye Process » Scope of Protection 2 Covarsments > Aanuture § Fad > Real Property Law > Torts > Nulsance > Types > Public Nuisance ‘m4 although dogs are private property to a qualified extent, they are subject to the state police power, and ‘might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as In the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens. Legislatures have broad police power to regulate all dags so as to protect the public against the nuisance posed by a vicious dog. tiore Like mis Heainete | Shenorive Prtection *) Governments > Legation > interoretation #8 Savernments > Local Governments > Qrcinances 8 Regulations Governments > State & Terrtonal Governments > Police Power ‘43.485 with all statutes designed to promote the public health, safety, and welfare, vicious dog ordinances enjoy a strong presumption of constitutlonaity. The party alleging that a statute is unconstitutional must prove this assertion beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prevall. wore ke Tas Hesse | Goveronents > Lepiotion » Overbrescth Soveraments > Lagilation > Vagueness ‘#™64.1n order to prove the assertion that a statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness, the challenging arty must show that the statute is vague not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his Conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. In other words, the challenger must show that upon examining the statute, {an individual of ordinary intelligence would not understand what he is required to do under the law. Hore Like This Heedote | Snanarsice:Restrct By Headnate Criminal Law & Procedure » Comal Ofansee » Miscellaneous 0 > General ovetew €) ‘™7%:The physical and behavioral traits of pit bull dogs 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. Hore Uke Ths Heaonate | Sheperice:Restnet By Meade Governments > Legisiation > Overbreadth a) http://www. lexis.com/research/retrieve?: m=ch7008h101 f0F71 aadhhakSaahOnOFPrn. cenasa

You might also like