The State of Ohio vs. Anderson
No. 89-2113
Supreme Court of Ohio
57 Ohio St. 3d 168; (1991)
Summary: The State of Ohio challenged a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeal (Ohio), which affirmed a trial court's finding that the Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case for trial on the charges.
The high court stated: "In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness."
In general, this means that owners of dogs that conform to dogs "commonly known as a pit bull," (despite the owner's claim that the dog is American bulldog or cane corso) fall under the Ohio state pit bull statue.
The State of Ohio vs. Anderson
No. 89-2113
Supreme Court of Ohio
57 Ohio St. 3d 168; (1991)
Summary: The State of Ohio challenged a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeal (Ohio), which affirmed a trial court's finding that the Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case for trial on the charges.
The high court stated: "In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness."
In general, this means that owners of dogs that conform to dogs "commonly known as a pit bull," (despite the owner's claim that the dog is American bulldog or cane corso) fall under the Ohio state pit bull statue.
The State of Ohio vs. Anderson
No. 89-2113
Supreme Court of Ohio
57 Ohio St. 3d 168; (1991)
Summary: The State of Ohio challenged a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeal (Ohio), which affirmed a trial court's finding that the Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case for trial on the charges.
The high court stated: "In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness."
In general, this means that owners of dogs that conform to dogs "commonly known as a pit bull," (despite the owner's claim that the dog is American bulldog or cane corso) fall under the Ohio state pit bull statue.
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 chargesGet 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