irresponsible dog owners and only punish responsible dog owners, causing court litigation, wasted tax money and impoundment of
innocent dogs while criminalizing U.S. Citizens. There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive,
vicious or dangerous. Irresponsible owners are to blame for the behavior of dogs that are aggressive, vicious or dangerous. Breed
specific legislation is an injustice, genocide of dogs.
In Sentel v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad (1896) 166 US 698 nothing was stated to allow selective laws against specific breeds
of dog, it was stated that it is “practically impossible by statute to distinguish between the different dog breeds”. Id. at 701. Every
state now affords U.S. citizens due process rights for dog ownership under state dangerous dog statutes. 14 states prohibit breed
specific dog laws at the state and local level.
While the police power is broad it is not boundless, for the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the power
of the legislature to act with respect to private property. In particular, pertinent sections of the Fourteenth Amendment provide that no
state shall deprive any person of property with out due process of law, or deny any person equal protection of the law. If an ordinance
encourages arbitrary and erratic law enforcement, or if it places unlimited discretion in the hands of the police, the law will be
unconstitutionally vague and violative of due process Papachrista v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 168 (1972).
Nicchia v. People of State of New York, 254 U.S. 228 (1920) referred to the licensing of dogs. The U.S Supreme Court makes it very
clear that the requirement of dog licenses does not take one mans property and give it to another, nor does it deprive dog owners of
liberty without due process of law. The US Supreme Court supports a finding from a New York Appeals Court case, Fox v. Mohhawk &
H.R. Humane Society (1901) The US Supreme Court gives broad power to regulate and control dogs including drastic measures as
long as it does not take away due process. The Nicchia case clearly supports a finding that dog owners have a right to liberty and
due process.
Reported by Attorney S. Zendorf Toledo Ohio
“On August 30, 2002 the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a Circuit Court Decision that four American Pit Bull Terriers born at the
Huntsville Animal Control Shelter did not lack any useful purpose" as required by the local ordinance Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull
Puppies (Ala. 08-30-02), No.1010459, unreported. The court determined that the puppies were not trained to fight and were not
vicious. In addition, it held that three women who wanted to adopt them had a right to intervene.
The City of Huntsville claimed the Pit Bull puppies were genetically dangerous, used expert witness testimony, and appealed to the
Alabama Supreme Court after the lower court rejected its arguments and evidence. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the
Washington Animal Foundation’s petition to participate in the proceedings as Amicus Curiae because the Foundation is an expert on
canine genetics. The Foundation provided expert
testimony to prove that Pit Bulls and other breeds are not inherently genetically dangerous and must be trained to fight”.
S.Zendorf (Attorney at Law)
