Statute aimed at vicious pets
Thursday, September 23, 2004T.C. Brown
Plain Dealer Bureau
Columbus - The law requiring owners of vicious or dangerous dogs to confine their pets and obtain liability insurance is unconstitutional, a sharply divided Ohio Supreme Court declared Wednesday.

In a 4-3 ruling, the high court said the state statute fails to provide dog owners with an opportunity to dispute the labeling of their dog as "vicious" or "dangerous" by dog wardens and is therefore not enforceable.

Thomas Skeldon, past president of the Ohio County Dog Wardens Association and chief dog warden of Lucas County, was stunned when told about the decision. "I think someone is feeding you a bunch of, . . ." said Skeldon, who was not part of the case. "This will make neighborhoods less safe than they are now." The decision upholds a ruling by the 11th Ohio District Court of Appeals, which had overturned the sentencing of Janice Cowan of Portage County. Cowan was fined $500 and given five days in jail for failing to keep insurance and restrain German shepherds that attacked and injured a neighbor in October 2001. A dog warden warned Cowan and told her she must get insurance and properly confine the dogs. After receiving two more complaints about the dogs, the warden cited Cowan for three misdemeanor violations. A jury found Cowan guilty. Cowan surrendered the dogs to the warden and they were later destroyed. The Supreme Court majority opinion, written by Justice Francis Sweeney, said Cowan had no opportunity to challenge the dog warden's decision until her trial. "We find it inherently unfair that a dog owner must defy the statutory regulations and become a criminal defendant, thereby risking going to jail and losing her property, in order to challenge a dog warden's unilateral decision to classify her property," Sweeney wrote. The law fails to provide safeguards like an administrative hearing or a right to appeal, Sweeney said. Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, joined by Justice Maureen O'Connor, wrote an extensive dissent, saying that the law requires owners to take action to restrain their dangerous dogs to protect the public from harm. A dog warden's role is no different than that of a police officer who issues a warning to a motorist, Moyer said. "Surely the majority does not mean to imply that a citizen is entitled to an administrative hearing before a law enforcement officer may issue a warning and advise changes in conduct," Moyer wrote. Justice Terrence O'Donnell dissented separately. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: tcbrown@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272