BSL Litigation
Lakewood, OH
- Details
- Category: BSL Litigation
- Published on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 22:27
- Written by Super User
Complaint Filed Challenging
BSL Against
City of Lakewood, OH
A thirty page complaint was filed in Federal Court against the City of Lakewood, Ohio, alleging that the Breed Specific Legislation in the City Ordinance is unconstitutional. The full complaint for those of you legally inclined can be read here. The complaint asks for declaratory, injunctive relief and § 1983 damages.
The case is Tarquinio v. City of Lakewood, and was filed by Kristi L. Haude. It would seem that she is related to Dan Haude, who filed Smith v. Toledo, which resulted in that city re-writing BSL out of their Dangerous Dog ordinance.
The case alleges that Chapter 506 of the Lakewood City Ordinance is unconstitutional both procedurally and substantively, violates due process, is vague, and that Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the enforcement of an unconstitutional ordinance. It also alleges that the ordinance violates the Home Rule doctrine of the Ohio Constitution.
It seems to me that this suit is following the blueprint of Smith v. Toledo, as well it should since that case was sucessful. One of the weak points in the Lakewood ordinance, is that it allows the Director of Public Safety to make a pit bull classfication "with or without a hearing." In addition, if an owner wants to challenge the classification of the dog as a pit bull, the burden of proof is on the owner. The complaint alleges that Lakewood's policy is not to inform that they can ask for a hearing, and there is no rhyme or reason why a hearing may be granted or denied.
I will be following this case closely. Ms. Haude has done a great job with the initial pleadings in her complaint.
Follow this story and all Pit Bull related legal news by joining our facebook page.
No commentsDenver, CO
- Details
- Category: Denver, CO
- Published on Saturday, 19 March 2011 02:30
- Written by Super User
Denver, CO
Dias v. City of Denver
Pleadings - Motion For Summary Judgment - Denied!
After the Dias Motion to Dismiss was reversed and sent back to the trial court, the first thing the City did was file a Motion for Summary Judgment. It was their contention that there was no factual issue as to whether the ban was rationally related to public safety. If the judge agreed, the case would be over and there would be no need to have a trial. The Motion filed by the City, together with attachments can read in their entirety at the links below.
When filing a Motion for Summary Judgment, the factual basis for the Motion must be attached. The City's entire argument rests on the opinion of Alan M. Beck. I urge you to read his opinions below in their entirety. In my opinion, he misrepresents the science and research currently available regarding BSL.
City of Denver Motion to Summary Judgment
Exhibit A1 - Affidavit of Alan M. Beck
Exhibit A2 - Report of Alan M. Beck
Exhibit A3 - Report of Alan M. Beck 2
Exhibit A4 - Deposition of Randall Lockwood
Exhibit A5 - Deposition of Plaintiff Engel
Exhibit A6 - Deposition of Plaintiff Dias
Exhibit A7 - Deposition of Alan M. Beck
Exhibit A9 - Colorado Dog Fanciers Court Opinion
Exhibit A10 - Denver Ordinance
Exhibit A11 - Egelhoff Court Opinion
Exhibit A12 - Egelhoff transcript of hearing
Exhibit A13 - American Canine v. City of Aurora Decision
Dias responded to the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Motion and Exhibits attached to that motion are set out below. As can be seen, there are numerous experts in various scientific fields that testify that BSL is unfair and ineffective. Again, I urge you to read the exhibits to get an idea of the current state of science regarding BSL.
Dias Response to City of Denver Motion for Summary Judgment
Exhibit 2 - Report Randall Lockwood
Exhibit 4 - Report Karen Overall, MA, VMD, PHD
Exhibit 6 - Report David L. Banks, PHD
Exhibit 8 - Deposition of Douglas Kelley
Exhibit 9 - Deposition of Randall Lockwood
Exhibit 10 - Deposition of Karen Overall, MA, VMD, PHD
Exhibit 11 - Deposition of David L. Banks
Exhibit 12 - Deposition of Bonnie Beaver
Exhibit 13 - Denver Ordinance Breed Standards
Exhibit 14 - Affidavit Plaintiff Dias
Exhibit 15 - Deposition of Alan M. Beck
Exhibit 16 - CDC Dog Bite Fact Sheet
Exhibit 17 - Deposition Plaintiff Dias
Exhibit 18 - Report Breed Ban Italy and the Netherlands
Exhibit 19 - Mars Insights DNA Testing Results
Exhibit 21 - Bahamas Report on Pit Bull Attacks
Exhibit 22 - Delta Society Statement
Exhibit 23 - Bonnie Beaver CV
Exhibit A3 - Report Alan M. Beck
Exhibit A5 - Deposition Plaintiff Engel
The court ultimately ruled against the City of Denver, the order is at the link below.
Order Denying City of Denver Motion for Summary Judgment
The case will now go to a jury trial when the Court sets a date.
Toledo, OH
- Details
- Category: Toledo, OH
- Published on Saturday, 19 March 2011 02:22
- Written by Super User
Victory In Toledo!
The first chink in the armor of BSL in over a decade was created by Attorney Dan Haude when he took on the case of Hugh Smith. Haude, a pit bull owner and lover, took the case pro bono, and litigated the definintion contained in the Toledo ordinance of Pit Bull. It was an incredible victory against great odds. He persuaded the trial court that the dogs Mr. Smith owned were Cane Corsos, and the fact that they could be fit into the definition of "pit bull" under the ordinance made the definition unconstitutional. He also sucessfully argued that the City of Toledo did not have the power to require muzzling since it conflicted with state law. The City appealed. In the interim, the City Commission passed a new dangerous dog law that was not breed specific.
Politics, Pit Bulls and The Man Behind The Curtain
- Details
- Category: Miami, FL
- Published on Monday, 05 March 2012 20:07
- Written by Jo Ann Staats
Commisioner admits ban ineffective
Miami-Dade enacted a ban on pit bulls in 1987. Over the course of the past 25 years the Commissioners have ignored and dismissed the voices of residents across Dade County and specifically within the Miami Metro area. Until now.
Until Representative Carlos Trujillio introduced HB997, a bill that would remove Miami-Dade’s power to leave the ban in effect. The bill has gained traction recently and is scheduled to go before a House Panel tomorrow. Representative Trujillio stated via text messages with Commissioner Esteban Bovo that he would agree to pull his support from the bill if the Commission followed through with adding the ban repeal to the August ballot.
This has advocates from all levels concerned. Miami-Dade has failed to hear pleas for change for more than two-decades. The voice of the people was discounted and rarely heard in years past, the sudden willingness of the Commission to now provide voters the opportunity to make a statement appears nothing short of an attempt to protect the local government’s power over the people.
Read more: Politics, Pit Bulls and The Man Behind The Curtain
Legal Classification of Mixed Breed Pitbulls-Miami
- Details
- Category: Miami, FL
- Published on Monday, 01 August 2011 17:56
- Written by Fred M. Kray
Legal Classification of Mixed Breed Pitbulls - Miami
Scientific or Junk Science?
Working on BDL cases allows me to see inside the procedures used by various cities and counties to classify mixed breed dogs as pitbulls. There is no national training that I have ever seen on visual identification of mixed breed pit bulls. Nor is there any science that indicates that such identifications are accurate. In fact, the current science of visual identification shows that shelter personnel are only 25% accurate when judging breed by visual identification. Victoria Voith wrote the article and the information can be seen here. If experts cannot determine mixed breeds by visual identification, how can animal control personnel accurately do so?
But they do. All over the US. The leading case on animal control officers being used to identify pitbulls is Cardelle v. Miami Dade, a case that has been discussed before here.
So what actually happened at the trial in Cardelle v. Miami Dade? You can read the entire transcript here. Read it and be amazed. The trial transcript will lead you to several conclusions:
- The trial process is totally unfair; the fact finder is simply biased [God forbid something happens];
- The animal control officer did not make a fair assessment-he looked at the dog from several feet [I didn't want to get that close to it.] and then went out to his truck to fill out the form;
- The animal control officer has NEVER had the accuracy of his evaluations confirmed-just because you do a lot of them doesn't mean they are accurate;
- The animal control officer is being coy when he says he does not know how many dogs he has classified as pit bulls-he simply does not want anyone to know it is close to 100%;
- The animal control officer knows that his evaluations are not scientific, when he refuses to test the accuracy of his background with pictures [I'm not going to speculate.];
- The dividing line of 50% is arbitrary-as we know they have changed the percentage now to 70%.
The attorney representing the Cardelle's clearly had problems with the affidavits from the veterinarians. Either they refused to say the dog was "predominantly" pit bull as the statute required, or the attorney failed to properly track the statute in creating the affidavits. This was an important issue, because the judge was allowed to disregard the affidavits because they did not rule out the dog was a mixed breed pit.
Clearly the court was mortified at what happened at the trial level, and attempted to inject some science into what had thus far been a subjective process.
And that is why they decided Cardelle v. Miami Dade in the manner they did.
The takeaway is that in every case, the government must be required to show there is science behind their classification. If you think Miami Dade is bad, you should see how they do it in Moses Lake, WA. But that is a story for another time.
