Monday, 9 February 2015

The Ohio Supreme Court wrote a decision Stating "a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can identify a pit bull."

For additional accurate information on the public safety Danger of Pit Bull Type Dogs visit:
In Ohio the Supreme Court wrote a decision in the state of Ohio v. Anderson that used the words over and over "a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can identify a pit bull."

Here is a quote " In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull dog" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

Pit bull dogs possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behavioral traits which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel.

Consistent and detailed descriptions of the pit bull dog may be found in canine guidebooks, general reference books, state statutes and local ordinances, and state and federal case law dealing with pit bull legislation.

By reference to these sources, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog within the meaning of R.C. 955.11 (A)(4)(a)(iii).

Similarly, by reference to these sources, dog wardens, police officers, judges, and juries can enforce the statute fairly and evenhandedly. Consequently, we find that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. "

Toledo v. Tellings covers the ID issue as well as constitutionality, this is also a state Supreme Court ruling.

The question presented in this appeal is whether R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is constitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.
R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) provides in pertinent part:

No comments: