toledoblade.com --

A local dog owner is asking Toledo Municipal Court to rule that a city law that defines all pit bulls as vicious dogs is unreasonable and violates his constitutional rights.

"My dogs aren't vicious," said Paul Tellings of East Toledo. "I want this law to change. It's wrong."

Because the Toledo law in question is based on the Ohio Revised Code - which classifies all pit bulls as vicious dogs - the argument in the Tellings case represents a new challenge to state law that could also affect several other area municipalities with similar laws.

Mr. Tellings is charged with violating a section of the Toledo Municipal Code that says a person may keep only one vicious dog. When authorities charged Mr. Tellings in July, he owned two American Bulldogs, which are commonly called pit bulls.

His attorney, Sol Zyndorf, argued that the charges should be dismissed because the Toledo law is unconstitutional. He said it violates a dog-owner's right to equal protection under the law because it unreasonably discriminates against pit bulls.

The American Canine Foundation, based in Washington State, supports Mr. Tellings.

Glen Bui, a spokesman for the foundation, said pit bulls are not born vicious, but people can train them to be violent. He said the real problem is owners who train dogs to fight.

"The only thing this law does is criminalize responsible dog owners," Mr. Bui said.

Several previous cases have challenged laws in Ohio that target certain breeds, but most claimed that the definition of a pit bull was too vague. Arguing that the laws violate an owner's right to equal protection and property rights represents a shift in tactics.

The Toledo court has not ruled on whether to dismiss the case. Regardless of the outcome, Mr. Zyndorf said he plans to appeal the case to a higher court because municipal courts rarely rule on constitutional issues.

"The main goal is to change the law in Ohio," Mr. Zyndorf said.

Dog owners have had some success loosening collars in other states. A Louisiana district court struck down a county ordinance labeling pit bulls as vicious. The court, in a November decision, ruled the law was unconstitutional, Mr. Bui said.

Eleven states have laws that forbid declaring a dog dangerous because of its breed, he said. Ohio and Michigan are not among them.

Mr. Zyndorf said he plans to present expert testimony and statistics on dog bites to show that there is no scientific basis for saying pit bulls are vicious based on their genetics.

In previous cases, however, Ohio courts have said that pit bulls have great biting strength and a history of ferocity and unpredictability not found in other dog breeds.

"Unlike dogs who attack merely to protect a person or his property and then retreat once the danger has passed, pit bulls besiege their victims relentlessly, until severe injury or death results," the Ohio Supreme Court decided in 1991.

Many municipalities in northwest Ohio have similar dog laws that target pit bulls.

Wauseon, Delta, and Swanton passed vicious dog laws in 2001 that are the strictest in the area. The nearly identical village laws require a dog owner to carry $250,000 in liability insurance, more than double the state requirement of $100,000.

Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon has said laws limiting pit bull ownership are needed to make citizens safer when the dogs are outside the owners' homes. His office has impounded an increasing number of pit bulls in recent years.

Mr. Tellings said he supports laws that crack down on dog fighting but claimed his dogs are well-behaved household pets. He said his dogs have never caused problems, and the dog warden only found out about them because a health inspector checking his house for lead paint reported them.

He said his dogs are so gentle that they lick and protect a family of squirrels living in his backyard.

"If they're so mean, how can they be taking care of these squirrels?" he said. "It's not the dog, it's the owner that makes them fight."

Permanent Link