OHIO Court hears objection to how dog case was handled

An assistant prosecutor said the owner had a chance to defend her dogs.
By MICHELE C. HLADIK
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBUS -- Dog owners should have a chance to dispute vicious-dog claims before becoming criminal defendants, said an attorney representing a Ravenna woman in a case before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Atty. Erik Jones of Akron, who represents Janice Cowan, said Cowan should have been given the chance to prove her dogs were innocent of biting her neighbor before being charged with a crime.
"You have to be charged with a crime before you can defend your property," Jones said Tuesday.
He said Cowan was not given due process because she was not allowed to defend her German Shepherds before they were declared vicious and dangerous dogs by the Portage County dog warden.
She was charged with three counts of confinement or restraint of a dangerous dog for three separate occasions and failure to obtain liability insurance for a vicious dog.
In 2001, two of Cowan's three German shepherds were accused of biting Cowan's neighbor.
Dog warden involved
The dog warden's office was called and reportedly visited Cowan, explaining the vicious dog laws.
The office was called again in November 2001 and in January 2002 with reports the dogs were loose in the neighborhood. Each time the dogs were found to be chained in the yard, but on the latter visit the charges were filed.
A jury found Cowan guilty of all four charges. In addition to paying court costs and a fine, Cowan was ordered to surrender the dogs to the county dog warden. She appealed with the 11th District Court of Appeals, which sits in Warren.
The appellate court agreed to halt the destruction or adoption of the dogs if Cowan paid $840 per month for their care.
Pamela Holder, an assistant Portage County prosecutor, said the appellate court erred, among other things, by relying on information not supported in the record.
During her oral argument, Holder said Cowan was given her "due process" and a chance to defend her dogs during the jury trial.
"There was no deprivation of property rights," Holder said.
Justice seemed to agree
Justice Maureen O'Connor seemed to agree when she told Jones his client had a chance at the trial to defend her dogs.
"She wasn't denied due process or had property taken in an administrative process," Justice O'Conner pointed out. "This was a court of law."
But Jones argued that by the time of trial, the dogs were already determined to be vicious because their behavior was judged by the dog warden at the time of the encounters.
He also said the state objected to attempts to let Cowan show the dogs were not vicious.
Holder, however, said the state did not object and Cowan had plenty of chances to prove her case.
The Supreme Court took the matter under advisement.