Justices review city’s vicious-dog law ‘s

By Marc Kovac

The top court didn’t say when it would rule on Youngstown’s dog ordinance.

11That’s part of the question the Ohio Supreme Court will have to decide as it considers whether a Youngstown city ordinance requiring owners of vicious dogs to keep them confined and controlled is unconstitutional. Oral arguments were heard in the case Tuesday in Columbus.

The case stems from an incident in April 2007, when a Youngstown man and his small dog were attacked by two unleashed and unaccompanied Italian Mastiff/Cane Corso dogs weighing 140 to 175 pounds, according to documents.

The man was bitten on the hand and wrist, and police officers who arrived at the scene shot and killed both attacking dogs.

The dog’s owner, Jammie Traylor, was subsequently charged with violating the city’s vicious-dog ordinance, which requires such animals to be securely leashed, restrained or confined within their owners’ properties or control.

The defendant sought to have the charges dismissed, arguing that the ordinance violated his due-process rights; and the dog warden “unilaterally and without a hearing” labeled his dogs as vicious, thus subjecting him to the criminal charges, according to documents.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and Traylor was found guilty, fined, sentenced to 90 days in jail and ordered to pay restitution to the victim.

But an appeals court vacated the convictions and sentence, stating that the city’s vicious-dog ordinance was unconstitutional, pursuant to previous Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

Youngstown City Prosecutor Jay Macejko said the court’s earlier decisions do not apply to this case, because officers do not have authority to make “presumptive determinations” that animals are vicious, according to documents. Instead, the ordinance requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that particular dogs are vicious and fall under its requirements.

James E. Lanzo, legal counsel for Traylor, disagreed.

“In this case, you have no notice ... that your dog is vicious, and you have no notice that you’re on this heightened standard,” Lanzo said. “And you have no notice that if your dog breaks free and potentially bites somebody... you could be subject to jail.”

Lanzo said that there’s nothing wrong with requiring dog owners to confine and control their animals. But he said the city ordinance does not include breed-specific language covering the dogs involved in the case, so the owner did not know in advance that he was covered by increased control requirements.

He added: “What I’m arguing is, before we subject someone to the potentiality of taking away their freedom, they should know: Hey, your dog’s vicious and you need to confine it in a special manner or you should divest yourself of it if you don’t want to risk running afoul of these statutes.”

Justices are considering the testimony and facts of the case and will make a decision at a later date.