Are State Law, City Ordinance Regulating All Pit Bulls as ‘Vicious Dogs’ Unconstitutional?
City of Toledo v. Paul Tellings, Case no. 2006-0690 6th District Court of Appeals (Lucas County) ISSUE: Do provisions of state law and a Toledo city ordinance that define as “vicious dogs” all dogs of the breed commonly referred to as pit bulls, and that impose special requirements on owners of pit bulls, violate the U.S. and Ohio constitutions? BACKGROUND: In this case, Paul Tellings of Toledo was cited by a city dog warden for violating a city ordinance that limits ownership of dogs identified as pit bulls to one such animal per household, and requires pit bull owners to provide proof of at least $100,000 of liability insurance coverage for personal injuries caused by the dog. Tellings, who was forced to get rid of two of three pit bulls he kept as family pets, entered a plea of not guilty in Toledo Municipal Court. He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that the Toledo ordinance and a state law regulating all pit bulls as “vicious dogs” were
