Vicious Dog Roundup - Des Moines

Des Moines, October 28th, 2005 -Des Moines police say register your dog or they'll take it away. The city says there are 66 unlicensed, vicious dogs in Des Moines. Last month the city sent warning letters to the homes with the unlicensed dog.

Thursday, officers went to those homes to follow up. The dogs that were found were taken to the pound. In order to license a vicious dog, owners need to show the city proof of a $100,000 insurance policy. Officers say it's all part of keeping a community safe.

Staffordshire terriers, American pitt bull terriers, and American staffordshire terriers are all automatically considered vicious by city ordinance. The city can also declare a dog vicious based on behavior

http://www.whotv.com/Global/story.a...040069&nav=LotJ

 

That is so unconstitutional, it just enrages me!

 

LOL. I'm the true bitch in my household!

 

This is about 45 mins away from me....Iowa is a mess!

 

It seems to be everywhere nowadays. I think we should have a pic of a sad pit bull with the saying "Damned if I do, Damned if I don't" on it.

 

Mia it seems I have seen this pic somewhere? IOWA=Idiots Out Walking Aimlessly

 

Staffordshire terriers, American pitt bull terriers, and American staffordshire terriers are all automatically considered vicious by city ordinance

thats F----- up. complete bull @#$# if you ask me:mad:

 

Be kinda nice if they spell pit bull right instead of pitt bull unless im wrong lol.

 

I'm afraid, it's only going to get worse for us all. Insurance, that's crazy.

 

That worries me here in Lincoln, nebraska. they've already got laws in Council Bluffs outlawing "Pit bull-type" dogs. luckly thou, those people in Council Bluffs could just move to the other side of the river in Omaha and omaha dosen't have those kind of BSL (at least as far as i know, please correct me if i'm wrong) i'm just waitin for the time when i'm going to be needed to fight for the right to keep my baby in my house with me, cuz i'm sure it will come eventually...

 

I know of no provision of the constitutions of the United States or of any state which guarantees the right to own the pet of your choice. If you can point me to such a provision or a court decision so interpreting a constitution, I'd like to see it.

Yeah, it's a stupid law, yeah, Des Moines city councilmen probably couldn't tell a pitbull from a miniature Dobermann if both dogs were pissing on their legs. The law probably will do little to reduce dog attacks, and make the lives of a lot of pets and their owners miserable.

All that is true, and it doesn't matter.

The problem is that bad, ineffective laws enacted by idiots are still enforced. And as long as there is media hysteria, legislatures and city councils will continue to respond to the public outcry by passing such stupid laws. Remember, legislators are not in the business of passing reasonable, necessary laws. They're in the business of getting re-elected. Laws are a sideline for them.

So what can we do? Besides educating the public, we as owners and lovers of pitbulls can police ourselves, our behavior, and that of our dogs. Otherwise, society will do this for us, and it may not be nearly as nice about it.

 

your right, there are no provisions in the constitution for this specifically . I was referring to discrimination with the insurance rates and targeting specific people. What bothers me is, they would never take some little white poodle named Fluffy that belongs to an 80 yr old woman that has bit the mailman 3 times and call it vicious, the public would go nuts. I just want to know who declares what breeds to be vicious. How do they look at a dog and decide what breed it is. Who are the dog experts?

 

One significant decision found BSL to be unconstitutional. In American Dog Owners Assoc. Inc.Vs. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a trial court's finding that the City of Lynn's to regulate pit Bulls was unconstitutional. The court held "there is no scientific means, by blood, enzyme, or otherwise, to determine what belongs to a particular breed, regardless of whether "breed" is used in a formal sense or not. Upheld the trial court's finding that animal control officers had no real standards to identify Pit Bulls. they had no training in breed identification. The ordinance included a band on mixed-breed dogs contained "any mixture with PitBull" This provision was also found to be unconstitutional. It is scientifically "impossible to ascertain" whether a dog is part Pit Bull. The combination of all thes facts led the court to conclude that this ordiance was to vague to pass a constitutional muster.

 

Explain what you mean by "discrimination based on insurance rates and targeting specific people".

From the information in your post, the court did not find BSL itself to be unconstitutional, rather the law in question was void for vagueness. I admit that drafting a BSL that would pass the Massachusetts Supreme Court's test would be a real challenge, however, that would not apply to BSL in any other state.

Regardless, my real point is that we need to police ourselves, or the public will demand laws that do it for us. I think we're in agreement on that.

 

5th Amendment---"takings clause" . . . also right against unlawful search & seizure . . . also due process . . .

 

Agreed,( I understand we are on the same side) In some city's if you have a "vicious dog" you have to show that you have a $100,000.00 policy,(i'm assuming thats a writer on a dog bite) they can't make me get insurance. When they do define "vicious dog" it's always a pit that they go after and ban. The BSL, I am sure you agree, is not defined enough to make it right, it is impossible to do. It also seems to me, my opinion only, the people that are targeted are the ones they know aren't going to have the money to defend themselves,it's setting those "examples". They wanted to target pitbulls, and the reason I say this is, if it was about the dog bites alone, they would of wrote it in a way that targets dogs that would cause the most damage when they do bite, and that would still be hard to do, but, at least they would not be targeting certain breeds. This is how I would like to see it done, the insurance man would have to come to your house and count your dogs teeth, pull out a millimeter ruler and measure each tooth.

 

All those are either inapplicable or are subject to general "police powers". I don't know of any court decision which interprets those constitutional provisions as granting you the right to own the animal of your choice.

But this is academic - we're on the same side.

 

You are right, we are on the same side.

What do you mean by "they can't make me get insurance"?

I am not sure whether the real point of BSL is to ban breeds whose bites can cause damage. At least you are proposing (tongue-in-cheek) an objective standard. In my opinion, the problem is that some members of the public are clamoring to be led to safety, and the lawmakers are more than happy to respond, regardless of whether BSL is effective or not.

You're probably right in that the average owner of a dog subject to such a "vicious breed" ban doesn't have the wherewithal to challenge such a law. And the average state legislator or city councilman is a lot more worried about some kid getting mauled (regardless of the circumstances), with attendant media hysteria to follow, than he is about pissed-off pitbull owners, many of whom may not vote.

 

the NAACP brought suit against insurance companies for "red lining". The insurance companies were charging higher rates because of the location of the home. The boundries often fell along racial and socioeconomic lines. The Seventh Circuit held that red-lining violated the fair housing Act. I would challenge this if the BSL said I had to buy a bigger policy for my "vicious dog", they can't make me buy a special writer on my insurance for my dog that might bite someone without charging the same rates for 80 yr old Mrs Jones for her ankle biter. Same with car insurance companies, they were charging higher rates for people living in Detroit then they were with someone in the burbs. This also was deemed unconstitutional. I know that red lining dosen't directly apply to animals, I'm sure it could be challenged in the same way. There is just to many holes in this legislation it could be challenged easily with the right people.

 

Yes, we are certainly on the same side, no doubt about that.

Police powers do not remove your right to due process.

I don't know about the "animal of your choice," however, in Massahcusetts, bsl was implemented, ended up in the SJC, and was overturned. You can own the dog of your choice . . .

The police like to think these are inapplicable, but if you enter a courtroom, they are applicable.

Having said that, there are plenty of towns in Massachusetts that have established some loose bsl type bylaws, HOWEVER, if they were to be challenged in court, due to the SJC case I referred to above, they would very likely be overturned also.

If bsl comes to my town, you know where I'll be.