[RDOWS]

Federal lawsuit filed in Arkansas over pit bull ban


LITTLE ROCK - Dog owners in four Arkansas cities are challenging local ordinances that ban pit bulls in their towns, claiming that breed-specific ordinances are unconstitutional.

Their federal lawsuit, filed Thursday, alleges the ordinances' definitions of prohibited breeds are vague and create an undue burden on dog owners to prove a dog's breed.

The suit says the ordinances discriminate against a certain group of people and interfere with due process by allowing property to be seized without notice, a hearing or fair compensation.

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that breed-specific ordinances in Beebe, Jacksonville, Lonoke, and North Little Rock violate the Fifth and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and asks for compensatory damages and the reimbursement of fines paid to the cities under the bans.

Richard Venable of Lonoke, Darius Sims of Jacksonville, Phillip McCormick of Beebe, and Mike Kierry of North Little Rock brought the lawsuit, along with Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, a nonprofit animal-welfare group.

"This lawsuit is not a dog lawsuit. This is a constitutional-issues lawsuit," said Roger Schnyer of Lonoke, founder and director of Responsible Owners.

Schnyer's group was incorporated last summer and has about 75 members. It is affiliated with a national group called Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States.

"We're not an animal-rights organization," Schnyer said. "We're an animal-welfare organization. We're here to help all breeds of dogs, not just pit bulls, (but) we don't want them to have the same rights as people."

The group proposes ordinances that describe dogs as personal property and advocate specific methods of containing and caring for them, with suggested penalties for owners who fail to comply.

According to the lawsuit, Venable paid someone $425 to board his pit bull after he was required to remove the dog from the city; Sims' two American Staffordshire terriers were euthanized before he could find a home for them, even though he agreed to have them sterilized and micro-chipped; McCormick pays $250 a week to board his dogs after the city took them from his home, and Kierry paid $1,500 for a dog with the intention of breeding it, only to have it seized by North Little Rock.

The city neutered and microchipped the animal but forced Kierry to surrender it because he had violated the ordinance by failing to have the procedures done himself, the suit says.

Information from: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, http://www.arkansasonline.com

http://www.pbcommercial.com/articles.../d8tslp002.txt

[CoolHandJean]

sounds good. It does seem very unconstitutional, but Fed and State govt. seems to be trampling all over the Constitution these days.

[Purple]

Federal lawsuit filed to abolish dog ordinances

BY VIRGINIA WIETECHA / STAFF WRITER / NEWS@LONOKEDEMOCRAT.COM

Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADS), a non-profit group, along with Richard Venable, Darius Sims, Mike Kierry and Phillip McCormick — all owners of pit bull terriers — filed a civil suit in Federal Court at Little Rock last Thursday against the cities of Lonoke, Jacksonville, Beebe and North Little Rock. ROADS is asking the court for a declaratory judgment to restore the rights of the pit bull owners, and for monetary compensation for losses and damages suffered by the individual plaintiffs.

ROADS is an affiliate of RDOWS (Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States), a nationwide group set up to protect the

Constitutional rights of dog owners.

“The RDOWS has never lost a lawsuit fighting breed-specific ordinances,” said Roger Schnyer, member of RDOWS and founder of ROADS. “The U.S. Supreme Court says you can’t racially profile, so you cannot racially profile an animal, either.”

Lonoke Mayor Wayne McGee said one of the main reasons the pit bull ordinance was passed in Lonoke was because surrounding cities had banned the dogs, causing the animals to filter into the city.

“They would walk the dogs on big chains, and the majority of dogs were trained to fight,” said McGee. “My job is to protect the people of Lonoke, and the council unanimously agreed this was the best solution.”

Schnyer, who said he has worked as a criminal investigator in Independence County and an investigator for the state Office of Child Support Enforcement, said he decided to challenge the pit bull banning laws because “nobody else would,” and he has the legal background and knowledge needed to push the issue.

Nineteen Arkansas cities have ordinances banning specific breeds from their cities, and some of the laws have been in place for more than nine years.

“Until challenged by the proper court officials, the laws usually stand,” he said.

The suit lists expenses forced upon individuals by the dog ordinances as one reason monetary damages are being sought by the individual plaintiffs.

Schnyer said Richard Venable of Lonoke paid $425 to board his dogs after he was required to remove them from the city. He has since built a metal pen around his animals that now reside in his backyard because he could not afford to pay for the boarding, or the gas to travel out of the city to visit his animals, said Schnyer.

He also said two dogs were seized from a Darius Sims of Jacksonville, who agreed to have the dogs sterilized and tagged with micro-chips to gain their return. However, even after those procedures, Schnyer said the dogs were removed from Sims’ house and euthanized before Sims could find another home for the animals. Sims is asking for $595, which includes the cost of purchasing one of the dogs.

Schnyer said Phillip McCormick of Beebe was also required to remove his dogs from that city. McCormick has paid more than $3,000 in boarding fees since he has no place to keep the dogs. And he said Mike Kierry of North Little Rock paid $1,500 for his dog, which he intended to use for breeding purposes. According to court filings, he still faces the prospect of fines and other sanctions for violating the North Little Rock ordinance.

The four plaintiffs are asking the court for monetary awards equal to the costs of their losses, for attorney fees and for the cities to return any and all fines collected from the ordinances.

“People run for office who are not qualified for the position,” said Schnyer. “It’s a popularity contest, and they win because of numbers. So, when they get in office, they pass laws that are unconstitutional.”

Schnyer blames the media for the perception that the pit bull breed is dangerous.

“Years ago, German shepherds were the dangerous dogs, then Dobermans, then the Rottweilers,” he said, “and now it’s the pit bull.”

Nationally, he said, about 75 breeds have been banned from various cities. The list of prohibited dogs includes golden retrievers, great Danes, springer spaniels, Boston terriers and blue heelers.

“Somebody, somewhere got elected on the city council and didn’t like a particular breed, so they banned it,” said Schnyer. “It’s that simple.”

Since ROADS organized in July 2007, Schnyer has traveled the state discussing alternate ordinances with cities considering the pit bull ban. He said donations for the cause came to a halt as rumors circulated that he was not going forward with the lawsuit.

“They told me it would take us two years to raise the money and file the papers for the lawsuit,” said Schnyer, “and it took us six months.”

So far, Schnyer says ROADS has raised a little more than half the estimated $20,000 needed to fund the lawsuit.

“If we run out of donations, I will pay to finish the lawsuit,” said Schnyer, “that’s how much I believe in the cause.”

Schnyer added that every penny raised through ROADS goes exclusively to lawsuits fighting breed-specific bans.

McGee said before the pit bull ordinance was passed in Lonoke, pit bull owners were cited on a case-by-case basis. However, he says the citations resulted in no change.

“It isn’t like other things haven’t been tried,” said McGee. “This ordinance has been talked about for about five years.”

Since the ordinance was passed earlier this year, pit bull owners were given notices and time to make arrangements for their pets.

“We haven’t had to be too forceful,” said McGee. “We haven’t [assessed] any fines and everybody’s cooperated.”

McGee said the ordinance was supported by the majority of the public.

Several anonymous calls were taken at the city offices, with reports of pit bulls attacking other dogs and postal workers as well as chasing children at city park.

“There’s been a lot of close calls,” said McGee. “I want to be able to sleep at night. I don’t want to wait for something to happen and know I could’ve done something about it.”

Schnyer says the pit bull breed is not at the top of the list for most aggressive dogs. He said pit bulls were docile, loving, dedicated dogs that were very trainable.

“They just get a bum rap,” he said.

http://www.lonokedemocrat.com/articl...news/nws01.txt