Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs, Inc. or "ROADS, Inc.", a dog owners group, along with several pit bull owners have brought a lawsuit against the Arkansas cities of Jacksonville, Lonoke, North Little Rock, and Beebe. The plaintiffs are challenging the pit bull bans in each city.

What is a pit bull?

The plaintiffs claim the bans are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, noting it is difficult if not impossible to identify the banned dogs. In Jacksonville, for example, the ordinance bans not only Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American bull dogs, but also any mixture, any dogs having the "appearance or characteristics" of those breeds, and any dogs in which those breeds "predominate".  Just for good measure all dogs know as "pit bull", "bull terrier" or "bull dog" are banned as well.   

The Beebe ordinance bans any dog "conforming or substantially conforming" to Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American bull dogs or dogs "commonly recognized and identifiable as "pit bulls".  Lonoke and North Little Rock have similar definitions of the banned dogs.

The Complaint states, "While some breeds of dogs are easy to identify, there are a significant number of dog breeds that have the characteristics of the named dog breeds but have no relation to them." Indeed, more than 20 breeds of dogs have been misidentified as pit bull type dogs.

The plaintiffs say "it is scientifically impossible to determine the breed of a mixed dog". The plaintiffs also say the breed of a purebred can "only be positively identified by DNA of the parents" if they have "pedigrees of at least seven generations from nationally recognized dog registries".  

Not to mention the average animal control or police officer, prosecutor and judge cannot accurately determine whether a dog is a pit bull type dog. Yet, these officials make these determinations every day, forcing owners to come forward and participate in costly hearings to try to prove the dogs are not one of the banned breeds.   

It was widely reported, for example, in December, 2006 that a "pit bull puppy" chewed off four toes of a month old baby left in a child carrier while her parents slept nearby. Talking heads on cable TV like Nancy Grace of CNN announced a "pit bull maul[ed] a child". "[T]he dog was running free eating the baby`s feet....[Why do] we hear a story every other day about a pit bull eating a baby, why? Why would you have [a pit bull]?" The culprit turned out to be the family's pet ferret.

On November 21, 2006, the Houston Chronicle widely and repeatedly reported that two pit bulls had fatally mauled a four-year-old child. An autopsy later confirmed one of the dogs was not a pit bull at all, and authorities concluded it was likely the other dog was also not a pit bull. No correction was ever printed in the newspaper or other local media.

A recent incident in Fall River, Massachusetts proves people including law enforcement have difficulty identifying these breeds especially mixed breeds. A police report of a fatal attack on another dog identified the perpetrator as a rottweiler. The victim's owner was adamant a shar-pei killed her dog. The shelter director agreed the police report was incorrect, that the dog was a shar-pei. The police acknowledged they would need training to identify banned or regulated breeds correctly if a pending breed ban passes in that town. There was particular concern they could really identify correctly dogs thought to be pit bull or rottie mixes.

Here are other examples of mix-ups in reporting the breed of dog involved in bite incidents:

March 17, 2007 Friendswood, TX headlines reported a woman was apparently killed by her dogs. Police claimed when they arrived at the scene, they killed the pit bull which attacked them.  But the dog was not a pit bull. It was a Catahoula Bulldog. 

Kansas City, MO March 6, 2006 headlines reported a 12-year-old girl was walking to school when two pit bulls attacked her. It was reported one pit bull bit her in the elbow, and she fought the other one off by hitting the dog with her backpack.

The photo of the dog revealed at least one dog was not a pit bull or a pit bull mix. The newspaper's response? They removed the photo and continued to report it as a pit bull attack. 

Detroit, MI  December 2005, Detroit headlines reported a very elderly woman was killed by her pit bull dog. It was then reported as an attack by a bull mastiff and later an American Bulldog. 

North Towanda, NY  October, 2005 reported an attack by pit bulls. The dogs turned out to be a Lab mix and a Mastiff mix.  

"Pit Bull Horror"  was the headline in New York Daily News, February 7, 2004 and "Pit Bull Mauls 3-Year-Old's Face" was the lead story in New York Newsday,  February 6, 2004.

A Bronx family owned a Boxer dog and a German Shepherd puppy that usually were kept in the basement as guard dogs.  Two days before the girl was bitten, the family took in a Pit Bull.  The 3-year-old was alone playing with three dogs when the dogfight started.  At this point the girl was bitten in the face by the Boxer (also reported to be an American bulldog).  It was later acknowledged that the Pit bull (also reported to be a Pit bull mix and a "pet bulldog") was not involved in the attack on the girl.

 "Courland Pit Bull Mauling Death" was a headline on WBNG.com on Dec. 9, 2002.

It was later determined that although the Pit bull participated in the death of 24-year-old Eric Tallman, the dog did not inflict the fatal wounds.  The victim died from blunt force injury.  It was later revealed that the victim was beaten to death by an acquaintance over a drug debt.

 "Vancouver Girl Badly Injured in Pit Bull Attack" was another  headline found on  CTV News on  December 23, 2002.

This was a very severe attack and as such garnered much media attention. As a result of more in-depth coverage, the breed was later correctly identified as a Mastiff/Rottweiler mixed breed.

 "Family's Pit Bull Kills Boy, 20 months" was a headline in  The Gainesville Sun  on May 8, 2000 followed by "20-month-old Killed by Bull Terrier" in  Naples Daily News  on May 9, 2000.

This child was not killed by a Pit Bull, nor a Bull Terrier, nor a "family" dog.  How the dog came to be labeled a "Pit bull" is unexplained.  The owner described the dog to be a Labrador/Mastiff/Rottweiler cattle dog.  The dog was used to herd cattle and was kept chained on the property.  Animal control and the Alachua County Sheriff's office confirmed the dog was a mixed breed.  Photographs of the dog reveal no discernible breed. 

In the case of Margolius v. Denver, the court held that animal control officers could not definitively identify a dog as a pit-bull terrier.  In the Ohio case of Toledo v. Tellings at trial the dog warden testified if a dog was 50% pit bull but didn't resemble a pit, then the dog was not considered a pit bull. If a dog looked like a pit, regardless of the % of breed, he considered it a pit bull.

 The dog warden agreed one cannot really tell whether or not many dogs have pit bull in them.

The Tellings appeals court noted "Criminal charges have likely been brought based on purely individual and speculative decisions on whether the jaw of a dog is "massive" enough or the chest is muscular enough or the brow is broad enough to be designated as a "pit bull".

 The appeals court found the process of identifying a pit bull was too subjective, basically that there is no definitive way to prove a mixed breed is a pit bull.    

 The appeals court found it was likely many non-pit bull dogs had been mis-identified.

 (The Ohio Supreme Court, however, has since upheld the Ohio laws defining pit bulls as vicious dogs. Click here for more on that decision.)

Other Legal Arguments

The plaintiffs argue the bans violate equal protection and substantive due process. They claim there is no rational basis to discriminate against these breeds. There is no evidence the Plaintiffs' banned dogs are dangerous or potentially dangerous or at least not more so than any other breed of dog.

They point out the dogs can be seized without a hearing to determine whether they are one of the banned breeds, a violation of due process. The plaintiffs also say the burden of determining the dog's breed should be on the authorities not the owner.  

The Complaint also alleges the bans violate the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution by restricting trade in these banned dogs.

Court

The case is pending in the federal court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Relief Requested

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the breed bans unconstitutional. The individual owners seek to recover the costs of boarding their dogs out of the respective city in which they live; in one case the dogs were euthanized before the owner could find boarding and he asks to recover the cost of the dogs.