The Opinion issued by the Court on June 13, 2008 can be found at this link. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/ ... o-2971.pdf
The Defendant-Appellant, Jammie Traylor, challenged the constitutionality of Youngstown Codified Ordinance 505.19 because it did not provide dog owners with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the labeling of the dogs as vicious. The Appellate Court, citing to Cowan, reversed the trial court's decision and vacated Mr. Traylor's conviction.
Incidentally, attorneys for Youngstown argued that Cowan was not applicable due to the ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court issued in Tellings. While that argument may hold true if the dogs in question are "pit bulls," it did not hold water in this case. The Appellate Court stated that the Tellings opinion applies to "pit bulls" because the state of Ohio classifies pit bulls generally as vicious, and the statutory language of the law puts Ohio "pit bull" owners on notice. Because Mr. Traylor owned Cane Corsos, he was not "put on notice" by the state's vicious dog law, and was, in fact, denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge the "vicious" label placed on his dogs. As such, pursuant to Cowan, the judgment of the trial court was reversed in favor of Mr. Traylor.
In summary, dog owners in the state of Ohio are entitled to due process UNLESS the dogs they own happen to be "pit bulls." Pretty sad...
Court reverses man�s vicious dog conviction
Published:Monday, June 23, 2008
YOUNGSTOWN � An appellate court has determined that the city�s vicious dog ordinance does not define Cane Corso as �vicious� and reversed Jammie Traylor�s convictions for owning or harboring two vicious dogs.
In May 2006, a municipal court jury found Traylor, 21, of Youngstown guilty of two misdemeanors. The dogs he owned were Cane Corsos, an Italian mastiff breed.
He was represented by Struthers attorney James E. Lanzo. Lanzo said Monday that he�s sure his client is happy to put the case behind him.
http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/jun/23/c ... onviction/
Bless the Bullys