A decades-old ban on pit bulls in Prince George’s County is being challenged in federal court through a class-action lawsuit calling the ordinance vague and discriminatory.
The county’s policy, which has been on the books since 1997, applies to dogs that are at least 50 percent pit bull — which is not a breed but a category of dog that includes American pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers.
The lawsuit, filed in July, claims that the county’s pit bull ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, not based in science, and encourages “seriously discriminatory enforcement.” The suit also alleges that the ban violates the Fair Housing Act by forcing residents to either give up their dogs or move outside Prince George’s County.
Advocates say pit-bull bans are racist and ineffective. This Md. suburb supports them.
The original lawsuit plaintiffs included a Prince George’s family whose dogs, Bella and Mimi, were taken away by animal control officers over the summer after they escaped from their yard and got into a fight with a neighbor’s dog. Bella and Mimi, both emotional support dogs, are registered with the county as mixed breed and mastiff, respectively.
Advertisem*nt
But the county claimed, per their analysis, that the dogs are pit bulls — and therefore illegal under local law, according to court filings.
Last week, Richard Rosenthal, a New York-based attorney representing the family, filed a motion to intervene on behalf of other potential plaintiffs in the lawsuit who say they have had similar disputes with the county over their dogs.
The litigation has now been put on hold while the county and Rosenthal’s clients attempt to reach an agreement over the enforcement of the Prince George’s pit bull ordinance, the court docket shows. The parties are scheduled to meet again in early October for a settlement conference, according to an order Tuesday from a federal judge overseeing the case.
A spokesperson for the county declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. Court filings from the county asking the case be dismissed assert that a dog owner’s property is subject to police power and can be regulated for public safety and welfare reasons. The county also says in court filings that the “regulation does not offend equal protection.”
Advertisem*nt
Rosenthal, known nationwide as “The Dog Lawyer,” was first contacted by Denise, Sophia and Stephany Venero in July, after the county seized their dogs and refused to return them, according to the court filing.
He said he decided to take the case once he realized “just how egregious what the county was doing here was.”
About 400 pit bulls euthanized last year in Prince George’s, officials say
For years, animal advocates in Prince George’s County and across the country have been pushing for local and state governments to rescind their bans on pit bulls — ordinances that they argue are linked to racism and classism and not based in science.
But supporters of these bans have balked at the argument, saying the rules are rooted in concerns for public safety.
In the federal lawsuit recently filed against the Prince George’s County bans, Rosenthal argues that the problems are legally layered — basing much of his argument on what he claims is a violation of due process. The county’s policies lack specific guidance for how animal control officials determine whether a dog is indeed a pit bull, he said.
Advertisem*nt
County employees are not relying on a DNA test, Rosenthal said, but rather a visual analysis by officers who may or may not have training on the subject.
“If you can’t tell what is a pit bull with some degree of exactitude, then your enforcement violates due process,” Rosenthal said. “And because there are no printed written standards, how does one defend it?”
The county has also denied in court that the regulation is vague, overly broad or a violation of due process.
The lawsuit also addresses some specific problems that Rosenthal says directly violate the county’s own policy as it is written.
Under county code, the owners of animals taken into official custody under the dangerous dog ordinance are supposed to be notified within 48 hours of their right to a preliminary hearing. At the hearing, county code says, officials can determine whether the owners are capable of safely keeping their animal restrained pending the Animal Control Commission decision on the animal’s dangerousness.
Advertisem*nt
But in this case, the Veneros were given no such notification, the lawsuit claims. When they proactively requested a preliminary hearing, the county denied it — informing the owners that officials had determined their dogs were illegal pit bulls and therefore exempt from a preliminary hearing.
The owners denied that their dogs were pit bulls and provided documentation of what they said were their true breeds. They also expressed concern about their medical care in the animal shelter. But according to the lawsuit, the county was nonresponsive.
An author says she hoped to advance the debate about pit bulls. Instead, she became a target.
Eleven days after the dogs fought, the owners finally received the “notice of violation” from the county. The notice said the county had decided not to return the dogs after “thoroughly reviewing” the case. The dog owners were told they could pay a nonrefundable cost of $150 per animal to appeal the decision.
Advertisem*nt
The owners were eventually able to arrange a deal with county officials to house the dogs outside Prince George’s. But when they picked the dogs up, the lawsuit claims, both were sick and had lost weight.
Once the Veneros were able to have their hearing before the Animal Control Commission, Rosenthal said, commission officials ruled that the county had not sufficiently proved that Bella and Mimi were pit bulls.
The dogs have since been released back to their owners.
