February 28, 2022
Court Declares Leawood, KS, Pit Bull Ban Unconstitutional
Judge grants dog owner’s Motion to Dismiss, declaring Leawood’s ban on “pit bull” dogs unconstitutional.
In 2017, an adorable black and white puppy was adopted to a loving family living in Kansas City, Missouri, who named her Lucy. Shortly thereafter, the family relocated to the neighboring suburb of Leawood, Kansas, where they bought a home and settled into their neighborhood. A couple years later, amidst the start of a global pandemic, Leawood, KS, animal control officers issued a citation to the family for owning a “dangerous animal.” But Lucy didn’t do anything dangerous at all; she was merely identified by Leawood Animal Control as looking too much like a “pit bull” and Leawood bans “pit bull” looking dogs. Lucy’s family retained Barnett Law Office and Thompson-Hall to fight the City of Leawood for her right to keep her beloved Lucy.
Our client had been living in fear for the last 18 months as they awaited a decision from the Johnson County District Court on whether or not she could keep Lucy, as reported by KSHB 41 news in Kansas City. On January 14, 2022, the Court granted our Motion to Dismiss, declaring Leawood’s pit bull ban unconstitutional on its face and as it was applied to Lucy.
Lucy’s family argued the Leawood pit bull ban was unconstitutionally vague, particularly the definition of “pit bull,” which read: “any pit bull dog, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or any animal having the appearance or characteristics of being predominantly of the breeds known as Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier.”
The question and legal standard for the Court was whether the ordinance provides adequate standards for enforcement? “Even if an ordinance clearly defines the illegal conduct . . . the ordinance is still unconstitutionally vague if the terms are not ‘precise enough to adequately protect against arbitrary and discriminatory action by those tasked with enforcing it.’”
In it’s opinion, the Court repeatedly noted it is a steep hill to climb to declare an ordinance void for vagueness on its face, but ultimately concluded the catchall language above left pet owners to guess as to what “any animal having the appearance or characteristics” ultimately means. Does it mean behavioral characteristics, physical characteristics, or something else altogether?
Ultimately, the Court found Leawood’s ordinance violated Lucy’s owner’s 14th Amendment Procedural Due Process right. The Court held that the Leawood ordinance had no objective standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because the ordinance relies on “subjective criteria.” The City of Leawood conceded the code can be arbitrarily enforced stating law enforcement, animal control, or a judge can find whether a dog falls under the breed specific ban – violating the fundamental principle of separation of powers.
The testimony of Shannon Wells, Lawrence Humane Society’s Executive Director, former operations director of KC Pet Project spotlighted what it looks like for a shelter dog with no pedigree to be identified and adopted out to a family into the metro area: “…[W]hat one community would consider a banned breed, another community would interpret differently, and we routinely experience that,” said Wells during the hearing in September. Explaining that when a dog would come in from a city like Kansas City Missouri identified as a “pit bull mix” it would then often be identified as a different breed of dog by animal control officers in other jurisdictions, leading shelter workers to guess as to what breed of dog they have and where it could or could not be adopted.
“What clearer evidence could there be of delegating the job of shaping a vague statute's contours through enforcement decisions than shelter workers needing to obtain advisory opinions from other cities because they lacked surety about how a ‘pit bull’ would be defined in another jurisdiction,” Lucy’s family argued.
We presented several highly qualified experts including a certified animal behaviorist, veterinarian with over twenty years’ experience in shelter medicine and purpose bred canine genetics, and former state public health veterinarian who all testified: (1. It is difficult to determine a dog’s breed by its general appearance and subjective visual breed identification is unreliable, (2. No breed of dog is inherently aggressive or dangerous, and (3. Breed specific ordinances does not promote the state purpose of protecting the safety and welfare of the community.
The City of Leawood argued in favor of its ban with what the court found to be “dated research” from the 1970’s and early 2000’s. A study the City primarily relied upon was found to be unreliable and is now published with a prominent disclaimer from the American Veterinary Medical Association stating the study cannot be used to infer breed specific risk – which is exactly what the City of Leawood tried to do against Lucy’s family.
“This decision from the Court bolsters the scientific research showing the impossibility of accurately identifying dog by breed, particularly mixed breed dogs, and echoes what cities across the country have finally come to realize: public safety is enhanced when dogs are targeted by behavior, not appearance,” said Katie Barnett, animal law attorney and attorney for Bond.
In its opinion, the Court found it curious that a person can possess a vicious animal in the city with certain keeping restrictions, where vicious animal is defined as an animal “having a disposition or propensity to attack or bite any person or animal without provocation,” and dangerous animal targets dogs by appearance and outright prohibits them. The International Municipal Lawyer’s Association and American Bar Association examined the issue of dangerous dog ordinances and both recommend cities enact breed neutral ordinances that target dogs based on behavior, not appearance. Leawood, however, when made aware of the recommended changes, stood steadfast in support of its breed specific ordinance.
The Court also noted that Leawood is one of the few remaining major cities in the Kansas City area with a pit bull ban, highlighting an overwhelming number of cites in the metro have repealed their breed specific bans recently, with no one considering enacting a ban in over a decade. Barnett Law Office is proud to have worked directly with Kansas cities like Roeland Park, Topeka, Kansas City, Linwood, Garnett, Bonner Springs, Prairie Village, and most recently Overland Park to repeal their ineffective and unenforceable breed specific bans in favor of breed neutral dangerous dog ordinances that enhance public safety.
Lucy and her family are not unique in their experience. If you or someone you know has had their family dog seized solely because of the way the dog looks, contact us.
There has been no comment or correspondence from the City of Leawood on what it plans to do with the now unconstitutional ordinance.
This article is for general informational and educational use and does not constitute legal advice. Since laws change over time, it's possible some language within this article may become out of date. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be or should be construed as any form of advertising or solicitation to perform legal services.