Klonda Richey's actual complaints, there is a LOT going on here.

This is the actual fence that Klonda Richey built to protect herself and her cats from her neighbors dogs, one would think this would be enough.  This double walled containment did not save Klonda Richey's life.


Today we are going to take a look at the actual complaints made by Klonda Richey, and the official records of the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center.  Please click here to see the records, I will discuss them in the order that they appear.

As you read Klonda Richey's complaints I would like you to keep a few things in mind.

First, this section of the Ohio Revised Code found in section 955.12, Dog Wardens.  "Dogs not registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog.  Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of."  Here is the quote in context.  
"Whenever any person files an affidavit in a court of competent jurisdiction that there is a dog running at large that is not kept constantly confined either in a dog kennel registered under this chapter or one licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code or on the premises of an institution or organization of the type described in section 955.16 of the Revised Code or that a dog is kept or harbored in the warden's jurisdiction without being registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog. Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of. The warden shall give immediate notice by certified mail to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog seized and impounded by the warden, if the owner, keeper, or harborer can be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, that the dog has been impounded and that, unless the dog is redeemed within fourteen days of the date of the notice, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law." 

Second, please note breed descriptions of Nason and Custer's dogs.  They are called by both the victim and animal control as pit bull, pit mastiff mix, mastiff mix and one is called a boxer.  There are no Cane Corsos recorded.

                                                            * * *

On 5/14/12 Animal Control responded to a cruelty complaint regarding one of Nason and Custer's dogs, a boxer puppy.  The dog had been barking and was struck, the complaint stated that the puppy sounded like it was in distress.  Animal Control Officer Baker stated that he spoke with the owner and saw the dog, it did not show signs of pain while he was petting it.  Included in the report was Nason's statement that the complaint was a response to his son "messing with the fence" not concern about the dog. Nason received a written warning.


                                                              * * *

On 8/8/2012 Montgomery County Animal Control responded with a condition and license check to a complaint that a clearly stated "brown pit bull" was loose and had charged the complainant the previous evening.  Police were called at that time but by the time police arrived the dog had been taken back into the house.  The owners did not come to the door when police knocked and as soon as police left the dog was loose again.  Nason and Custer received a warning for this.  As Mark Kumpf, Montgomery County Dog Warden has stated a warning is simply an acknowledgement that ARC has responded to the call and that there is no follow up.  There is no mention of any license check in the remarks.

                                                                 * * *
On 9/26/12 ARC responded to  another complaint about the clearly identified brown pit bull.  This complaint is labeled as "Confinement."    The ARC uses a form with areas asking yes/no questions.  The form indicates that the dog is not a mixed breed but a "pit bull" and that there are no priors on this dog.  Obviously somebody forgot about the 8/8/12 complaint on the same dog.  Comments for this one state that two complaint calls had been left for ARC the previous evening that the dog was loose and very aggressive and that the owner is incarcerated.   Julie Custer got the warning on this one.

                                                                 * * *

On  12/27/11 ARC responded to a condition and license check for a dog with no descriptive information other than noting that the dog is not a mixed breed. Field Activity Records comments indicate that the dog is "very thin, ribs are visible, no food and water is outside."  There is no record of any license check.

                                                                 * * *

On an activity card dated 3/16//13 shows that the "comp states that the dog is loose again and the mailman will not deliver the mail."  The memo section goes on to state "Comp states that the dog is loose again and she has a civil protection order against the owner.  The dog has come after her before and she states that now he will let his dogs loose to go after her and her cats.  She states that the mailman will no longer deliver mail to street because of this dog if it is not taken care of.  There are no current license on file however there are two 2012 licenses on file 29070 male brown mix 29069 for a male tan mix breed.  The dogs were registered to XXXXXXX with a public service of XXXXXXX.  Comp states this animal has attacked her before and she has a civil protection order against the owner."  This is followed by a repetitive statement and concludes with "I knocked on the door but nobody answered.  I hear the dog barking in the house.  I posted a warning."  

Ohio Revised Code allows seizure of unlicensed dogs.  ARC is aware and acknowledges that Nason's dogs are not licensed, at large and menacing residents, and are interfering with the delivery of mail by the United States Postal Service.  Why did Montgomery County Animal Control refuse to take action allowed by ORC?  They "posted a warning"?  Wow...

This activity card is followed by a citation/violation listing a violation of ORC 955.11 "it was reported attacking people and cats."

                                                                * * *

On an activity card dated 5/23/13 showing a call date of 5/21/13 "Comp stated all four dogs were loose and chased her."  The following citation/violation states "Nobody answered the door, did not see or hear a dog." Violations were noted.

                                                                * * *

An activity card dated 5/31/13 regarding a pit bull mastiff deals with the complaint that the dog was left out on a chain with no food or water. The complainant gave the animal food, the owner took the dog off the chain and told the dog to attack the complainant but the dog would not leave the yard.  Richey asked for a return check in two days because she felt that the dog would again be chained at that time.  Did they go back?

The report ends with a notation that the dog was not licensed and has several priors.  ORC allows seizure of unlicensed dogs and seizure of Nason's unlicensed dogs would have saved Klonda Richey's life.  A warning was given, wow.   The citation/violation follows.

                                                                  * * *

Moving on to activity cards dated 7/21/13 and 7/23/13 the complaint is that two bull mastiffs are loose "again" and chasing the complainant.  This is followed by the citation/violation with a violation number on it.

                                                                  * * *

On the 8/5/13 activity card we find the complaint that the owner is now putting the pit/mastiff in her yard to scare her and that there is STILL no license for 2013 and "several priors."  Two warnings were posted but it was noted that "no one was home, did not see any dogs."  The citation/violation follows.

                                                                 * * *

On 9/9/13 the activity card indicates "the brown pit/mastiff is loose on the street, several priors, 2012 licenses."  No one answered the door, no loose dogs.  Two warnings were left.  We have seen just how impressive the warnings are in promoting compliance with law.  The citation/violation follows.

                                                                 * * *

On 9/12/13 "the mastiff was loose again the previous evening, no current license, several priors."  Comments include "no loose dog, no one answered the door." Remember that Ohio law gives animal control the ability to seize unlicensed dogs, this seizure would have saved Klonda Richey's life.

                                                                * * *

The 9/25/13 activity card shows the complaint dated 9/24/13 "the white pit pup is running loose, owner also has two brown mastiffs, several priors."  Nobody answered the door but AC could hear a dog barking. That all important warning was posted.

                                                               * * *

At no time are any of Nason and Custer's dogs called Cane Corsos or Cane Corso mixes as Mark Kumpf has labeled them after the mauling death of Klonda Richey.  This was apparently a post mortum transformation.  All documents dealing with Richey's complaints deal with pit mastiff mixes, pit bulls or mastiffs and one lonely boxer pup.

Does anyone see any real attempt to do the job that the residents of Montgomery County pay animal control to do?  Ohio Revised Code made it Mark Kumpf's job to impound unregistered dogs, this would have saved Klonda Richey's life.

Click here to see surveillance video taken by Richey showing Nason entering her property through her unfinished fence, trespassing, and menacing.  Nason's dogs are shown in Richey's driveway exactly as she stated in her complaints.

Why have charges not been filed in this case?

What the Ohio Revised code actually says.

Some thoughts for the morning on the Dayton Ohio dog mauling death of Klonda Richey.  These thoughts will focus on the responsibilities of Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf (new president of the Ohio County Dog Warden's Association).





Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf

 Here is a short quote from the OCDWA, note the reference to health and safety of the public.

OCDWA Objective

The OCDWA objective is to promote effective, efficient, and humane dog control programs for the health and safety of the public and their companion animals. Improve, promote, and obtain education, training, benefits, equipment, and adequate facilities for Dog Wardens and staff.

It is important to note that  I have the highest respect for the OCDWA, the members of that organization, and their objectives but I do not respect the efforts of those who use the organization to further personal agendas.

A short historical note, in 2011 Mr. Kumpf, OCDWA treasurer and member of the executive board,  and then OCDWA president Matt Granito fully supported and campaigned for HB 14, a bill written by an out of state animal rights, and breed specific PAC with a sanctuary in Utah.  Kumpf and Granito never produced meeting minutes that indicated that the rank and file of the organization supported their position on the bill despite being asked to do so.  Members of  the organization complained that they had never been given the opportunity to discuss or vote on it. The bill is a nightmare.  Here is a link to the Ohio Revised Code procedure set out in HB14  for legal action regarding dangerous dogs.  This procedure is a labor intensive nightmare, it protects violent dogs and their owners precisely because it is so difficult to use, it is rarely used.

Having said all that, lets fast forward to recent statements made by Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf on the horrific mauling death of Klonda Richey.  “This is a tragic accident and there is nothing foreseeable or doable to prevent a situation like this from happening,” “It doesn’t matter how many times you call, unless we see a violation, we can’t change the law and just write a ticket because somebody doesn’t like this particular dog or that particular neighbor. We have to see a criminal violation.”  “Whether we respond to one complaint or 13 complaints or any other number of complaints, unless we find a violation when we arrive that has enforceable component to it, it’s simply a call.” 

Per WDTN News " Numerous warnings were left for the dog owners at 35 East Bruce Avenue, but no action was taken. Kumpf says a warning is simply a notice that an officer responded to a complaint. There’s really no follow-up after that unless the owner calls the Animal Resource Center to find out more."

This statement was found on the Montgomery County Animal Resource Center Facebook page
 "February 10, 2014 Statement from Animal Resource Center Director Mark Kumpf:

I first want to extend our condolences to the Richey family. Klonda was a member of the Montgomery County family at Children Services for 25 years.

There have been many questions about what happened at 31 Bruce Avenue in Dayton last Friday, February 7, 2014. We cannot comment about the active police investigation, but we can provide background on calls and reports we received concerning dogs at 35 Bruce Avenue.

The Montgomery County Animal Resource Center has received 13 calls concerning 35 Bruce Avenue, ranging from condition checks on dogs to dogs running loose and dogs barking, beginning in December of 2011 and with the final call coming in September of 2013. Animal Care and Control Officers responded to each and every call. In all but two cases, we found no one at home or no one answered the door. In addition, all but one call made to our agency were anonymous.

Under Ohio laws, for a “dog at large,” the officer must witness the dog off the property and not under the owner’s immediate control. It cannot be issued as a citation based on a third party witnessing the event. In each of these calls, our officers did not witness the dogs off the property or not in the control of their owner.

We educate when possible and issue citations when we witness the violation. If no officer witnesses the conduct, the number of complaints does not allow for a citation or other action. When we received a complaint and find no violation, that closes the complaint.

Many have asked why these dogs were not designated as “dangerous dogs.” Here is the criteria for a “dangerous dog:”
- Dangerous dog means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division of the Ohio Revised Code, has done one of the following:
o Caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any
person;
o Killed another dog;
o Been subject or a third or subsequent violation of division of
section 955.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.

We have no record of either of these dogs biting a person or killing another dog, nor have any citations been issued for a nuisance animal or running at large violation."

Here is a link to Ohio Revised Code  regarding the duties of Dog Wardens.  I have pulled out a few important passages.  I find no reference to any requirement that an officer must actually see a violation in progress in order to act.

955.23 Prohibition against failure of duty by dog warden.

No county dog warden shall willfully fail to perform his duties under section 955.12 of the Revised Code or other duties required of dog wardens.

Per Ohio Revised Code NO COUNTY DOG WARDEN SHALL WILLFULLY FAIL TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES 

955.12 Dog wardens.

Except as provided in section 955.121 of Revised Code, a board of county commissioners shall appoint or employ a county dog warden and deputies in such number, for such periods of time, and at such compensation as the board considers necessary to enforce sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code.

The warden and deputies shall give bond in a sum not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars, as set by the board, conditioned for the faithful performance of their duties. The bond or bonds may, in the discretion of the board, be individual or blanket bonds. The bonds shall be filed with the county auditor of their respective counties.

 Per Ohio Revised Code THE WARDEN AND DEPUTIES SHALL GIVE BOND IN A SUM NOT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, AS SET BY THE BOARD, CONDITIONED FOR THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES. 

Here is more from the same section.  

"If a dog warden has reason to believe that a dog is being treated inhumanely on the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer, the warden shall apply to the court of common pleas for the county in which the premises are located for an order to enter the premises, and if necessary, seize the dog. If the court finds probable cause to believe that the dog is being treated inhumanely, it shall issue such an order.

The warden and deputies shall also investigate all claims for damages to animals reported to them under section 955.29 of the Revised Code and assist claimants to fill out the claim form therefor. They shall make weekly reports, in writing, to the board in their respective counties of all dogs seized, impounded, redeemed, and destroyed and of all claims for damage to animals inflicted by dogs.

The wardens and deputies shall have the same police powers as are conferred upon sheriffs and police officers in the performance of their duties as prescribed by sections 955.01 to 955.27, 955.29 to 955.38, and 955.50 to 955.53 of the Revised Code. They shall also have power to summon the assistance of bystanders in performing their duties and may serve writs and other legal processes issued by any court in their respective counties with reference to enforcing those sections. County auditors may deputize the wardens or deputies to issue dog licenses as provided in sections 955.01 and 955.14 of the Revised Code.

Whenever any person files an affidavit in a court of competent jurisdiction that there is a dog running at large that is not kept constantly confined either in a dog kennel registered under this chapter or one licensed under Chapter 956. of the Revised Code or on the premises of an institution or organization of the type described in section 955.16 of the Revised Code or that a dog is kept or harbored in the warden's jurisdiction without being registered as required by law, the court shall immediately order the warden to seize and impound the dog. Thereupon the warden shall immediately seize and impound the dog complained of. The warden shall give immediate notice by certified mail to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog seized and impounded by the warden, if the owner, keeper, or harborer can be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, that the dog has been impounded and that, unless the dog is redeemed within fourteen days of the date of the notice, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law. If the owner, keeper, or harborer cannot be determined from the current year's registration list maintained by the warden and the county auditor of the county where the dog is registered, the officer shall post a notice in the pound or animal shelter both describing the dog and place where seized and advising the unknown owner that, unless the dog is redeemed within three days, it may thereafter be sold or destroyed according to law."

Per Ohio Revised Code THE WARDENS AND DEPUTIES SHALL HAVE THE SAME POLICE POWERS AS ARE CONFERRED UPON SHERIFFS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTIONS 955.01 and 955.27.

This part is important and this section deals with both low volume kennels and with companion dogs., per Ohio Revised Code WHENEVER ANY PERSON FILES AN AFFIDAVIT IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION THAT THERE IS A DOG RUNNING AT LARGE THAT IS NOT KEPT CONSTANTLY CONFINED EITHER IN A DOG KENNEL REGISTERED UNDER THIS CHAPTER OR ONE LICENSED UNDER CHAPTER 956.16 OF THE REVISED CODE OR THAT A DOG IS KEPT OR HARBORED IN THE WARDEN'S JURISDICTION WITHOUT BEING REGISTERED AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL IMMEDIATELY ORDER THE WARDEN TO SEIZE AND IMPOUND THE DOG. THE WARDEN SHALL GIVE IMMEDIATE NOTICE BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER, KEEPER, OR HARBORER OF HE DOG SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED BY THE WARDEN.    

Additional material is found in Ohio Revised Code 959.132.  Feel free to read the whole thing but here is a section I feel is important.

  

(4) "Officer" means any law enforcement officer, agent of a county humane society, or other person appointed to act as an animal control officer for a municipal corporation or township in accordance with state law, an ordinance, or a resolution.

(B) An officer may seize and cause to be impounded at an impounding agency a companion animal that the officer has probable cause to believe is the subject of an offense. No officer or impounding agency shall impound a companion animal that is the subject of an offense in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by a board of county commissioners pursuant to Chapter 955. of the Revised Code unless the board, by resolution, authorizes the impoundment of such a companion animal in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by that board and has executed, in the case when the officer is other than a dog warden or assistant dog warden, a contract specifying the terms and conditions of the impoundment.

(C) The officer shall give written notice of the seizure and impoundment to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the companion animal that was seized and impounded. If the officer is unable to give the notice to the owner, keeper, or harborer of the companion animal, the officer shall post the notice on the door of the residence or in another conspicuous place on the premises at which the companion animal was seized. The notice shall include a statement that a hearing will be held not later than ten days after the notice is provided or at the next available court date to determine whether the officer had probable cause to seize the companion animal and, if applicable, to determine the amount of a bond or cash deposit that is needed to provide for the companion animal's care and keeping for not less than thirty days beginning on the date on which the companion animal was impounded.

AN OFFICER MAY SEIZE AND CAUSE TO BE IMPOUNDED AT AN IMPOUNDING AGENCY A COMPANION ANIMAL THAT THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IS THE SUBJECT OF AN OFFENSE.....   

THE OFFICER SHALL GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SEIZURE AND IMPOUNDMENT TO THE OWNER, KEEPER, OR HARBORER OF THE COMPANION ANIMAL  THE OFFICER SHAL POST THE NOTICE ON THE DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE OR IN ANOTHER CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE PREMISES AT WHICH THE COMPANION ANIMAL WAS SEIZED.  THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A HEARING WILL BE HELD NOT LATER THAN TEN DAYS AFTER THE NOTICE IS PROVIDED OR AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE COURT DATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OFFICER HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEIZE THE COMPANION ANIMAL ....

This quote comes from a legal definition of probable cause  "When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

This is important PUBLIC JUSTICE AND THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRE THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE EXAMINED, THERE IS SAID TO BE A PROBABLE CAUSE ...   

And this quote from another source    The Supreme Court has ruled that police can't stop and search people on a vague suspicion or hunch. Probable cause requires specific information that a particular person has committed a crime. The four sources of this information can be observation, the direct detection of a crime or pattern of suspicious behavior, expertise, skills of detection gained in special training, testimony, reports by witnesses, victims, or informants, or circumstantial evidence, which indirectly implies that a crime has occurred but isn't necessarily proof.

REPORTS BY WITNESSES, VICTIMS, OR INFORMANTS  Klonda Richey reported repeatedly as both a witness and the victim. 

  

What is found in the ORC gives several options for action in cases like Mrs. Richey's.   She might have been informed that filing an affidavit in court would bring action.  She would not even have to make a special trip, she could have filed the affidavit while she was already in court asking for a civil protection order against her neighbor Andrew Nason.  For video of that legal event please click here to see and hear Klonda Richey asking for help from the courts.   

Mr. Kumpf dismissively stated that the law does not give him the right to impound dogs just because "someone does't like this particular dog"    This is a great deal more than personal dislike, it is about public safety.  Simply putting a post-it note on a felon's door and walking away does not constitute doing your job.  A strong case can be made for probable cause and Ohio Revised Code gave Montgomery County Animal Control the right and responsibility to act.  

I will end this post with a flash back to Dayton Ohio in September of 2013.  Neighbors, and the United States Postal Service made complaints for a YEAR before any action was taken.  WDTN's l;ink no longer works but this one does and it deals with the same situation.   

9/27/2013
Dayton Ohio



Thirteen living Great Danes, Labradors, rabbits, and per the video a live chicken were removed from a Dayton home, multiple dead dogs were also found and removed by Dayton Police and Animal Resource Center staff.   

Neighbors and United States Postal Service workers have been complaining about this situation for a YEAR.  Per the neighbors the dogs had broken out all the windows, they CLIMBED OUT ON THE ROOF AND BARKED AT PASSERSBY, the smell of death has been hanging over this neighborhood in a cloud  and this has been going on for a YEAR!

Kumpf managed to look embarrassed on camera while being interviewed on this situation. "There is quite a number of live dogs here this afternoon," said Kumpf. "That is what we are here for. We may have been too late for some of these but we won't be too late for the others. Get them the help and they attention that they need."

Mark Kumpf with surviving puppies.

Per WDTN Neighbors said they are now thankful something has been done.

They just hoped it was sooner.

"It didn't have to come to that," said Smith. "Because we've been calling and the postal service has been calling, all of the neighbors. You can smell it. The whole street just smells."

Charges are still pending as investigators compile their report to present to the prosecutor.

City inspectors condemned the property.

What has Kumpf been doing for the last year?  Receiving complaints from neighbors and the USPS regarding dogs parading across the roof of an apparently abandoned home and barking at members of the community for a year?  The response to the multiple and  very valid complaints from this community is simply too little and too late.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Too little and too late again from the Montgomery County Dog Warden.  Kumpf had a job to do and he did not do it.  Next time we will take a look at Klonda Richey's actual complaints.  We will also take a look at the criminal history of her neighbor Andrew Nason.

The bond posted to insure performance of Kumpf's job should be forfeit.  Mr. Kumpf is a liability to the County and a public relations disaster for the Dog Wardens Association.  Mr. Kumpf's statements have brought comments that question "if dog wardens can't do anything then why do we even have them?"    

Dayton grandmother mauled by three pit bulls

In an attack so outrageous that it has been picked up by the press as far away as the United Kingdom, an 82 year old Dayton Ohio grandmother was mauled by three pit bulls.  Per WKEF-TV,  a  Montgomery County Animal Control representative stated that Charlotte Carter was attacked while in her own back yard.  Mrs. Carter's son said ""I went out the back yard and I heard her screaming. All three of them were on top of her. I had to do everything I could to save my mother's life," said her son, Chris Carter.

The photos of her injuries are graphic. The dogs ripped chunks of flesh off her legs, arms and face. Luckily, Chris was able to pry their jaws off her mauled body.

The Montgomery County Animal Resource Center, headed by Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf,  is allowing the dog owner to quarantine the dogs in his own home (right next door to the victim's home) because ""The ARC doesn't have the authority to remove the dogs right now. We will go through the process and if it's deemed we can remove them, then we will remove the dogs," shelter manager Mick Sagester said."

Chris Carter is not pleased by this arrangement.  He said "if it happened once it can happen again until something is done about it."  Getting something done about it is the problem.  HB 14, passed last year by the Ohio Legislature, was written by animal rights lawyers employed by Utah based Best Friends Animal Society.  This law protects only dogs and their owners.   Despite the claims of bill sponsor Representative Barbara Sears that the bill "finally gives dog wardens the tools to deal with dangerous dogs" the reality is much different.  Montgomery County Dog Warden Mark Kumpf was a huge supporter of HB 14 and is now responsible for enforcing the law he helped to create.  The process for declaring a dog dangerous and removing it from the community is very complicated.  

This is the process, how long do you think it will take?  

955.222 Hearings for dog designation.

(A) The municipal court or county court that has territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog shall conduct any hearing concerning the designation of the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog. (B) If a person who is authorized to enforce this chapter has reasonable cause to believe that a dog in the person’s jurisdiction is a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, the person shall notify the owner, keeper, or harborer of that dog, by certified mail or in person, of both of the following: (1) That the person has designated the dog a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable; (2) That the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog may request a hearing regarding the designation in accordance with this section. The notice shall include instructions for filing a request for a hearing in the county in which the dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer resides. (C) If the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog disagrees with the designation of the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable, the owner, keeper, or harborer, not later than ten days after receiving notification of the designation, may request a hearing regarding the determination. The request for a hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the municipal court or county court that has territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer. At the hearing, the person who designated the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog. The owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog or the person who designated the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog may appeal the court’s final determination as in any other case filed in that court. (D) A court, upon motion of an owner, keeper, or harborer or an attorney representing the owner, keeper, or harborer, may order that the dog designated as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog be held in the possession of the owner, keeper, or harborer until the court makes a final determination under this section or during the pendency of an appeal, as applicable. Until the court makes a final determination and during the pendency of any appeal, the dog shall be confined or restrained in accordance with the provisions of division (D) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code that apply to dangerous dogs regardless of whether the dog has been designated as a vicious dog or a nuisance dog rather than a dangerous dog. The owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog shall not be required to comply with any other requirements established in the Revised Code that concern a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable, until the court makes a final determination and during the pendency of any appeal. (E) If a dog is finally determined under this section, or on appeal as described in this section, to be a vicious dog, division (D) of section 955.11 and divisions (D) to (I) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code apply with respect to the dog and the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog as if the dog were a dangerous dog, and section 955.54 of the Revised Code applies with respect to the dog as if it were a dangerous dog, and the court shall issue an order that specifies that those provisions apply with respect to the dog and the owner, keeper, or harborer in that manner. As part of the order, the court shall require the owner, keeper, or harborer to obtain the liability insurance required under division (E)(1) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code in an amount described in division (H)(2) of section 955.99 of the Revised Code. (F) As used in this section, “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog” have the same meanings as in section 955.11 of the Revised Code.

Added by 129th General Assembly File No. 75, HB 14, § 1, eff. 5/22/2012.

How long will Mrs. Carter be forced to live next door to the dogs that mauled her?  Please watch the video, this is what Mrs. Carter will face every day.

How HB 14 fails Ohio residents.

HB 14 was passed in late February of 2012.  The law was a gift/sell out to breed specific advocacy but the  public was told the law would "finally give dog wardens the tools to deal with vicious dogs." This law is failing  miserably.  On January 2nd a Lorain Ohio woman's Shih Tzu was killed by a pit bull with a record of violence.  The little dog was playing in the yard of its owner at the time of the witnessed attack.  A neighbor's pit bull broke its chain and attacked the nine pound Shih Tzu, it died the following day. The pit bull is not registered and records indicate that the pit bull attacked a human AND another dog in August of 2012.  Why was this clearly dangerous dog still in the community?  Did the owner of the pit bull pay the medical expenses for the human and the dog attacked last August?  How about the vet bill for dead dog?  How about counselling sessions for the Shih Tzu owner?  She witnessed the mauling. My guess is no, none of these expenses have, or will be paid by the pit bull owner.  Insurance is no longer required for pit bulls.    

Will animal control deal with this pit bull NOW?  The answer may be "no, it's too much trouble."  HB 14 sets out a protocol for dealing with dangerous dogs and here it is.  Workable?  I don't think so.  Designed to protect the public?  Nope...

955.222 Hearings for dog designation.

(A) The municipal court or county court that has territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog shall conduct any hearing concerning the designation of the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog.

(B) If a person who is authorized to enforce this chapter has reasonable cause to believe that a dog in the person’s jurisdiction is a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, the person shall notify the owner, keeper, or harborer of that dog, by certified mail or in person, of both of the following:

(1) That the person has designated the dog a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable;

(2) That the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog may request a hearing regarding the designation in accordance with this section. The notice shall include instructions for filing a request for a hearing in the county in which the dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer resides.

(C) If the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog disagrees with the designation of the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable, the owner, keeper, or harborer, not later than ten days after receiving notification of the designation, may request a hearing regarding the determination. The request for a hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the municipal court or county court that has territorial jurisdiction over the residence of the dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer. At the hearing, the person who designated the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the dog is a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog.

The owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog or the person who designated the dog as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog may appeal the court’s final determination as in any other case filed in that court.

(D) A court, upon motion of an owner, keeper, or harborer or an attorney representing the owner, keeper, or harborer, may order that the dog designated as a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog be held in the possession of the owner, keeper, or harborer until the court makes a final determination under this section or during the pendency of an appeal, as applicable. Until the court makes a final determination and during the pendency of any appeal, the dog shall be confined or restrained in accordance with the provisions of division (D) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code that apply to dangerous dogs regardless of whether the dog has been designated as a vicious dog or a nuisance dog rather than a dangerous dog. The owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog shall not be required to comply with any other requirements established in the Revised Code that concern a nuisance dog, dangerous dog, or vicious dog, as applicable, until the court makes a final determination and during the pendency of any appeal.

(E) If a dog is finally determined under this section, or on appeal as described in this section, to be a vicious dog, division (D) of section 955.11 and divisions (D) to (I) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code apply with respect to the dog and the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog as if the dog were a dangerous dog, and section 955.54 of the Revised Code applies with respect to the dog as if it were a dangerous dog, and the court shall issue an order that specifies that those provisions apply with respect to the dog and the owner, keeper, or harborer in that manner. As part of the order, the court shall require the owner, keeper, or harborer to obtain the liability insurance required under division (E)(1) of section 955.22 of the Revised Code in an amount described in division (H)(2) of section 955.99 of the Revised Code.

(F) As used in this section, “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog” have the same meanings as in section 955.11 of the Revised Code.

Added by 129th General Assembly File No. 75, HB 14, § 1, eff. 5/22/2012.