HB 247: Dog Law Reform

Ohio House Bill 247 (HB 247), as introduced, proposes significant changes to various sections of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC). The primary focus of the provided excerpts appears to be amendments related to the regulation of dogs, including definitions of dangerous, vicious, and nuisance dogs, registration requirements, and penalties for violations. The bill also touches upon agritourism activities, hunting and fishing licenses for military personnel and veterans, court jurisdiction, and definitions related to theft and computer hacking. The proposed changes involve renumbering existing sections, enacting new sections, and repealing others.

Key Themes and Most Important Ideas/Facts:

1. Restructuring of Dog Regulation Sections: The bill proposes a significant renumbering and reorganization of Chapter 955 of the Revised Code, which deals with dogs. Existing sections such as 955.01, 955.011, 955.012, 955.013, 955.02, 955.09, 955.10, 955.22, 955.221, 955.222, and 955.40 are being amended to adopt new section numbers. New sections 955.21, 955.22, and 955.60 are being enacted, while sections 955.08, 955.21, 955.23, 955.24, 955.25, 955.39, 955.51, 955.52, 955.53, and 955.99 are being repealed. This indicates a comprehensive overhaul of the legal framework governing dogs in Ohio.
2. Redefined Dog Classifications: The bill introduces and redefines classifications for dogs based on their behavior:

• “Vicious dog”: Defined as a dog “that has been designated as such in accordance with section 955.23 of the Revised Code or a dog that has previously engaged in a vicious dog act when evidence of such engagement is presented to a court and the court determines that the dog has engaged in a previous vicious dog act.” (ORC 955.01 (new)) A “vicious dog act” is defined in the new section 955.22 as, subject to exceptions, a dog that has “killed or caused serious injury to any person” without provocation. Police dogs and dogs acting on the property of the owner against a trespasser or criminal are excluded.
• “Dangerous dog”: Defined similarly to vicious dogs, referring to designation under section 955.23 or court determination based on evidence of a “dangerous dog act.” (ORC 955.01 (new)) A “dangerous dog act” is defined in the new section 955.22 as a dog that has “caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person or has killed another dog” without provocation. Police dogs used in official duties are excluded.
• “Nuisance dog”: Defined similarly, referring to designation under section 955.23 or court determination based on evidence of a “nuisance dog act.” (ORC 955.01 (new)) A “nuisance dog act” is defined in the new section 955.22 as a dog that has “chased or approached a person in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack or has attempted to bite or otherwise endanger any person” without provocation while off the owner’s premises. Police dogs used in official duties are excluded.
• “Without provocation”: Defined as “that a dog was not teased, tormented, or abused by a person, or that the dog was not coming to the aid or the defense of a person who was not engaged in illegal or criminal activity and who was not using the dog as a means of carrying out such activity.” (ORC 955.22 (new))
• “Serious injury”: Defined with several criteria, including physical harm requiring hospitalization, permanent or temporary substantial incapacity, permanent or serious disfigurement, and acute pain resulting in substantial suffering. (ORC 955.22 (new))

1. Registration Requirements for Dogs: The bill maintains the requirement for dog registration with the county auditor by January 31st of the applicable year, with options for one-year, three-year, or permanent registration. (ORC 955.02 (new))

• Owners of dangerous or vicious dogs are required to register their dogs with both the county auditor and the county dog warden. (ORC 955.02 (new))
• The county dog warden is mandated to issue a dangerous dog registration and provide a uniformly designed tag identifying the animal as vicious or dangerous. (ORC 955.02 (new))
• Special registration provisions exist for assistance dogs (guide, hearing, service) and law enforcement canines. Assistance dogs receive free registration. (ORC 955.021 (new)) Law enforcement agencies can obtain annual registrations for their canines with specific application requirements based on the agency type. (ORC 955.022 (new))

1. Regulation and Control of Dogs by Local Authorities: The bill explicitly permits municipal corporations and boards of township trustees (in counties without county-level regulations) to adopt and enforce ordinances or resolutions to control dogs, provided they don’t conflict with other Revised Code provisions. This includes regulations concerning ownership, restraint, public nuisances, and public health/safety. However, these regulations “shall not prohibit the lawful ownership, keeping, or harboring of a dog.” (ORC 955.10 (new))
2. Penalties for Violations Related to Dogs: The bill outlines various penalties for violations of dog-related regulations, including:

• Violations of registration requirements can result in fines. (ORC 955.05)
• Recklessly obstructing or interfering with dog capture or examination of tags is a minor misdemeanor. (ORC 955.05)
• Recklessly owning/keeping a dog with a fictitious, altered, or invalid tag is a minor misdemeanor. (ORC 955.05)
• Recklessly violating local dog control ordinances/resolutions is a minor misdemeanor, with each day constituting a separate offense. (ORC 955.10 (new))
• Negligently failing to prevent a dog from committing a vicious dog act is a misdemeanor of the third degree on a first offense and a second degree misdemeanor on subsequent offenses. (ORC 955.22 (new))
• Negligently failing to prevent a dangerous or vicious dog from injuring or killing a person is a felony of the third degree. (ORC 955.22 (new))
• Negligently failing to prevent a dog from committing a dangerous dog act is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on a first offense and a third degree misdemeanor on subsequent offenses. (ORC 955.22 (new))
• Negligently failing to prevent a dangerous or vicious dog from injuring a person is a felony of the fifth degree. (ORC 955.22 (new))
• Negligently failing to prevent a dog from committing a nuisance dog act is a minor misdemeanor on a first offense and a fourth degree misdemeanor on subsequent offenses. (ORC 955.22 (new))

1. Process for Designating Nuisance, Dangerous, or Vicious Dogs: The bill outlines a process where an authorized person (presumably a dog warden or other enforcement officer) with probable cause to believe a dog has committed a dangerous or vicious dog act shall notify the owner of the designation and their right to petition the court for a hearing. For nuisance dog acts, the authorized person may petition the court for a hearing. (ORC 955.23 (new))
2. Responsibilities of Dangerous or Vicious Dog Owners: Owners of dangerous or vicious dogs have specific requirements, including notifying the local dog warden immediately if the dog is loose, bites a person (with exceptions for trespassing/criminal activity on the owner’s property), or attacks another animal off the owner’s property. (ORC 955.24 (new))
3. Humane Destruction of Dogs in Specific Cases: The bill includes provisions for the humane destruction of dogs, specifically stating that for violations of negligently failing to prevent a dangerous or vicious dog from injuring or killing a person (felony of the third degree), the court “shall order that the dog involved in the violation be humanely destroyed.” (ORC 955.24 (new))
4. County Dog Warden Duties and Powers: County dog wardens and their deputies are responsible for keeping records of dogs, seizing and impounding dogs found running at large or on premises during a natural disaster if registered, and applying to the court for orders to enter premises and seize dogs believed to be treated inhumanely. They have law enforcement powers related to enforcing dog regulations and can summon assistance. (ORC 955.12 (new)) Failure to perform duties by a dog warden is a minor misdemeanor. (ORC 955.12 (new))
5. Impoundment and Disposition of Dogs: Impounded dogs that are not registered may be sold or destroyed. Registered dogs where attempts to notify the owner fail will be held for fourteen days for redemption before potential sale or destruction. (ORC 955.12 (new)) Owners can specify in writing that a surrendered registered dog not be offered to a nonprofit teaching or research institution. (ORC 955.13 (new))
6. Rabies Vaccination Requirements: Proof of rabies vaccination is required before dog registration is issued in health districts where vaccination is mandated by the board of health. (ORC 955.26 (new)) Procedures for testing dogs involved in biting incidents for rabies are also outlined, with an exception for police dogs biting during official duties or under veterinary care. (ORC 955.261 (new))
7. Restrictions on Owning Dogs After Certain Violations: The bill includes a provision prohibiting individuals convicted or pleading guilty to three or more violations involving the same dog, or owners of a vicious or dangerous dog who recklessly fail certain duties, from owning, possessing, having custody of, or residing with certain dogs for a period of three years. This restriction does not apply to dogs owned before the effective date of the section (May 22, 2012, referenced from prior law, which would likely be updated upon enactment of HB 247). (ORC 955.60 (new))
8. Agritourism Definition: The bill includes a definition of “agritourism activity” and “farm” within the context of other regulations, seemingly to provide exemptions or specific considerations for agricultural operations. (ORC 5101.01 (new) – referencing 935.01)
9. Hunting and Fishing Licenses for Military Personnel and Veterans: The bill updates provisions regarding hunting and fishing licenses for active duty military members stationed in Ohio (eligible for resident licenses) and those on leave/furlough (can hunt/fish without a license for certain activities). It also reiterates free licenses for certain disabled veterans and former prisoners of war who are residents. (ORC 1533.12)
10. Court Jurisdiction Updates: The bill amends sections defining the jurisdiction of municipal and county courts to explicitly include proceedings related to dogs designated as nuisance, dangerous, or vicious dogs under the new ORC section 955.23. (ORC 1901.18, ORC 1907.031)
11. Definitions Related to Theft and Computer Hacking: The bill amends the definitions section for theft offenses (ORC 2913.01) to include updated language regarding various types of property, services, and financial transaction devices. It also includes detailed definitions of terms related to computer use and hacking, such as “computer services,” “computer,” “computer system,” “computer network,” “computer program,” “computer software,” “data,” “gain access,” and defines various types of “computer hacking.”
12. Offenses Against Police Dogs, Horses, and Assistance Dogs: The bill details offenses and penalties for knowingly causing serious injury, injury, or attempting to cause serious injury or injury to police dogs, horses, or assistance dogs. It also includes a section on negligently allowing a dog to cause injury or death to these animals. Penalties range from misdemeanors to felonies, and offenders are responsible for veterinary bills and replacement costs. This section specifically requires the offender to know or “should know” the animal is a police dog, horse, or assistance dog. (ORC 2921.321)
13. Repealed Sections: The bill lists numerous sections of the Revised Code that are being repealed, including specific sections related to dog regulations and potentially others. This reinforces the comprehensive nature of the proposed changes to dog law.

Areas of Focus and Further Analysis:

• The specific criteria and process for the court designation of a dog as nuisance, dangerous, or vicious under the new ORC section 955.23 will be crucial to understand the practical impact of these classifications.
• The implications of the renumbering and repeal of numerous ORC sections need careful review to ensure clarity and avoid unintended consequences or gaps in regulations.
• The penalties outlined for various dog-related offenses, particularly the felony charges and mandatory destruction of dogs in certain cases, are significant and warrant close examination.
• The definition of “without provocation” and its application in determining dangerous or vicious dog acts will be key in legal proceedings.
• The exemption of police dogs from certain dangerous or vicious dog classifications needs to be understood in the context of their official duties.
• The new restriction on dog ownership after certain violations needs to be analyzed for its scope and enforceability.

Overall Assessment:

HB 247, as introduced, represents a substantial effort to revise and update Ohio’s laws concerning dogs and other related areas. The bill aims to provide clearer definitions for dog classifications and associated behaviors, establish a more defined process for designating dangerous and vicious dogs, and strengthen penalties for violations that result in injury or harm. The inclusion of provisions related to agritourism, military/veteran hunting licenses, and computer hacking indicates a broader scope, but the primary impact, based on these excerpts, appears to be on dog regulation. The proposed changes will require careful consideration by lawmakers to ensure they effectively address public safety concerns while also being fair and practicable for dog owners and law enforcement.