SB 185: Dangerous and Vicious Dog Law

The bill proposes amendments to numerous sections of the Ohio Revised Code, primarily concerning dog registration, dangerous/vicious dog regulations, agritourism liability, and various other definitions and legal procedures.

Main Themes and Important Ideas:

The excerpts highlight several key areas of proposed legislative change:

1. Restructuring and Renumbering of Dog-Related Statutes: A significant theme throughout the document is the renumbering of various sections within Chapter 955 of the Revised Code, which pertains to dogs. Numerous references to existing sections like 955.01, 955.011, 955.012, 955.221, and 955.222 are followed by proposed new numbers such as 955.02, 955.021, 955.022, 955.10, and 955.23. This indicates a potential reorganization of the statutes governing dog registration, control, and classification.

• Quote Examples:“section 955.01 (955.02), 955.011 (955.021), 955.012 (955.022), 955.013 (955.023)” (Lines 10-12)
• “section 955.221 955.10 of the Revised Code regarding dogs” (Lines 68-69)
• “section 955.01 955.02 of the Revised Code” (Lines 500, 1653)
• “section 955.222 955.23 of the Revised Code” (Lines 2235-2236)

1. Agritourism Liability and Definitions: The bill introduces provisions related to agritourism activities and limits the liability of agritourism providers under certain circumstances. It defines “agritourism activity,” “farm,” and “participant.”

• Definition of “Agritourism Activity”: Defined as “any activity carried out on a farm that allows participants to view or enjoy agricultural activities whether or not for a fee.” (Lines 61-64)
• Definition of “Farm”: Defined as land meeting specific acreage or income requirements from agricultural production. (Lines 65-70)
• Definition of “Participant”: Defined as “an individual, other than an agritourism provider or employee of the provider, who enters a farm to participate in an agritourism activity.” (Lines 71-75)
• Immunity from Liability: An agritourism provider is granted immunity from liability for harm sustained by a participant “if the participant is harmed as a result of a risk inherent in an agritourism activity.” (Lines 86-89)
• Requirement for Warning Notice: Agritourism providers are required to display a warning notice at entrances or activity sites, in clearly visible black letters at least one inch high, informing participants of the inherent risks. (Lines 120-129)

1. Dangerous and Vicious Dog Regulations: The excerpts significantly amend the definitions and regulations surrounding “dangerous dogs” and “vicious dogs.”

• Definitions: The bill provides updated definitions for “vicious dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “nuisance dog,” specifying that these designations can be made in accordance with section 955.23 (proposed new numbering) or based on prior engagement in a defined act (nuisance, dangerous, or vicious dog act) as determined by a court. (Lines 238-250)
• Exclusion of Police Dogs: Importantly, the definitions of “dangerous dog” and “vicious dog” explicitly exclude police dogs acting in the line of duty, except for police dogs causing death or serious injury. (Lines 747-752, 793-798)
• Registration Requirements: Owners of dangerous or vicious dogs are required to register the dog with both the county auditor and the county dog warden. (Lines 329-332)
• Dangerous Dog Registration: The process for applying for a dangerous dog registration with the county dog warden is outlined, requiring submission of specific information and documentation. (Lines 334-339)
• Tag Requirement: Upon registration, the dog warden is to issue a tag identifying the animal as a vicious or dangerous dog. (Lines 351-353)
• Relocation Notification: Owners of registered dangerous or vicious dogs must notify the dog warden upon relocating within the same county. (Lines 355-358)
• Criminal Penalties for Violations: The bill establishes specific penalties for violating provisions related to dangerous and vicious dogs, ranging from minor misdemeanors to felonies of the third and fourth degree depending on the severity of the violation (e.g., negligently failing to prevent a vicious dog act resulting in injury or death). (Lines 376-394, 1279-1302, 1616-1617)
• Designation Process: The process for designating a dog as nuisance, dangerous, or vicious is described, involving probable cause, notification to the owner, and the potential for a court hearing. (Lines 1311-1354)
• Mandatory Destruction: In cases of violations involving felony penalties (e.g., negligently failing to prevent a vicious dog act causing injury or death), the court shall order the dog to be humanely destroyed. (Lines 1620-1623)
• Restrictions on Ownership After Violations: A person convicted of or pleading guilty to certain violations related to dogs may be prohibited from owning, possessing, or residing with a dog for three years following release from incarceration or other sanctions. (Lines 1830-1843) This restriction does not apply to dogs owned before the effective date of the amendment. (Lines 1866-1870)

1. Dog Wardens and Impoundment: The role and powers of county dog wardens are detailed, including impoundment procedures.

• Powers of Dog Wardens: Dog wardens and deputies are granted powers similar to sheriffs and police officers in enforcing relevant dog statutes, including the authority to make arrests and summon assistance. (Lines 907-917)
• Impoundment of Dogs: Wardens can seize and impound dogs found running at large. Registered dogs can only be seized on the owner’s premises in the event of a natural disaster. (Lines 888-892)
• Humane Treatment and Court Orders: If a dog warden believes a dog is being treated inhumanely, they can apply to the court for an order to enter the premises and potentially seize the dog. (Lines 893-900)
• Notice of Impoundment: Procedures for notifying the owner of an impounded dog are outlined, with different timelines for registered and unregistered dogs. (Lines 921-944)
• Disposition of Impounded Dogs: The bill allows for the sale or destruction of impounded dogs after a specified period if not redeemed. (Lines 924-926, 941-943) It also addresses requests for dogs by teaching/research institutions and the ability of owners to opt out of this. (Lines 956-964)

1. Assistance Dogs and Law Enforcement Canines: Specific provisions address assistance dogs and law enforcement canines.

• Assistance Dog Registration: Allows for registration of assistance dogs with proof from a special agency. (Lines 400-402)
• Definitions of Assistance Dogs: Defines “assistance dog,” “guide dog,” “hearing dog,” and “service dog,” including the types of disabilities they assist. (Lines 459-477)
• Law Enforcement Canine Registration: Allows law enforcement agencies to register canines used for general law enforcement, tracking, or detection instead of standard annual registration. (Lines 499-502)

1. Rabies Vaccination and Dog Bites: Regulations concerning rabies vaccination and reporting/handling of dog bites are amended.

• Rabies Vaccination Requirement: Boards of health can require rabies vaccination, and proof may be needed for dog registration. (Lines 1646-1654)
• Reporting Dog Bites: Requires reporting of dog bites to the local health commissioner. (Lines 1673-1676)
• Quarantine: Specifies a quarantine period for dogs that have bitten a person, unless the dog is diseased or seriously injured. (Lines 1676-1679)
• Testing for Rabies: Health officials can test the body of a dog that has bitten someone for rabies. (Lines 1704-1707)
• Exclusion for Police Dogs: The dog bite reporting and quarantine requirements generally do not apply to police dogs acting in the line of duty, but the agency and handler must make the dog available for rabies testing if abnormal behavior is exhibited. (Lines 1720-1730)

1. Miscellaneous Amendments: The excerpts also touch upon other areas:

• Financial Transaction Devices: Clarifies limitations on the use of financial transaction devices for county expenses. (Lines 59-64)
• Wildlife Licenses/Permits: Amends provisions related to hunting and fishing licenses and permits for active duty military members, veterans with disabilities, and prisoners of war, allowing for free issuance under certain conditions. (Lines 2023-2112)
• Court Jurisdiction: Amends the jurisdiction of municipal and county courts, including adding jurisdiction for county courts in proceedings related to nuisance, dangerous, or vicious dog designations under the proposed new section 955.23. (Lines 2113-2257)
• Definition of “Theft Offense”: Updates the definition of “theft offense” to include references to amended or renumbered sections. (Lines 2315-2342)
• Definition of “Computer Hacking”: Provides a detailed definition of “computer hacking” for the purposes of related criminal statutes, excluding the introduction of computer contaminants. (Lines 2460-2517)
• Assault on Police/Assistance Animals: Amends the statute regarding assault on police animals or assistance dogs, including payment of veterinary bills and restitution. (Lines 2688-2708)

Important Facts and Details:

• The bill proposes significant renumbering of dog-related sections in the Ohio Revised Code.
• It introduces a new legal framework for agritourism liability, providing immunity under specific conditions, including a mandatory warning notice.
• Definitions and regulations for dangerous and vicious dogs are detailed, with explicit exemptions for police dogs in the line of duty.
• Specific registration requirements for dangerous and vicious dogs are established, including registration with both the county auditor and dog warden and a requirement for an identifying tag.
• Strict penalties, including mandatory dog destruction for severe violations, are proposed for negligent actions involving dangerous or vicious dogs.
• County dog wardens are granted extensive powers for enforcing dog regulations, including impoundment and applying for court orders in cases of inhumane treatment.
• Provisions for free hunting and fishing licenses/permits for certain military personnel and veterans are included.
• Court jurisdiction is updated, granting county courts specific authority over dangerous/vicious dog designations.
• New definitions for “theft offense” and “computer hacking” are provided.

Conclusion:

Ohio S.B. No. 185, as presented in these excerpts, represents a comprehensive effort to update and clarify various sections of the Ohio Revised Code. The primary focus appears to be on dog-related regulations, particularly concerning dangerous and vicious dogs and the responsibilities and powers of county dog wardens. Additionally, the bill introduces a new legal framework for agritourism liability and makes amendments to definitions in criminal statutes and provisions related to hunting/fishing licenses and court jurisdiction. The renumbering of sections in Chapter 955 suggests a broader systematic overhaul of the state’s dog laws.