One City's Experience

One City’s Experience

WhyWhy PitPit BullsBulls AreAre MoreMore DangerousDangerous andand Breed-SpecificBreed-Specific LegislationLegislation isis JustifiedJustified

n April 2005, the latest litigation cluded three-year-old Fernando Salazar, over breed-specific legislation — by Kory A. Nelson — fatally mauled in 1986, and 58-year- I(BSL) concluded in Denver, Colo- old Reverend Wilber Billingsley, at- rado. The state Legislature had previ- tacked by a pit bull in the alley behind ously passed H.B. 04-1279, which pro- his home.9 As a result, the local com- hibited local governments from regulat- 1991 ruling in Colorado Dog Fanciers, munity called for increased regulations ing dangerous dogs by specific breeds.1 Inc. v. City and County of Denver.7 On and bans on pit bulls.10 Accordingly, in The City and County of Denver filed a April 7, 2005, Judge Egelhoff issued an 1989, the Denver City Council enacted civil action2 seeking a ruling that the oral ruling from the bench on the State’s an ordinance making it unlawful to own, State Constitution’s provisions for mu- affirmative defense, finding that the possess, keep, exercise control over, nicipal home rule authority3 allowed State failed to provide any new evidence maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any Denver’s pit bull ban ordinance4 to su- to undermine the original findings in pit bull within the city.11 Several orga- percede H.B. 04-1279. In late 2004, Colorado Dog Fan-ciers; that the city had nizations and individual dog owners Denver District Court Judge Martin provided new evidence to provide ad- immediately filed suit challenging the Egelhoff, ruling on cross-motions for ditional support for Judge Rothenberg’s ordinance as unconstitutional.12 The summary judgment, held that the regu- findings; and upholding the ordinance litigation concluded in 1991 with the lation of dangerous dogs was a matter of as constitutional.8 This article will pro- Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in purely local concern, and that, pursu- vide a review of the developments in Colorado Dog Fanciers, upholding the ant to the Colorado Constitution, the field of ethology—the study of ani- trial court’s ruling that Denver’s ordi- Denver’s home rule authority super- mal behavior—in relation to pit bull nance was constitutional.13 While ceded H.B. 04-1279.5 However, the dogs, review the 1990 factual findings the decision followed prior decisions court allowed the State’s affirmative of the trial court in Colorado Dog Fanci- by other state courts reviewing similar defense6 to continue to trial, allowing ers, and outline the evidence relied on ordinances,14 the decision focused on the Colorado Attorney General’s Office by the city in the most recent case. procedural issues and glossed over the to argue that the ordinance no longer noteworthy and extensive factual find- had a rational relationship to its legiti- Colorado Dog Fanciers ings made by the trial court as to the mate government interest in public Between 1984 and 1989, pit bulls at- differences between pit bulls and other safety, and asking the trial court to re- tacked and seriously injured more than dogs, which provided a rational rela- verse the Colorado Supreme Court’s 20 people in Colorado. The victims in- tionship between the differential treat-

12 Municipal Lawyer ment of pit bulls and the legitimate The justification is based on other dogs, the evidence showed interest of protecting public safety. that, when a pit bull attacked, the clear evidence that, as it would not retreat, even when con- Not Like Other Dogs siderable pain was inflicted on To fully appreciate pit bulls as being dif- a group, pit bulls, compared to the dog. ferent than other breeds, one must ex- other breeds, generally have • Manner of attack. The city proved amine the history and purposes of the that pit bulls inflicted more serious intentional selective breeding of dogs a higher propensity to exhibit wounds than other breeds because and why the unique pit bull breed they tend to attack the deep muscles, was developed. The phenotypes of unique behavioral traits to hold on, to shake, and to cause rip- dogs that share the common definition during an attack. ping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were of “pit bull” derive their heritage compared to shark attacks. from “the Butcher’s Dog”15 developed • Strength. Pit bulls are extremely mus- through the sport of bull-baiting in cular and unusually strong for their Recent Developments England.16 These dogs were intention- size, generally stronger than many in Ethology ally bred to result in better, stronger, other dogs. Since 1990, there have been few devel- and bolder dogs, more inclined to en- • Manageability and temperament. opments in ethology that directly relate gage in the dangerous behaviors likely While pit bulls are one of many ag- to the behavior of pit bulls and the jus- to win in the ring. By 1835, bull- gressive types of dogs, their tempera- tification for BSL, but one updated study baiting was banned. Rather than give ment varies in the same manner as and one new article published by a rec- up their gambling and dog-fighting other dogs and they can make gentle ognized expert in the field were thor- exploits, the owners took their pets. Proper handling, including early oughly discussed before Judge Egelhoff dog fighting underground—literally. socialization to humans, is very im- in the most recent case. The coal-mining communities in portant. Even their most ardent ad- A study published in 2000 by Sacks, Staffordshire County, England, brought mirers, however, agree that these Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, and Lock- their dogs to coal pits to fight. The breed dogs are not for everyone and they wood involved a statistical review of dog was manipulated to be better at fight- require special attention and disci- bites resulting in fatalities (DBRF), bro- ing other dogs than bulls; the dogs pline. The court cited one study ken down by the breed reported to have needed to be quicker and more agile, which reported that over thirteen been involved.22 (A previous version of and not signal their intentions through percent of pit bulls attacked their the study was introduced into evidence their body posture, as most dogs do.17 owners, as compared with just over before the Colorado Dog Fanciers trial This eventually resulted in smaller, te- two percent of other dogs.21 court; the updated 2000 study provided nacious terriers—the similar pheno- • Unpredictability of Aggression. Pit an additional ten years of data.) The types known as the American Pit Bull bull dogs, unlike other dogs, often State of Colorado thought this study was Terrier, the American Staffordshire Ter- give no warning signals before they significant because, during the last six rier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.18 attack. years studied, there were more DBRF The most significant point about • Tenacity. Pit bulls trained for fight- involving dogs reported to be Rottweil- the justification for bans or restrictions ing are valued for “gameness”—the ers than involving dogs reported to be of pit bulls is that these are not depen- tenacious refusal to give up a fight. pit bulls. The State argued that because dent upon a claim that every pit bull The court found that pit bulls trained pit bulls were no longer the national has a higher than average propensity for for fighting had this attribute, and leader in DBRF, there was no longer a attacking humans. The justification is that credible testimony also proved rational basis for Denver’s pit bull ban. based on the clear evidence that, as a that, when a pit bull began to fight, Judge Egelhoff disagreed and accepted group, pit bulls, compared to other it would often not retreat. the city’s argument on this issue— breeds, generally have a higher propen- • Pain tolerance. Although there was namely, that the Colorado Dog Fanciers sity to exhibit unique behavioral traits no scientific evidence that pit bulls decision was clearly not based on a during an attack. These behaviors have had a greater tolerance of pain than continued on page 14 a higher likelihood of causing more se- vere injuries or death. The Colorado Dog Fanciers trial court made this clear, Kory A. Nelson is a Senior Assistant City Attorney in the Prose- stating that, while it could not be cution Section for the City & County of Denver, Colorado. He has proven that pit bulls bite more than prosecuted a variety of cases in Denver County Court for over other dogs, there was “credible evidence 15 years. He is an instructor with the Denver Sheriff’s Training that Pit Bull dog attacks are more se- Academy and various municipal inspection agencies. He is a graduate vere and more likely to result in fatali- of Arizona State University’s College of Law, has a B.S. in Criminal ties.”19 The court, in great detail, noted Justice from A.S.U., and is a U.S. Army veteran. He is the owner of fourteen separate areas of differences, Heidi, a German Shepherd. including: 20

July/August 2005 Vol. 46, No. 6 13 part of the problem with the ‘Pit frequency distribution curve, the prob- PIT BULLS continued from page 13 Bull’ controversy is that the lin- lem is that any specific dog’s location determination that pit bulls were more eages of fighting and non-fight- on the curve cannot be determined likely to bite or attack than other breeds, ing animals [within] the fight- merely by looking at it, since it shares so the ten years of additional data did ing breeds have been separated the same phenotype or physical char- not undermine the original findings.23 for many generations, but have acteristics as other, more dangerous pit In fact, Judge Egelhoff specifically shown relatively little physical bulls. However, as the entire breed’s found problems with the use of the divergence. As a result, an selective breeding has caused its fre- DBRF statistics, similar to those noted American Pit Bull terrier from quency distribution curve to be shifted by the original trial court.24 These in- recent fighting stock may be higher, creating a reliable higher prob- cluded that: (a) the accuracy of the “re- physically indistinguishable ability of higher frequencies of such dan- ported breed” of dog involved was un- from an American or English gerous behavior (such as the bite, hold, known; (b) the study included only re- Staffordshire (bull) terrier 50 and shake behavior despite the inflic- ported cases resulting in fatalities, but generations removed from the tion of greater levels of injury and pain), not injury short of death; (c) the im- fighting pits, yet the two animals Dr. Borchelt testified there is a ration- possibility of determining a bite/attack could be behaviorally very al basis to differentiate pit bulls from ratio for each breed because the num- different.29 other breeds of dogs.32 ber of dogs in the U.S. as a total and per breed was unknown; and (d) the Expert Testimony Effect of Multiple Pit Bulls. Dr. Borchelt last six years was too short and too During the 2004 trial, the City of Den- has unique qualifications on this issue, speculative a time frame on which to ver presented the expert testimony of having co-authored the only expert base a conclusion.25 However, over the Dr. Peter L. Borchelt, a certified applied paper on “pack attacks” on humans entire 20 years of the study, pit bulls animal behaviorist,30 who testified on a and having conducted several reviews were still involved in 67 percent of the number of relevant subtopics, summa- of individual cases of multiple dog DBRF, while Rottweilers accounted rized here. maulings resulting in death and near- for only 16 percent.26 fatal injuries.33 This included meeting The second development is an Aggressiveness Towards Humans: Dr. with crime-scene investigators dealing article by Randall Lockwood.27 Al- Borchelt rebutted the oft-cited argu- with the gruesome death, from a sus- though the article should be read by ment that pit bulls were bred to not be tained mauling by three pit bulls, of 30- anyone interested in this issue, given aggressive to humans. While breeding year-old Jennifer Brooke.34 On the ef- Lockwood’s connection to the Humane to suppress the behavioral tendencies for fect of increasing the number of pit Society of the United States, many of “diverted aggression” towards humans bulls involved in an attack upon a his conclusions appear to be softened, may have occurred in the distant past, human and the likelihood of serious in- as the implications of his findings could the increased demand for the breed juries or death, Dr. Borchelt testified be written in much more straightforward means some breeders no longer have the that, rather than a simple multiplying conclusions. For example, in his terms, incentive to cull “human-aggressive” effect (i.e., the mathematical pattern of Lockwood affirms that fighting dogs dogs. Such dogs may, instead, be sold to x, x + x = 2x, 2x + x = 3x) present with have a more exaggerated “decrease in the unwary public and bred, further di- other breeds, the effect would be closer the latency to show intra-specific ag- luting the suppression of this behavior.31 to an exponential effect (i.e., 1 = x1, 2 gression,” a much higher tolerance of = x2, 3 = x3).35 pain, suppressed or eliminated accurate Shifted Higher Frequency Distribution communication of aggressive motiva- Patterns of Dangerous Behavior. Fight- Judge Egelhoff’s Ruling tion or intent through postural and fa- ing dog breeders artificially selected and At the conclusion of the evidence, cial signals, and reduced termination or bred towards dangerous behaviors in Judge Egelhoff, in an oral ruling, found withdrawal from combat upon either order to intensify the frequency of the that the State had failed to provide the opponent’s withdrawal or display of behavior. This caused these breeds to new evidence to undermine Judge submissive behavior.28 This can be more have the frequency of these dangerous Rothenberg’s original 1990 findings re- clearly summarized as: A pit bull will be behavioral traits still represented statis- garding the differences between pit bulls more likely not to display its aggressive tically in a distribution pattern similar and other dogs; moreover, he ruled the intent, be more likely to initiate an at- to the traditional bell curve, but shifted city had shown additional evidence in tack, and continue on with a furious towards higher levels of the dangerous support of Judge Rothenberg’s findings. attack with its great strength, regardless behavior, compared to other breeds. Since Judge Rothenberg’s 1990 decision of what behavior the victim exhibits, Moreover, these behavioral traits can- was not based upon the claim that pit and despite having great levels of pain not be artificially shifted back to lower, bulls had a higher propensity to bite or or injury inflicted on it. Moreover, it normal frequency distribution pattern attack humans, the new Sacks study and can’t be predicted which individual pit levels. Although the actual tendencies Lockwood article were not relevant on bull will engage in this behavior. To of an individual dog of these fighting the narrow issues presented in that de- quote Lockwood: breeds could be anywhere along the cision. The State had failed to establish

14 Municipal Lawyer that no rational basis for the ordinance’s tain dogs in Telluride, farm dogs in Lamar, and 14. See, e.g., Hearn v. City of Overland Park, pit bull ban existed; accordingly, pursu- urban dogs in Denver to be subject to the same 772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989); Garcia v. Village of ant to the rule of stare decisis, the Colo- kinds of laws and restrictions…local control Tijeras, 767 P.2d 355 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). rado Supreme Court’s ruling in Colo- of breeds means flexibility in crafting locally- 15. A subtype of Molossian dogs known as acceptable solutions to the problems created “Bullenbeissers” were valued for their ability rado Dog Fanciers—that Denver’s ordi- by dogs. As the largest and most populous to control unruly cattle, earning their keep as nance was constitutional—remained metropolitan area in Colorado, Denver faces butcher’s dogs. These dogs had to catch and valid and, therefore, the current ordi- unique challenges in ensuring that dogs en- grip escaping or uncooperative bulls on their nance was still constitutional.36 hance the lives of citizens rather than threaten way to market. The dog would hang on the their safety.” The court did grant the State’s bull’s nose without letting go until the butcher Conclusion motion for partial summary judgment, finding could regain control. As with all people who A municipality that is experiencing a that the interjurisdictional transportation of a depend upon their dogs, butchers were proud problem with pit bull attacks needs to pit bull through Denver was a matter of mixed of their best “bulldogs” and anxious to prove consider for itself the best course of ac- local and state concern, and struck the lan- them better than the neighboring village’s tion to protect its citizens, especially guage of Denver’s ordinance that required a butcher’s dog. D. CAROLINE COILE, PIT BULLS those most likely to be unable to defend pre-approved travel permit for such trans- FOR DUMMIES 9 (Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2001). portation. Id. at 4. 16. The British placed high value on contests themselves from the tenacious and sus- 6. The court never made clear the legal au- that featured animals fighting to the death. tained attack of a pit bull, who will likely thority for an affirmative defense of unconsti- The spectacle of a dog killing a bull was the bite, hold, and tear at its victim despite tutionality due to a lack of a rational relation- highest entertainment that most small villages efforts to stop it. However, given the ship in an action for declaratory judgment could offer their poor inhabitants. Id. at 8. clear rational evidence, breed-specific on a home rule issue. 17. Dogs exhibit characteristic postures that legislation is still a legally viable option. 7. 820 P. 2d 644 (Colo. 1991). reveal their states of mind. Fighting dogs were There is no new evidence that under- 8. City and County of Denver, et al. v. State of bred and trained not to display behavioral sig- mines the holdings of Colorado Dog Fan- Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., nals of their intentions, to give these dogs an ciers, only new relevant evidence that April 7, 2005). advantage in the ring. The pit bull dog is fre- adds additional support for BSL, as the 9. Jim Kirskey, Pit Bull mauls Denver man, 58: quently known to attack “without warning” differential treatment of pit bulls is Neighbor kills dog after 70 bites, 100 stitches, 2 for this reason. Lockwood, Randall, The ethol- broken legs, DENVER POST, May 9, 1989 at page ogy and epidemiology of canine aggression, THE based upon logical, rational evidence 1B. The dog’s attack was sustained over a long DOMESTIC DOG: ITS EVOLUTION, BEHAVIOUR, AND from the scientific field of ethology. period and a neighbor, Norman Cable, at- INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE, at 133 (James tempted to stop the dog by hitting it with a 2 Serpell, ed. Cambridge University Press, 1995); Notes x 4. This had no effect and Cable was able to republished in ANIMAL LAW AND DOG BEHAV- 1. H.B. 04-1279, concerning liability regard- stop the dog only by shooting it. The victim IOR at 289 (David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, ing the behavior of dogs, was codified as COLO. suffered serious injuries from over 70 bites, Ph.D., eds. 1999) (hereinafter “Lockwood”). REV. STAT. § 18-9-204.5 (2004) and became with both of his legs being broken. 18. PIT BULLS FOR DUMMIES, supra note 15 at effective on April 21, 2004. 10. Editorial, Let’s outlaw killer dogs, DENVER 7-12. 2. The city’s complaint was filed on May 13, POST, June 12, 1989, at page 4B; Editorial, 19. Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and 2004 in the matter of City and County of Den- Tougher rules and stronger enforcement on Pit County of Denver, No. 89CV12348 at Para. ver, et al. v. State of Colorado, Denver District Bulls, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, May 12, 1989 27 (Denver Dist. Ct., June 28, 1990) Court Case No. 04CV3756. at page 82. (Rothenberg, J.). 3. The Colorado Constitution grants home rule 11. DENVER, COLO. REV. CODE § 8-55 (a) (2) 20. Aggressiveness, athletic ability, biting, status to municipalities with a population over (1989). A “Pit Bull” is defined as an Ameri- catch instinct, destructiveness, fighting abil- 2,000 that adopt home rule charters. COLO. can Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire ity and killing instinct, frenzy, gameness, health REV. STAT. Const. Art. XX, § 6 (West 2004). Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog status, manageability, strength, temperament, 4. DENVER, COLO. REV. CODE § 8-55 (1989) displaying the majority of physical traits of tolerance to pain, unpredictability. Id. at prohibits pit bull dogs. any one or more of the above breeds, or any Para. 28. 5. Order in City and County of Denver v. State dog exhibiting those distinguishing character- 21. Id. at para. 28(j), p. 7. of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., istics which substantially conform to the 22. Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, and Dec. 9, 2004) (Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Sum- standards established by the American Ken- Lockwood, Breeds of dogs involved in fatal mary Judgment and Defendant’s Cross-Motion nel Club or United Kennel Club for any of human attacks In the United States between for Partial Summary Judgment). “The Court the above breeds. The A.K.C. and U.K.C. 1979 and 1998, JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6 (Sept. concludes that the issue of which dog breeds standards for the above breeds are on file in 15, 2000). are permitted, prohibited, or restricted within the office of the clerk and recorder, ex officio 23. Judge Egelhoff determined the parameters a city is a matter of purely local concern. The clerk of the City and County of Denver, at of the trial to be that the State Attorney State has not articulated, and the Court can- City Clerk Filing No. 89457. General’s Office had the burden of proof to not conceive, a need for statewide uniformity. 12. Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc., et al. v. establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, In fact, there seems to be a need for local con- City and County of Denver, No. 89CV11714, since the time of Judge Rothenberg’s original trol in this area. Each community has its own consolidated with Colorado Humane Society, 1990 ruling, there had been sufficient changes attitudes and preferences with respect to dogs. Inc., et al. v. City and County of Denver, in the facts or ethology (the study of In each community, depending on culture and No. 89CV12348 (Denver District Court animal behavior) to prove that there was demographics, dogs occupy a different role. It June 28, 1990) (Rothenberg, J.). currently no rational basis to justify the pit would not make sense for the owners of moun- 13. 820 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991). continued on page 29

July/August 2005 Vol. 46, No. 6 15 SUPREME COURT In Our In the September/October issue of Municipal continued from page 21 Next Lawyer—The First Amendment and Recent very basis of Congress’s power to enact Issue: RLUIPA has been deferred. Justice Tho- Issues for Local Governments. Articles include mas, in a concurrence, makes it clear that there are serious reasons to doubt a review of solicitation ordinances; First whether Congress had the power to enact RLUIPA. The federal government Amendment and adult business—evidentiary is a government of enumerated powers, issues; airports and the First Amendment; and RLUIPA’s proponents must explain how this law, a law governing state and and an update on regulating signs. local governments for the sake of reli- gious entities, is a valid exercise of federal power under the Spending or Com- PIT BULLS continued from page 15 merce Clauses, or Section 5 of the Four- teenth Amendment. bull ban, requiring the court to reverse the Colorado Dog Fanciers decision. City and County of On this issue, we’ll hear from the Denver, et al. v. State of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, 2005). Sixth Circuit on the prison context be- 24. Id. The 1990 trial court noted: “It is difficult to accurately determine the breeds which fore we hear from the Supreme Court. cause the most bites for several reasons: (a) It is difficult to identify a particular breed of dog, especially with mixed breeds; (b) There is a tendency to over report dog bites attributed to a On the land use side, this question is an particular breed; (c) Certain dog breeds are owned by a population of dog owners who are especially weighty one: Federalism con- more likely to be irresponsible; and (d) There is inaccurate reporting of the total population of cerns are at their height when a federal particular breeds. Defendants’ Exhibit LLL, Lockwood Report.” Colorado Dog Fanciers, law interferes with what is the most in- J. Rothenberg, supra note 19 at Para. 26. herently state and local issue: local land 25. City and County of Denver, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, 2005). use. So stay tuned, because there is 26. Id. much left to be decided with respect to 27. Lockwood, supra note 17 at 133 and 289. RLUIPA. 28. Id. 29. Id. at 133. Editor’s Note: Marci Hamilton, at 30. Dr. Borchelt had previously testified as an expert witness on the behavior of pit bulls in [email protected], is the Paul R. litigation over Toledo, Ohio’s pit bull ordinance, and had published several articles on dangerous Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Ben- dogs, including the only published book on this legal topic, Basic Behavioral Principles and jamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Ye- Misunderstood Words, ANIMAL LAW AND DOG BEHAVIOR (David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, shiva University, where she specializes eds., 1999). in church/state issues. She wrote an 31. Testimony of Dr. Peter L. Borchelt, Denver v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., amicus brief on behalf of IMLA and oth- April 7, 2005). Lockwood also notes, “Dog fighters and advocates of fighting breeds note ers in the Cutter case, in order to bring that, historically, fighting animals that showed aggression to people were generally removed to the Court’s attention the issues in- from the gene pool, either by being destroyed or being deemed unsuitable for breeding.… volving Congress’s power to enact However, there is no indication that the same selective pressures are in operation since there RLUIPA. Her most recent publica- is currently a market for even the most intractable animals in the guard dog trade.” Lockwood, tion is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and supra note 17 at 133. the Rule of Law (Cambridge 2005). A 32. Testimony of Dr. Borchelt, Denver v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, longer version of this column first 2005). 33. Dr. Borchelt co-authored the only known article in the field of ethology on the attack of appeared on June 2, 2005 in Marci packs of dogs on humans: Borchelt, Peter L., Ph.D., Lockwood, Randall, Ph.D., Beck, Alan M., Hamilton’s bimonthly constitutional Sc.D., Voith, Victoria L., D.V.M., Ph.D., Attacks by Packs of Dogs Involving Predation on Human law column posted at the Findlaw site, Beings, ANIMAL LAW AND DOG BEHAVIOR (David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, eds., 1999). www.findlaw.com. ML 34. Hector Gutierrez, Owner of Pit Bulls Headed for Prison: Woman takes plea deal in fatal attack in Elbert County, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Sept. 25, 2004 at http://www.rockymountainnews.com/ drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3208879,00.html. See also, The DenverChannel.com, Pit Get the latest news Bull Owner Sentenced For Mauling Death, at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3999446/ detail.html (“Many deputies said that Brooke’s mauled body was one of the most gruesome things in municipal law on they had ever seen. Eight firemen had to be counseled after they responded to the scene”). 35. Testimony of Dr. Borchelt, Denver v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, our Web site at 2005). 36. City and County of Denver, et al. v. State of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, 2005). On Monday, May 9, 2005, the City and County resumed enforcement of its www.imla.org Pit Bull ordinance. ML

16 Municipal Lawyer July/August 2005 Vol. 46, No. 6 29