State of West Virginia v. Michael and Kim Blatt

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed an order requiring the euthanization of Tinkerbell, a pit bull terrier owned by Michael and Kim Blatt, after the dog bit a child. The court held that a court may order destruction of a dog under West Virginia Code § 19-20-20 without first convicting the owner, but must find satisfactory proof that the dog is dangerous, vicious, or habitually bites or attacks. The court further held that a court may not rely solely on a judicially noticed, breed-specific presumption that pit bull dogs are inherently vicious.

Holdings

1. A conviction for violating section 19-20-20 is not a prerequisite to a separate destruction proceeding. A court may order destruction if it finds satisfactory proof that the dog is dangerous, vicious, or in the habit of biting or attacking persons or other animals, even without finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner committed the crime.
2. The separate destruction hearing did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the West Virginia or United States Constitutions because it did not place the Blatts in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same criminal offense after their acquittal.
3. A court may not take judicial notice of, or create, a breed-specific presumption that pit bull breeds are vicious, dangerous, aggressive, a public health hazard, or unpredictable under section 19-20-20. The evidence, absent that presumption, did not provide satisfactory proof that Tinkerbell was vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking persons or animals.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a circuit court may conduct a dog-destruction hearing under West Virginia Code section 19-20-20 after acquitting the dog's owners of the related criminal charge.
2. Whether the destruction hearing violated the state or federal constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.
3. Whether a court may take judicial notice of, or judicially create, a breed-specific presumption that pit bull dogs are vicious or dangerous under section 19-20-20.
4. Whether the evidence established satisfactory proof that Tinkerbell was vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking persons or animals so as to justify her destruction.

Disposition

reversed