## Facts

- After three reported pit bull attacks in Yakima in January 1987, the City enacted Ordinance 3034 (Yakima City Code 6.18.010 et seq.) on July 28, 1987, prohibiting “pit bull” dogs within city limits.
- The ordinance defined “pit bull” to include Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and dogs identifiable as having pit bull varieties as an element of their breeding.
- The ordinance allowed continued possession of pit bulls licensed before enactment if owners complied with specified conditions (including special confinement and insurance requirements).
- The City provided professional identification standards and illustrations to assist in determining whether a dog fell within the prohibited categories.
- Before removal of a dog, the City was required to show the dog was at least six months old, the owner knew it was a prohibited breed, and the dog was identifiable as a pit bull under the ordinance.
- A judge could order release if the owner showed the dog was misidentified or would not return to the City.
- Individual plaintiffs owned dogs that might fall under the ordinance, and the organizational plaintiff alleged members in Yakima owned similar dogs; in August 1987, the City notified the Johnsons they might be subject to enforcement.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages; the trial court granted summary judgment to the City, and the Washington Supreme Court accepted direct review.

## Issues

1. Whether Ordinance 3034 was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to provide adequate notice of what conduct was prohibited.
2. Whether Ordinance 3034 was unconstitutionally vague because it lacked adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement, particularly in identifying mixed-breed dogs.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- The court held the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague.
- The ordinance provided sufficient notice through its named-breed list, its “identifiable” mixed-breed provision, and the City’s professional standards and illustrations.
- The ordinance provided adequate enforcement standards and safeguards, including the City’s burden of proof elements and availability of judicial review for misidentification or removal from the City.

## Legal Principles

- A challenged ordinance is presumed constitutional; the challenger must prove vagueness beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A law is void for vagueness only if it fails to provide adequate notice to ordinary people or fails to provide adequate standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement.
- Due process does not require scientific certainty or mathematical precision in regulatory definitions; commonsense understanding may suffice when the definition is supported by objective guidance.
- Procedural limits on enforcement discretion (burden-of-proof requirements and judicial review mechanisms) weigh against a finding of unconstitutional vagueness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Yakima’s breed-specific dog prohibition, concluding that the ordinance’s definitions, identification guidance, enforcement prerequisites, and judicial-release procedures supplied adequate notice and constrained enforcement discretion, defeating the vagueness challenge.


Am. Dog Owners Ass'n v. City of Yakima, 113 Wash. 2d 213, 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash. 1989)