## Facts

- The Village of Tijeras, a small municipality in Bernalillo County, experienced repeated attacks on residents and animals by pit bull dogs, including injuries to residents and killings of animals.
- Two months before the challenged ordinance was enacted, a nine-year-old girl was severely mauled by pit bull dogs while walking home from school.
- After town meetings addressing the problem, the Village adopted Ordinance No. 32 (May 14, 1984), making it unlawful to own or possess in the Village any dog “known as American Pit Bull Terrier.”
- The ordinance authorized impoundment and required that an impounded dog be held until a court determined whether it was an American Pit Bull Terrier; upon such a determination, the court would order destruction of the dog.
- Dog owners whose dogs were registered or classified as American Pit Bull Terriers sued for declaratory relief, claiming the ordinance was unconstitutional.
- At trial, evidence supported that average persons could identify an American Pit Bull Terrier and that the breed had a greater propensity for vicious and aggressive behavior than other breeds.
- The trial court upheld the ordinance, and the dog owners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinance’s prohibition on dogs “known as American Pit Bull Terrier” was unconstitutionally vague.
2. Whether the breed-specific ban violated substantive due process because it lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.
3. Whether the ordinance violated procedural due process by allowing destruction of dogs without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
4. Whether destruction of dogs under the ordinance constituted a taking of private property requiring just compensation.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment upholding the ordinance.
- The court held the ordinance was not void for vagueness because the breed description provided sufficient notice and enforceable standards in light of common identification methods and breed standards.
- The court held the ordinance satisfied substantive due process under rational-basis review because it reasonably related to the Village’s legitimate interest in public safety given local incidents and evidence of heightened dangerousness.
- The court held procedural due process was satisfied because the ordinance required a judicial determination of breed before any destruction, providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the classification.
- The court held the ordinance did not effect a compensable taking because dogs, though property, are subject to regulation and destruction under the police power when necessary to protect public health and safety.

## Legal Principles

- A statute is void for vagueness only if persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning; a breed-based term may be sufficiently definite when supported by commonly available standards and evidence of ordinary identifiability.
- Under rational-basis review, a classification is valid if any reasonably conceivable facts could support it; courts generally defer to legislative judgments on public-safety measures.
- Procedural due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation of a protected property interest; a required judicial determination before destruction can satisfy this requirement.
- Property rights in animals are qualified and subject to the police power; destruction of dangerous animals pursuant to a valid public-safety regulation is not a compensable taking.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Tijeras’s ordinance banning ownership or possession of American Pit Bull Terriers, concluding that the breed-based prohibition was sufficiently definite, rationally related to public safety, provided adequate process through a required judicial determination before destruction, and did not require compensation under takings principles.


Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 767 P.2d 355 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988)