Committee advances tougher 'dangerous dog' rules after testimony from attack survivor

The Reynoldsburg Public Safety, Law & Courts Committee on April 28, 2025 voted to forward to city council an ordinance amending codified ordinance section 505.03 (animals running at large). The changes focus on owners of dogs designated as dangerous and on penalties when those animals cause serious physical harm.

Attorney presenting the proposal told the committee the amendment narrows and clarifies owners’ responsibilities in two principal settings: while a dangerous dog is on the owner’s premises, and while the dog is off the premises. Draft language requires owners to keep a designated dangerous dog securely confined on their property — in a locked pen with a top or in a locked fenced yard while under the reasonable control and supervision of a responsible person — and to use a leash not longer than six feet when the animal is off the premises. Additional off‑premises options in the draft include a secured tether, muzzle, or locked enclosure when the dog is left elsewhere.

The proposed ordinance raises penalties tied to serious injury. Committee material and testimony said that if a dog that is running at large causes serious physical harm, a violation may be charged as a first‑degree misdemeanor; the proposal establishes a sentencing floor of 30 days in jail and allows up to six months, the maximum misdemeanor sentence available under local authority. The presenter cited Ohio Revised Code 955.22 and a controlling court decision (State v. Jones) to explain how a dog can be designated dangerous through the dog‑warden/civil process or established at the time of criminal prosecution.

Avery Russell, the attack survivor whose case prompted discussion, attended the meeting and was recognized by the presenter. Committee members asked detailed implementation questions — for example, what age constitutes a person of “suitable age and discretion” to control a dangerous dog on a leash — and the presenter said staff and the city prosecutor would return with clarified language. Other enforcement tools discussed included probation conditions, humane‑society checks, and restitution for victims.

Council members emphasized the need for workable definitions (particularly “suitable age”), and one member asked staff to bring back narrow, enforceable language rather than leaving the question to jurors. The committee voted to forward the ordinance to council for a first reading; the committee vote was recorded as unanimous.

No final criminal sentence or fine schedule was adopted at the committee meeting; the ordinance will now move to the full council for its first reading and further refinement.

Key points: the draft sets a six‑foot maximum leash for off‑premises control of a dangerous dog, requires secure confinement or active supervision on private property, and creates a sentencing minimum of 30 days when a dangerous dog causes serious physical harm.