Opinion ID: 1815835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did enforcement of the ordinance violate Kent's due process rights?

Text: We reject Kent's claim that enforcement of the ordinance violated his procedural due process rights. He had both notice and opportunity to be heard. See Bishop, 346 N.W.2d at 506-07. Nor do we find any violation of substantive due process. The standard for reviewing a due process challenge is well established. There is no dispute about the rule that, to be constitutional, an ordinance must have a definite, rational relationship to a legitimate purpose. ... A party who challenges an ordinance has the burden of proving it unconstitutional, and must negate every reasonable basis upon which the ordinance may be sustained. This means that the challenger has the burden of producing the evidence, and persuading the court, of the ordinance's lack of rational nexus with its supposed purpose. .... ... If reasonableness of the ordinance's nexus to its purported end is fairly debatable, it must be allowed to stand. Cain, 342 N.W.2d at 813 (citations omitted). It is clear this ordinance was enacted to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare: a legitimate governmental purpose. See ordinance rule 1 (The foregoing paragraph should not be interpreted in a manner that will frustrate efforts to protect the life of a human being threatened by a `dangerous animal'....); City of Warren v. Testa, 461 N.E.2d 1354, 1356 (Ohio Ct.Cm.Pleas 1983) (Once a lion becomes full grown, it is so big, strong, and potentially dangerous, that it should not be kept in a home. (emphasis in original)); cf. Town of Atlantic Beach v. Young, 307 N.C. 422, 427-29, 298 S.E.2d 686, 690-91 (A city ordinance that prohibited the sheltering of animals other than house pets within the city limits was reasonably related to the public welfare.), appeal dismissed, 462 U.S. 1101, 103 S.Ct. 2446, 77 L.Ed.2d 1328 (1983). Kent acknowledges the ordinance was enacted to promote public safety, but maintains that an outright ban of ownership of lions for pets is arbitrary. He points out that the board made no provision to consider the facts of each case. Here, Kent acquired his lion several years before this ordinance was enacted, and produced proof that he is responsible in caring for Holmes and in securing her confinement facilities. The board, however, need not select the least restrictive alternative in regulating animals. It need only employ the means that are reasonably related to the public safety and welfare. The board did so here. We cannot substitute our judgment for the legislative authority's judgment, because the latter body is directly responsible to the public it must protect. The ordinance does not violate due process.