Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 955
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22 (2026)

Vicious, dangerous, and nuisance dog acts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 20, 2026
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 247 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) As used in this section and sections 955.11, 955.23, and 955.24 of the Revised Code:

(1) "Vicious dog act" means one of the following actions committed by a dog without provocation, other than by a police dog that is being used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties:

(a) The killing of any person;

(b) Causing serious injury to any person by physical contact;

(c) Engaging in a dangerous dog act after the dog has been designated as a dangerous dog under section 955.23 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Dangerous dog act" means one of the following actions committed by a dog without provocation, other than by a police dog that is being used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties:

(a) Causing injury by physical contact, other than killing or serious injury, to any person in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack;

(b) Causing serious injury to any person without making physical contact in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack;

(c) The killing of another dog;

(d) Causing serious injury to another dog that results in euthanasia of the dog by a person authorized to perform euthanasia under Ohio law.

(3) "Nuisance dog act" means one of the following actions committed by a dog without provocation and while off the premises of its owner, keeper, or harborer, other than by a police dog that is being used to assist one or more law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties:

(a) Chasing or approaching a person in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack;

(b) Attempting to bite or otherwise endanger any person in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack;

(c) Causing injury to any person without making physical contact in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack;

(d) Chasing, threatening, harassing, or injuring another dog or livestock in either a menacing fashion or an apparent attitude of attack;

(e) Having been the subject of a third or subsequent violation of section 955.21 of the Revised Code.

(4) "Injury" means any physical harm to a person, another dog, or livestock, as applicable, but does not include physical harm resulting from a situation where the dog behaves in a playful, nonaggressive, or age-appropriate manner.

(5) "Serious injury" means any of the following:

(a) Any physical harm that carries a substantial risk of death;

(b) Any physical harm that involves a permanent incapacity, whether partial or total, or a temporary, substantial incapacity;

(c) Any physical harm that involves a permanent disfigurement or a temporary, serious disfigurement;

(d) Any physical harm that involves acute pain of a duration that results in substantial suffering or any degree of prolonged or intractable pain.

"Serious injury" does not include physical harm resulting from a situation where the dog behaves in a playful, nonaggressive, or age-appropriate manner.

(6) "Without provocation" means either of the following, as applicable:

(a) That a dog was not teased, tormented, or abused by a person, or that the dog was not coming to the aid or the defense of a person who was not engaged in illegal or criminal activity and who was not using the dog as a means of carrying out such activity;

(b) That a dog was not attacked by another dog or livestock.

(7) "Animal shelter for dogs" has the same meaning as in section 956.01 of the Revised Code.

(8) "Livestock" does not include poultry.

(B)(1) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog that is not an animal shelter for dogs shall negligently, and no animal shelter for dogs that keeps or harbors a dog shall recklessly, fail to prevent the dog from committing a vicious dog act. Whoever violates this division is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree on a first offense and a misdemeanor of the second degree on each subsequent offense.

(2) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a dangerous or vicious dog, including an animal shelter for dogs, shall negligently fail to prevent the dog from committing a vicious dog act that involves injuring or killing a person. Whoever violates this division is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

(C)(1) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog that is not an animal shelter for dogs shall negligently, and no animal shelter for dogs that keeps or harbors a dog shall recklessly, fail to prevent the dog from committing a dangerous dog act. Whoever violates this division is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on a first offense and a misdemeanor of the third degree on each subsequent offense.

(2) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a dangerous or vicious dog, including an animal shelter for dogs, shall negligently fail to prevent the dog from committing a dangerous dog act that involves injuring a person. Whoever violates this division is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(D) No owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog that is not an animal shelter for dogs shall negligently, and no animal shelter for dogs that keeps or harbors a dog shall recklessly, fail to prevent the dog from committing a nuisance dog act. Whoever violates this division is guilty a minor misdemeanor on a first offense and a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense.

(E) In addition to any other penalty described under this section, and except as provided in division (F) of this section, the court may order a dog that is the subject of an offense under this section to be humanely destroyed by a licensed veterinarian or the county dog warden at the owner's expense if the court finds that the dog did one of the following:

(1) Committed a vicious dog act;

(2) Committed a dangerous dog act;

(3) Injured another dog;

(4) Attempted to bite a person and such attempt resulted in the injury of the person.

(F) In addition to any other penalty described under this section, the court shall order the dog that is the subject of an offense under this section to be humanely destroyed by a licensed veterinarian or the county dog warden at the owner's expense if, as a result of the offense, the dog kills a person or causes serious injury to a person that results in one of the following:

(1) Substantial risk of death;

(2) Permanent incapacity;

(3) Serious permanent disfigurement;

(4) Acute pain of a duration that results in substantial suffering.

Last updated March 23, 2026 at 9:27 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 39× “Prior to her trial, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that R.C. 955.22 was void for vagueness and further that the statute violated her due process rights.”
State v. Thompson, 2017 Ohio 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “Consequently, during the trial, Thompson requested the trial court to include this language in the jury instructions in lieu of the strict liability provision: For a violation of R.C. 955.22(C), failure to confine a dog, the State need only prove that the accused engaged in a…”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 5159 (Ohio 2019). · cites it 61× “] Criminal law—Dogs—R.C. 955.22—Sufficiency of the evidence—Prior dangerous- dog designation not required before person may be prosecuted for failing to control or confine a dangerous dog—Prosecution may prove dog’s dangerousness at trial—State failed to present sufficient…”
City of Youngstown v. Traylor, 2009 Ohio 4184 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 12× “We held that the statute was unconstitutional because it failed to provide the dog owner with a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the dog’s classification and labeled dogs dangerous or vicious because of their breed only.”
Lima v. Stepleton, 2013 Ohio 5655 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 34× “125(D) violates the contrary directives test, and the ordinance also does not violate the conflict by implication test, because the General Assembly did not intend R.C. 955.22 to govern dog confinement exclusively.”
State v. Nolan, 2016 Ohio 2985 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 15× “Jail Term and Community Control Sanctions {¶13} Nolan was convicted of failure to confine her dog in violation of R.C. 955.22, which states: (C) Except when a dog is lawfully engaged in hunting and accompanied by the owner, keeper, harborer, or handler of the dog, no owner,…”
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 8× “14(a) and R.C. 955.22. The Toledo Municipal Code limits ownership of vicious dogs, as defined in R.”
State v. Arnold, 2017 Ohio 326 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 27× “99(G) provides, “Whoever commits * * * a violation of division (D) of [R.C. 955.22] is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on a first offense and of a misdemeanor of the third degree on each subsequent offense.”
Henry Cty. Dog Warden v. Henry Cty. Humane Soc., 2016 Ohio 7541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “3d 144 , 2004-Ohio-4777 , ¶ 13 (finding “[former] R.C. 955.22 violates procedural due process insofar as it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is “vicious” or “dangerous” as defined in R.”
Vill. of Gates Mills v. Welsh, 766 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “R.C. 955.22 states: “(C) Except when a dog is lawfully engaged in hunting and accompanied by the owner, keeper, harborer, or handler of the dog, no owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog shall fail at any time to do either of the following: “(1) Keep the dog physically confined…”
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 15× “The Greene County Sheriffs Department then served Walker with a citation for violating R.C. 955.22, i.e., for failing to confine a dog.”
State v. Walston, 2019 Ohio 1699 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “Merbs then issued Walston a citation for failure to confine or control a dog in accordance with R.C. 955.22(C). {¶ 4} A hearing was held and Walston entered a not guilty plea.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(A) — 5 cases
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). “14(a) and R.C. 955.22. The Toledo Municipal Code limits ownership of vicious dogs, as defined in R.”
State v. Robinson, 541 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Arnold, 2017 Ohio 326 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “99(G) provides, “Whoever commits * * * a violation of division (D) of [R.C. 955.22] is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on a first offense and of a misdemeanor of the third degree on each subsequent offense.”
State v. Ferguson, 603 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Murphy, 860 N.E.2d 1068 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(A)(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 5159 (Ohio 2019). “] Criminal law—Dogs—R.C. 955.22—Sufficiency of the evidence—Prior dangerous- dog designation not required before person may be prosecuted for failing to control or confine a dangerous dog—Prosecution may prove dog’s dangerousness at trial—State failed to present sufficient…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(C) — 38 cases
State v. Thompson, 2017 Ohio 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Consequently, during the trial, Thompson requested the trial court to include this language in the jury instructions in lieu of the strict liability provision: For a violation of R.C. 955.22(C), failure to confine a dog, the State need only prove that the accused engaged in a…”
Vill. of Gates Mills v. Welsh, 766 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “R.C. 955.22 states: “(C) Except when a dog is lawfully engaged in hunting and accompanied by the owner, keeper, harborer, or handler of the dog, no owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog shall fail at any time to do either of the following: “(1) Keep the dog physically confined…”
State v. Squires, 671 N.E.2d 627 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Walston, 2019 Ohio 1699 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Merbs then issued Walston a citation for failure to confine or control a dog in accordance with R.C. 955.22(C). {¶ 4} A hearing was held and Walston entered a not guilty plea.”
Glass v. Franklin Cty. Dept. of Animal Care & Control, 2023 Ohio 4804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(C)(1) — 15 cases
State v. Thompson, 2017 Ohio 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Consequently, during the trial, Thompson requested the trial court to include this language in the jury instructions in lieu of the strict liability provision: For a violation of R.C. 955.22(C), failure to confine a dog, the State need only prove that the accused engaged in a…”
State v. Walston, 2019 Ohio 1699 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Merbs then issued Walston a citation for failure to confine or control a dog in accordance with R.C. 955.22(C). {¶ 4} A hearing was held and Walston entered a not guilty plea.”
Vallejo v. Haynes, 2018 Ohio 4623 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Arnold, 2017 Ohio 326 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “99(G) provides, “Whoever commits * * * a violation of division (D) of [R.C. 955.22] is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on a first offense and of a misdemeanor of the third degree on each subsequent offense.”
State v. Walker, 841 N.E.2d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “The Greene County Sheriffs Department then served Walker with a citation for violating R.C. 955.22, i.e., for failing to confine a dog.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(C)(2) — 8 cases
State v. Thompson, 2017 Ohio 792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Consequently, during the trial, Thompson requested the trial court to include this language in the jury instructions in lieu of the strict liability provision: For a violation of R.C. 955.22(C), failure to confine a dog, the State need only prove that the accused engaged in a…”
Glass v. Franklin Cty. Dept. of Animal Care & Control, 2023 Ohio 4804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Middle Hts. v. Troyan, 2017 Ohio 7073 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
Columbus v. Davis, 2021 Ohio 2114 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Jackson, 2012 Ohio 5843 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(D) — 14 cases
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 5159 (Ohio 2019). “] Criminal law—Dogs—R.C. 955.22—Sufficiency of the evidence—Prior dangerous- dog designation not required before person may be prosecuted for failing to control or confine a dangerous dog—Prosecution may prove dog’s dangerousness at trial—State failed to present sufficient…”
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). “Prior to her trial, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that R.C. 955.22 was void for vagueness and further that the statute violated her due process rights.”
State v. Jones, 2018 Ohio 565 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Tasse v. Marsalek, 2020 Ohio 5084 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Ferguson, 603 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(D)(1) — 14 cases
Lima v. Stepleton, 2013 Ohio 5655 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “125(D) violates the contrary directives test, and the ordinance also does not violate the conflict by implication test, because the General Assembly did not intend R.C. 955.22 to govern dog confinement exclusively.”
State v. Arnold, 2017 Ohio 326 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “99(G) provides, “Whoever commits * * * a violation of division (D) of [R.C. 955.22] is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on a first offense and of a misdemeanor of the third degree on each subsequent offense.”
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). “Prior to her trial, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that R.C. 955.22 was void for vagueness and further that the statute violated her due process rights.”
State v. Robinson, 541 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
United States v. Ford, 187 F. App'x 496 (6th Cir. 2006).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(D)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Zarconi, 2013 Ohio 891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Warren v. Postlethwait, 2023 Ohio 674 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(D)(2)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). “Prior to her trial, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that R.C. 955.22 was void for vagueness and further that the statute violated her due process rights.”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 5159 (Ohio 2019). “] Criminal law—Dogs—R.C. 955.22—Sufficiency of the evidence—Prior dangerous- dog designation not required before person may be prosecuted for failing to control or confine a dangerous dog—Prosecution may prove dog’s dangerousness at trial—State failed to present sufficient…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(E) — 8 cases
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). “Prior to her trial, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that R.C. 955.22 was void for vagueness and further that the statute violated her due process rights.”
State v. Hoerig, 907 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). “14(a) and R.C. 955.22. The Toledo Municipal Code limits ownership of vicious dogs, as defined in R.”
Henry Cty. Dog Warden v. Henry Cty. Humane Soc., 2016 Ohio 7541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “3d 144 , 2004-Ohio-4777 , ¶ 13 (finding “[former] R.C. 955.22 violates procedural due process insofar as it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is “vicious” or “dangerous” as defined in R.”
State v. McColor, 2013 Ohio 1279 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(E)(2) — 1 case
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 5159 (Ohio 2019). “] Criminal law—Dogs—R.C. 955.22—Sufficiency of the evidence—Prior dangerous- dog designation not required before person may be prosecuted for failing to control or confine a dangerous dog—Prosecution may prove dog’s dangerousness at trial—State failed to present sufficient…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(E)(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 5159 (Ohio 2019). “] Criminal law—Dogs—R.C. 955.22—Sufficiency of the evidence—Prior dangerous- dog designation not required before person may be prosecuted for failing to control or confine a dangerous dog—Prosecution may prove dog’s dangerousness at trial—State failed to present sufficient…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(E)(4) — 1 case
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 5159 (Ohio 2019). “] Criminal law—Dogs—R.C. 955.22—Sufficiency of the evidence—Prior dangerous- dog designation not required before person may be prosecuted for failing to control or confine a dangerous dog—Prosecution may prove dog’s dangerousness at trial—State failed to present sufficient…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(F) — 1 case
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). “14(a) and R.C. 955.22. The Toledo Municipal Code limits ownership of vicious dogs, as defined in R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(I)(1) — 1 case
State v. Harris-Smith, 2018 Ohio 3069 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 955.22(I)(1)(c)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Harris-Smith, 2018 Ohio 3069 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.