Court Ruling

Pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals, the state's highest court has ruled, a decision that could lead to stiff penalties for people found responsible in attacks — even if the dogs have never been violent before. A decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, issued this week, distinguishes pit bulls and mixed breeds from other kinds of dogs. In the past, a victim intending to file a lawsuit after a dog attack had to prove that a dog's owner knew it had a history of being dangerous.

We appreciate that 100 percent of Maryland legislators voted for a form of the dog bite legislation that would have eliminated breed discrimination, overturned the court ruling that declared pit bulls to be "inherently dangerous," and removed strict liability for landlords. We believe the majority of legislators did this because our testimony and advocacy efforts over the last year helped them understand what it takes to build a safe and humane community for people and their pets. That's what makes it absolutely unacceptable that a compromise could not be found and no bill was passed ("Pit bull compromise fails, trial lawyers win," April 1)

Three cheers for U.S. District Judge Benson E. Legg's ruling that Maryland's law denying ordinary citizens the right to carry arms in public is unconstitutional ("Md. gun-carry law overturned," March 6). The right to self-defense is the preeminent civil right. If a person is barred by the state from protecting his person when outside his home, all his other rights are potentially meaningless: They are of no benefit to a person who is raped or murdered because she or he was denied the means of self-defense.

The scars across 16-year-old Dominic Solesky's face are faint, but that doesn't stop people from asking where he got them. The Towson High School junior and his family have told the story many times. Six years ago, Dominic was mauled by a pit bull named Clifford in the alley behind his red brick rowhouse in East Towson, an attack that resulted in trauma surgery at John Hopkins Hospital and a year of rehabilitation. The family's case seeking restitution resulted in last year's Maryland Court of Appeals decision labeling pit bulls "inherently dangerous" and broadening the liability of landlords.

The Maryland General Assembly passed bills this month that effectively reverse a Court of Appeals ruling that would have required public defenders for indigent defendants at thousands of initial bail hearings held before court commissioners each year. The legislation instead requires lawyers for poor people at reviews of those hearings, which occur less frequently and take place in front of a judge — sometimes days later. That means some of those arrested and denied bail or unable to afford it could spend a weekend or longer in jail awaiting representation.

The tragic slaying of Trayvon Martin in Florida has shown the folly of that state's "stand your ground" self defense law - and similar laws enacted or proposed in a number of other states - which your editorial writer correctly characterizes as providing a "license to kill. " However, The Sun neglects to point out that Maryland will move inevitably in the same direction if the recent federal court ruling voiding our sensible handgun permit law is upheld on appeal. Unquestionably, George Zimmerman could not have been granted a permit by the Maryland State Police and would not be permitted legally to carry a weapon on our streets.

Worcester County's commissioners decided yesterday to appeal a federal court ruling striking down the county's at-large voting system on racial grounds.No black person has ever been elected to the Eastern Shore county's five-member Board of County Commissioners. Civil rights lawyers hoped that record would change with U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Young's ruling Jan. 7 that the county's at-large election system violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in diluting the strength of minority voters.

Drunk-driving tests. The Supreme Court left intact yesterday a lower court ruling limiting police authority to use physical force to get a blood sample from a drunk-driving suspect who resists. A federal appeals court, in a Newport Beach, Calif., case, ruled that any time police use more than "reasonable" force on a suspect who is not cooperating, they have violated the suspect's privacy rights. The lower court abandoned an earlier standard allowing police to use any method short of one that "shocks the conscience" to get blood samples from suspects.

WASHINGTON -- In tightening the rules for federal affirmative action, the Supreme Court this week threatened the future of dozens of government programs dealing with everything from science scholarships to Navy computer contracts to businesses selling snacks in airports.In all, the federal government spends an estimated $10 billion for affirmative action programs scattered across nearly every federal agency.In a 5-4 decision issued Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that federal affirmative action programs must meet a stiff legal test to be considered constitutional.

DON'T BE MISLED by the news headlines -- the Brady gun-control law lives. The law's provision calling for local criminal background checks of handgun purchasers was overturned by the Supreme Court, but the rest of the gun-control statute remains intact. Even the section tossed out by the high court is a temporary problem that will only affect 20 states for 17 months.If the National Rifle Association was looking for a sweeping victory for unfettered firearms possession, the narrow and hotly argued 5-4 Supreme Court ruling didn't provide it. The court decision had more to do with enhancing states' rights at the expense of Congress than with gun control.

The Baltimore County police union says county officials have ignored a ruling by the state's highest court to reimburse some 400 retired Police Department employees for overpaid insurance premiums. A Maryland Court of Appeals decision in November required the county to reimburse the employees for wrongful deductions, but in a motion filed Friday in county Circuit Court, the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 4, says it hasn't happened. The union estimates the county owes retirees $572,887.10 through May 2011.

A federal appeals court has upheld Maryland's handgun permitting law, reversing a lower court decision by concluding that the state can constitutionally require an applicant to show “good and substantial reason” that he or she needs a concealed-carry license. Fourth Circuit Judge Robert King, writing for the three-judge panel, said the state had shown that the requirement “is reasonably adapted” to its “significant interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime.” Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler cheered the ruling Thursday, saying the state is “a safer place today because of its handgun conceal-and-carry permit laws.” “The idea is to make sure guns are in the hands of responsible people, and not just anybody who wants to tote a gun in public,” Gansler said.

Maryland's second-highest court upheld the constitutionality of Baltimore's gun offender registry, a signature effort to curb gun violence that a city judge had called into question two years ago. The registry requires people convicted of gun crimes to provide addresses and other information to the city every six months for three years, and was modeled after a similar program in New York City. Circuit Judge Alfred Nance ruled in 2011 that the city's law was "unconstitutionally vague and awfully broad," among other concerns.

A federal judge ruled Monday that claims by two former Anne Arundel County employees, who allege they lost their jobs because of retaliation by the administration of former County Executive John R. Leopold, can advance to trial. U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake threw out some parts of the lawsuits by Karla Hamner, a former spokeswoman for Leopold, and Joan Harris, who worked as a constituent services specialist during the executive's first term. But the judge "kept the crux of both of the cases" said John Singleton, an attorney representing both plaintiffs.

Victims' advocates are concerned that a Maryland Court of Appeals decision this week will allow some sex offenders to have their names removed from the statewide sex offender registry, but it's still unclear exactly how the ruling could affect the database. "I do expect that other sex offenders will petition to have their names removed," said Lisae Jordan, executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault. In a ruling that was not unanimous, the appeals court said Monday that a man identified as John Doe should have his name taken off the registry because the requirement to do so violates the state constitution's restrictions on retroactive punishment.

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled Monday that a man convicted of child sex abuse did not have to register as a sex offender because it would violate the state constitution's provisions against retroactive punishments. The ruling was split, with a plurality of three of the court's seven judges agreeing on one interpretation of the law, while others had different opinions and one dissented from the opinion. The man, identified only as John Doe in his appeal, was convicted in 2006 of child sex abuse stemming from an incident in the early 1980s when he was a middle school teacher in Washington County and the 13-year-old child was his student, according to the ruling.

ClarificationAn article in yesterday's editions of The Sun about an appeals court ruling that negated a $315,000 verdict against ABC-TV in favor of the Food Lion supermarket chain said Food Lion "could not prove" that ABC News' report of unsanitary food practices at Food Lion was false. Food Lion says it does have evidence that the accusations were false but could not offer such evidence in the case because of constitutional limitations.WASHINGTON -- In one of the best-known cases of journalists using hidden cameras and deception to gather news, a federal appeals court wiped out a $315,000 verdict against ABC-TV yesterday but ruled that the network's reporters had acted illegally.

WASHINGTON -- A committee of the Organization of American States (OAS) has accused the U.S. Supreme Court of endangering the international legal order with its decision that the government may kidnap foreigners abroad to bring them to trial in the United States.The U.S. member of the panel -- the Brazil-based Inter-American Juridical Committee -- refused to go along with that accusation, but did condemn the actual 1990 kidnapping of a Mexican citizen that led to the court's decision.In a seven-page document not yet made public but now circulating among OAS countries, the Juridical Committee concluded without dissent that the court's June 15 ruling "contravenes the norms of international law."

Musician Jackson Browne's managers were so excited when they heard Maryland's high court had struck down Ticketmaster's unpopular user fees in Baltimore that they promised free lifetime tickets to the city resident who had filed suit alleging he'd been ripped off by "exorbitant charges. " The Ravens, Orioles and Baltimore concert venues - along with city politicians - didn't share the singer's jubilation. Concerned that Ticketmaster and other ticket vendors might refuse to handle events in Baltimore, the City Council is poised to carve out an exception to its long-standing anti-scalping law, which bars companies from charging fees in excess of 50 cents on top of a ticket's stated price.

A Baltimore Circuit Court judge's decision to void the proposed $1.5 billion public-private partnership to redevelop the State Center office complex in Baltimore puts the state in a severe bind. It now faces both the immediate, practical concerns about how to replace aging and inadequate office space that is increasingly expensive to maintain, and the broader implications of a ruling that could, theoretically, put at risk other public-private partnerships that are under way or in the works.