Lima v. Stepleton, 5 N.E.3d 721

Theodore Stepleton was charged in Lima Municipal Court with failing to confine a "vicious dog" under Lima City Ordinance (LCO) 618.125(D) after an incident on November 16, 2012; he initially pleaded not guilty, later entered no contest and was fined $50.00.
Stepleton moved to dismiss arguing improper service and that the ordinance conflicted with Revised Code Chapter 955 (and thus violated the Home Rule Amendment); he also requested a pretrial administrative hearing to rebut the dog’s designation as "vicious."
The magistrate ordered a hearing on the dog’s status to precede trial, but no hearing appears in the record. The magistrate later denied the motion to dismiss; the trial court adopted that decision.
Stepleton appealed raising five assignments of error focusing on service, denial of administrative hearing, conflict between the ordinance and state law, vagueness/containment requirements, and the trial court’s home rule analysis.
The Third District analyzed whether LCO 618.125(D) conflicted with R.C. 955.22(D)(1) (confinement of "dangerous dogs") and concluded the ordinance proscribes conduct expressly permitted by the Revised Code, creating an impermissible conflict under the Home Rule Amendment. The court reversed Stepleton’s conviction and remanded.

Issue	Appellee (City) Argument	Appellant (Stepleton) Argument	Held
Whether criminal complaint should be dismissed for improper service	Service was adequate / procedural issues not dispositive	Service was insufficient and required dismissal	Mooted by decision on home rule conflict (court did not reach on merits)
Right to an administrative hearing to rebut designation of the dog as vicious	Municipal designation and criminal process suffice; no separate pretrial administrative hearing required	Statute requires administrative determination/opportunity to rebut before criminal exposure	Mooted by decision on home rule conflict
Whether LCO 618.125(D) conflicts with R.C. Chapter 955 (Home Rule)	LCO is a valid exercise of municipal police power and harmonizes with state law	LCO conflicts with R.C. 955.22 and R.C. 955.11 because it covers animals/state of affairs the Revised Code exempts or treats differently	Court: LCO 618.125(D) conflicts with R.C. 955.22(D)(1) under the contrary‑directives test and is unconstitutional under the Home Rule Amendment; conviction reversed
Whether the dog qualified as "vicious" under LCO / ordinance vagueness and confinement requirements	City enforcement and definitions are adequate	Ordinance is broader, unclear and imposes stricter confinement than state law; owner penalized though state permits the conduct	Mooted by finding ordinance unconstitutional; court did not resolve factual designation of the dog

Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, Inc., 9 Ohio St.3d 69 (Ohio 1984) (legislative enactments get strong presumption of constitutionality)
City of Columbus v. Kim, 118 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 2008) (deference to municipal ordinances and home rule principles)
City of Xenia v. Schmidt, 101 Ohio St. 437 (Ohio 1920) (municipal legislative enactments are presumptively valid)
City of Canton v. Whitman, 44 Ohio St.2d 62 (Ohio 1975) (Home Rule preserves state supremacy over police/sanitary regulations but grants local self-government)
In re Complaint of Reynoldsburg, 134 Ohio St.3d 29 (Ohio 2012) (three‑step test for Home Rule conflict analysis)
City of Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 2002) (framework for assessing whether ordinance conflicts with state law)
Mendenhall v. City of Akron, 117 Ohio St.3d 33 (Ohio 2008) (describes three tests for ordinance/statute conflict)
City of Cincinnati v. Baskin, 112 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 2006) (interpretive guidance on conflict analysis; caution against inferring that a statute permits all conduct it does not prohibit)
City of Youngstown v. Traylor, 123 Ohio St.3d 132 (Ohio 2009) (upholding a vicious‑dog ordinance on rational basis review but not addressing Home Rule conflict)