A battle over a Little Rock woman's right to keep a potbellied pig as a pet became a federal case Tuesday.
The constitutionality of a city ordinance that went into effect Nov. 18 in response to a disagreement about the pig in question, W.P. Sooie, was challenged in a federal lawsuit filed by the pig's owner, Jyll Latham Battles.
For more than a year, Battles has fought to keep her 2½-year-old Vietnamese potbellied pig as a pet in her home in the Pennbrook-Clover Hill neighborhood. When she moved to that neighborhood from the Briarwood neighborhood nearly two years ago, she'd had W.P. Sooie for seven months. She has said that her purchase of the pig wasn't done lightly, noting that she first researched the city's animal laws.
Although neighbors in Briarwood never complained, Animal Services officers showed up at her new home shortly after her move and told her a city statute required that the pig be kept at least 300 feet away from other homes, effectively making it legally impossible for her to keep the 70-pound neutered, vaccinated and microchipped animal as a pet. Battles said the pig sleeps with her son and stays indoors except when being let outside to urinate and defecate -- the latter of which prompted complaints from neighbors that Battles doesn't properly clean up the waste left alongside a fence.
Battles first challenged a city citation in Little Rock District Court, where Judge Mark Leverett ruled in her favor last year but said the city needed to clarify ordinances that appeared to conflict with each other. One made it unlawful to keep hogs, pig or swine in the corporate city limits but said it didn't apply to Vietnamese potbellied pigs. Another made it illegal to keep cows, goats, horses and other "hoofed" animals within a 300-foot radius of homes.
In November 2013, the Animal Services' advisory board recommended to apply the 300-foot rule.
A year later, in a Board of Directors meeting Nov. 18 that was attended by several neighborhood association presidents and residents, the board approved the recommendation by passing Ordinance 20,957, which requires all hoofed animals to remain at least 300 feet away from the next home or business and also limits the number of Vietnamese potbellied pigs to one per household.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Little Rock on Battles' behalf by Benton attorney Clinton Lancaster, notes that the city "has stated multiple times that it only knows of [Battles'] potbellied pig residing in the City of Little Rock and that Ordinance 20,957 is directed specifically toward [her]."
The lawsuit lists the plaintiffs as Jyll Latham Battles and Jimmie Lee Battles, and the defendant as the city.
It alleges that the ordinance violates the First, Fifth and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as parts of the state constitution and other federal laws. It seeks an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing it -- temporarily, while the issue is being litigated, and then permanently. The lawsuit notes that Battles has been given 30 days to remove the pig from the property.
The suit also notes that W.P. Sooie lives indoors and that the plaintiffs "have a strong emotional connection to their animal."
City Attorney Tom Carpenter was preparing for a nighttime city board meeting and couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. Lancaster also couldn't be reached in his office.
In the lawsuit, Lancaster argued that when the family bought the home and when it bought the pig, "the possession of such animals was legal by virtue of a City Ordinance." Attached to the lawsuit was a copy of the ordinance that made an exception for potbellied pigs but that was repealed by the Nov. 18 passage of the new ordinance.
The suit notes that the city "criminally prosecuted" Battles in 2013 even though her possession of the pig wasn't prohibited at that time. After she was acquitted, it states, the city passed the new ordinance without inserting a grandfather clause allowing any existing potbellied pigs to remain and enacted it under an emergency clause that made it immediately effective.
The family's "attempts to preserve their right to possess their property was stifled" by the city, the suit alleges. It contends that the city's actions constitute "a dis-seizure of liberties and privileges and a deprivation of liberty and property without due process," in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 21 of the Arkansas Constitution.
The actions also constitute "a taking without just compensation," the suit asserts.
The lawsuit seeks not only an injunction and a declaration that the ordinance and city's actions are unconstitutional but also monetary damages -- including punitive damages. It also seeks a finding that the city declared an emergency "when no emergency existed," making the ordinance unenforceable.
The lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker.
Metro on 12/03/2014