What are the criteria for a law to be unconstitutionally overboard when not related to speech
<p>In my municipality, it states that to qualify as an animal &quot;attack&quot; that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Actual physical contact is not required to constitute an attack.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Per § <a href="https://www.cottonwoodheights.utah.gov/home/showdocument?id=1275" rel="nofollow noreferrer">8.04.045</a> and that it is merely enough for a an individual to be &quot;worried&quot; according to <a href="https://www.cottonwoodheights.utah.gov/home/showdocument?id=1275" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§ 8.24.030 (A)</a></p>
<p>In this statute &quot;Worrying&quot; includes any animal that may be</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...approaching any person in an apparent attitude of attack or any aggressive behavior which
would cause a reasonable person to feel they were in danger of immediate physical attack.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This statute seems highly based on the perception of the victim. It seems that anyone with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynophobia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cynophobia</a>, the most common phobia (with 36% of patients with phobias presenting with this Cynophobia and only 12% to 30% of those Cynophobia seeking treatment clinical treatment) might perceive any scenario, especially scenarios with larger animals to &quot;feel they were in danger of immediate physical attack&quot;. This could occur if a dog is fenced in, if the dog is leashed, or if the dog is just excited to meet a new friend and wants pets.</p>
<p>How might the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbreadth_doctrine" rel="nofollow noreferrer">overbreadth doctrine</a> apply or not apply in this scenario given that this is not a situation involving free speech. What legal tests would/could/should be applied to test the constitutionality of this statute?</p>

<h2>This is an objective test</h2>
<p>When a law requires “worry” (or any other state of mind), it is usually not the state of mind of the particular person but of a <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reasonable person</a> in the same circumstances. The law does not ask “Were you worried?”, it asks “Would a reasonable person in your situation have been worried?”</p>
<p>The fact that you have cynophobia is irrelevant if a reasonable person in your circumstances would not have it. Now, if this occurred at a facility for cynophobia treatment then the circumstances change from a reasonable person taken from the general population to a reasonable person who is attending such a facility; in those circumstances the reasonable person would be someone suffering from cynophobia.</p>
<p>By the way, this test (worry or fear of harm) is essentially the same as the criteria of assault between humans.</p>

constitutional-law animals municipal-bylaws