In my municipality, it states that to qualify as an animal "attack" that
Actual physical contact is not required to constitute an attack."
In this statute "Worrying" includes any animal that may be
...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.
This statute seems highly based on the perception of the victim. It seems that anyone with Cynophobia, 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 "feel they were in danger of immediate physical attack". 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.
How might the overbreadth doctrine 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?