My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 09092008
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2008
>
CC MINUTES 09092008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 9:10:06 AM
Creation date
8/25/2016 9:10:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />September 9, 2008 <br />Page 2 <br />IV. PUBLIC HEARING. <br />A. Dangerous Dog Hearing — Gordon Blackey, 3020 Croft Drive <br />Mayor Faust opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. <br />7 Police Chief Ohl stated background information on this item is included in the staff report. He <br />8 stated three different individuals have reported being bitten by Mr. Blackey's dog "Guido ". In <br />9 two of the three instances the victims did not present themselves to the Police Department, so <br />10 there is no evidence other than verbal reports. On June 26, 2008, an individual reported being <br />11 bitten by the dog. This report was documented with police photographs. On May 15, 2007, Mr. <br />12 Blackey was sent a letter indicating that his dog, per state statute, is now considered a <br />13 "potentially dangerous" dog, due to the first bite report. Due to the second and third reports, state <br />14 statute would now define Mr. Blackey's dog as "dangerous ". Police Chief Ohl advised that if the <br />15 Council should decide to disregard two of the three reports due to there being no documentation <br />16 by police other than a verbal report, Mr. Blackey's dog could still be considered as "potentially <br />17 dangerous ", requiring another documented bite to gain "dangerous" dog status under the statute. <br />18 <br />19 Councilmember Stille noted that the information submitted by Mr. Blackey gives more detail in <br />20 terms of when the dog bites occurred and when they were reported. He questioned if the <br />21 significant delay stated in this information is correct. Police Chief Ohl responded in the <br />22 affirmative. <br />23 <br />24 Mr. Gordon Blackey, 3020 Croft Drive, addressed the Council and stated the first incident was a <br />25 guy who said he was bit at 4:00 p.m. and reported it at 1:18 in the morning. When he talked to <br />26 the individual the next day the individual asked for $500. When he requested to meet in order to <br />27 see the injuries the individual said he fine and was just kidding. The company this man was <br />28 working for apologized and said he was not supposed to be on Mr. Blackey's property. Mr. <br />29 Blackey stated with the second incident the guy said he was bitten and reported it four hours <br />30 later. He actually called the neighbor and asked if it was their dog that was loose; they said no, <br />31 then he called back and said the dog bit him. It did not make sense. Mr. Blackey stated he is a <br />32 police officer in Minneapolis and has seen people drive by a barking dog that is unattended, and <br />33 then make claims saying the dog has bitten them. They try to sue or get money in order to go <br />34 away. That is why he requested to see the injury. The second guy said he could not meet with <br />35 him, and later called and said he needed an MRI and could not walk, at which point he told him <br />36 no. Mr. Blackey stated with the last incident, he left the house for about 15 minutes and came <br />37 back to see flyers all over his yard and a kid down the street. He went to talk to the kid and <br />38 realized he was mentally challenged. He asked him what happened and he said he went in the <br />39 yard, saw the dog, and ran. The dog ran after him. He fell in the driveway, the dog went after <br />40 him, and he tried to kick at him. The dog did not pursue him when he left the yard. His boss then <br />41 showed up and said he told the boy not to go into the yard because the dog was there. The boss <br />42 apologized and said he would take care of it. The next thing he knows the man was at the Police <br />43 Department making a report. Mr. Blackey stated the first two incidents involved individuals <br />44 trying to extort money. In the third instance the individual did not have a permit to solicit. None <br />45 of these people have permits or licenses and is covered by the City Ordinance for solicitation. He <br />46 stated the dog bit the last individual, but under State Statute the dog is exempt if he bites <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.