CC PACKET 07142020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 9 of 35 definition is the one that the St. Anthony Police Department as animal control officers for St. Anthony relied upon in making its determination that a dangerous dog letter should be issued. The dangerous dog letter states that on June 5, 2020, (which is note the correct date of the incident) Hammerheart “suddenly and unprovoked, approached the adult male, bit and drew blood.” See Exhibit 8. The dangerous dog letter makes no finding that it was an aggressive bite, but rather just references it as a bite. Moreover, in the email correspondence between Meridith and Detective Rushton show that it is a matter of course to declare a dog to be dangerous if there are two bite incidents, see Exhibit 4, regardless of an individual appraisal of the facts of the bite to determine if the bite qualifies as an aggressive bit. In this case, the facts demonstrate that it was not an aggressive bite. The facts that evidence it was not an aggressive bite include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: First, Hammerheart has a history of being leash reactive, not aggressive. Second, there was no snarling, raised back fur, growling, flat ears, or other behavior observed that would indicate an aggressive intent to the incident based on the statements made to Meridith by both her sister, Ms. Burke, and Mr. Hayden. Third, immediately after the incident, Hammerheart was calm and made no attempts to advance towards Mr. Hayden. Fourth, Mr. Hayden stated in his conversation with Meridith and the enclosed statement that he at no time felt scared or threatened during the incident; that the jump towards him appeared to be an “excited jump”; and that after the jump and bite, Hammerheart was calm and made no further attempts to approach Mr. Hayden. Mr. Hayden made the statement that after the incident, it looked like he could have reached out and pet Hammerheart. Mr. Hayden walked back to Meridith’s home nest to Ms. Burke and both dogs, and Hammerheart made no attempt to approach Mr. Hayden, whom was within the distance of his leash, at any time. Fifth, Hammerheart did not approach Mr. Tim Hayden. The June 11, 2020, dangerous dog letter states that Hammerheart “approached the adult male.” Approached implies a level of intent as the dog sought out the person in order to inflict harm. A dog whom approaches another person is more aggressive than reactive; a reactive dog such as Hammerheart reacts to stimulus that come too close and make him nervous. Mr. Hayden stated that the incident occurred where there was a retaining wall on the sidewalk near Silver Lake Road and 33rd Avenue. The sidewalk is only a few feet wide there. For these reasons, the finding in the June 11, 2020, letter that Hammeheart approached the adult male is disputed and, moreover, appears to be arbitrary and capricious as it comports to none of the available evidence. Sixth, while the incident was admittedly a bite based upon the statement made by Mr. Hayden and the photographs provided, it was a shallow puncture of the skin; the teeth barely sunk into the skin. Given the strength of a pit bull dog’s jaw, it is quite likely that Hammerheart closed down and almost immediately released. While still serious, this demonstrates that bite inhibition was being exercised by Hammerheart. In conclusion, the incident occurred due to a failure by the dog owners to continue training proactively and a failure by Ms. Burke as the dog handler to take the customary and standard precautions while walking a leash reactive dog. It did not occur because Hammerheart was being aggressive or intending any harm on Mr. Hayden. The bite was reactive, not aggressive. Accordingly, the definition of dangerous dog is not satisfied and the dangerous dog declaration is erroneous. 25