Submitted by Nancy Huddleston on February 13, 2009 - 11:08am.
The verdict is in – Bitsy the long-haired dachshund is a potentially dangerous dog. The designation came about as a result of the first dangerous dog hearing where the city used an outside hearing officer to preside over a case, which was also the second time the updated ordinance was followed. Hearing examiner Karen E. Marty handed down the ruling Feb. 3 after presiding over an appeal hearing of a potentially dangerous dog citation against Bitsy that involved two very different stories about what happened on the morning of Nov. 26, 2008.
The case involved determining if Bitsy bit a 12-year-old girl who passed by two other children (a 7-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy) who were walking their family dogs (the dachshund and a chocolate Labrador) along South Park Drive. The dogs were on leashes and both sniffed at the 12-year-old girl’s shoes. But that’s where the story starts to differ. The 12-year-old girl told police and testified at the Jan. 26 appeal hearing that the dachshund “grabbed” the top of her left shoe and she had to call out to the other girl to get the dog to let go.
But the two other children told police and testified that Bitsy sniffed the girl’s shoe, slowed down as they passed on the sidewalk and the 7-year-old girl had to tug the dog a little to get her moving. Neither child recalled the 12-year-old yelling to them about Bitsy’s behavior. In her finding of facts, Marty said “whether T.F. actually called out, or S.Z. heard it, is unimportant. The issue at hand is the dog’s conduct.”
Marty also concluded that combining the different stories “paints this picture: Bitsy took a quick nip of T.F.’s shoe as Bitsy went by. S.Z. tugged on the leash and pulled Bitsy off, looking back at the time when Bitsy let go. Needing to tug Bitsy appeared to be a normal matter to S.Z. Having her shoe bitten and tugged on would be an abnormal part of walking to school and notable to T.F. The evidence supports finding that Bitsy bit T.F.’s shoe, long enough for T.F. to notice and for the shoe to tear, but let go before S.Z. saw what Bitsy was doing.”
At the hearing, when Marty asked the 12-year-old to elaborate, she said “the dog had bit me and the dog and the girl kept walking. And the dog’s mouth was still clenched around my foot.”
The girl told Marty she had to walk backwards because the dog kept biting her foot and she couldn’t move her foot, so she had turn around to tell the other girl to make Bitsy stop biting her. The girl estimated the time she first saw the dog to the time she had to yell out as 45 seconds.
During the hearing, the girl testified that her foot hurt, but she could still walk to school. She told a friend about the incident on the way to school, but when she got there she went to see the school nurse because her foot hurt more. The nurse examined the foot, cleaned the area, provided her with ice packs because it was swollen and called the girl’s mother. The nurse did not find that the skin was broken. The girl said the pain had subsided by that evening and by the next morning, the bruise was gone.
Marty also used the nurses’ report as evidence of the bite. “These independent notes, made shortly after the dog bite, provide strong evidence in support of T.F.’s statements.” Marty also said: “to find that Bitsy did not bite T.F.’s shoe, it would be necessary to ignore the independent verification from the school nurse.” The shoe was also used by Marty in her ruling as evidence, but in two different ways.
At first, Marty writes: “The evidence of the shoe also was unnecessary, because the statement given by the school nurse on the date of the incident included the statement that the shoe was torn.” But, then she wrote: “Seeing the shoe was helpful, though, since it revealed that the tear was at a seam, rather than through the fabric. If Bitsy had bitten through the shoe, it would have shown more aggressive conduct.”
Reaction to ruling
The mother of the 12-year-old girl gave a written statement to the newspaper in reaction to the ruling.“This has been a very difficult ordeal for my entire family to go through. After receiving a phone call from the school nurse informing me that my daughter had just sustained a dog bite, I did what most parents would have done, I notified the Savage Police Department. My concern was for the safety and well being of my child. I did not pursue any further action regarding this incident.
“At the request of the city, my daughter attended a hearing regarding the incident. The hearing was a very intimidating and stressful event for her to have to endure. I am glad that my daughter spoke the truth and that this chapter in our lives is finally closed.”
The owners of Bitsy, Steve and Christina Zielinski, said they appreciate the fact that the hearing officer believed their children, too. And they note the incident has been stressful for their family. While they are comforted by Marty’s statement in her ruling that “she accepts” the testimony at the hearing that they presented to show “their children were reliable witnesses and Bitsy is a good dog,” they are still dismayed.
Their frustration is with the process followed by the city to issue the citation, which they expressed before the hearing and continue to express now that a ruling has been made.
Source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment