Mitchell resident fights for dangerous animal ordinance change after dog euthanized – Mitchell Republic

MITCHELL — Mitchell resident Robert Hoffman is challenging the city's dangerous animal ordinance, arguing it violates state law and does not ensure due process for animal owners.

In August, Hoffman spoke at a city council meeting to voice his objections, sparking a debate about the fairness and legality of Mitchell's animal control policy. He claims the ordinance oversteps its bounds and does not adequately protect the rights of animal owners, particularly regarding the procedures for declaring an animal vicious and the options available to those who have such a declaration.

Hoffman's concerns stem from an incident in which Benny, Hoffman's dog, bit a Yorkie that was being walked near Hoffman's property. Hoffman claims that the Yorkie's owner had repeatedly allowed the dog to defecate on his property. He claims that on the day of the incident, the Yorkie's owner had walked on his lawn near the fence when Benny became defensive.

“Benny didn’t like that and he defended his territory,” Hoffman explained.

The incident led police to order the euthanasia of Hoffman's dog, Benny, last October. Hoffman claims the decision was made without a proper investigation.

“They saw the blood, the little dog had injuries, end of story,” he said.

He claims that if officers had determined that the Yorkie's owner was trespassing, the attack would have been justified. Hoffman points to evidence that he believes was overlooked. He notes that the dog's collar and poop bag were clearly visible on his lawn, just a few feet from his fence. He claims these items were left behind when the owner went to take his dog to the vet, suggesting that the Yorkie and its owner were actually on his property at the time of the incident.

“They just predetermined what happened and what we're going to do,” Hoffman said. “It's called confirmation bias. People stay fascinated by one story even though they've seen other things.”

According to Police Chief Dean Knippling, a total of 59 dog bites have been reported in Mitchell over the past two years. In 17 of those cases, the dog was placed on lockdown. When a dog is placed on lockdown, owners must meet certain conditions, including keeping it on a leash, registering it with the city, posting signs on their property warning of dangerous dogs, and making sure the dog is in a secure enclosure when outside unsupervised. In the 17 cases where the dog was placed on lockdown, seven owners chose to euthanize their dogs, while five dogs were placed in new homes. In one case, a dog had to be euthanized because its rabies vaccination was not up to date at the time of the bite incident.

Knippling noted that in the past, in cases where animals were deemed vicious, owners voluntarily chose to remove their pets from the home.

Despite his efforts, Hoffman was unable to relocate Benny before the dog had to be euthanized.

Hoffman's issues with the ordinance revolve around the definition and treatment of “vicious” animals. Under Mitchell's current ordinance, specifically Section 6-1A-2, the animal control officer has the authority to investigate and determine whether an animal is considered vicious. If so, the officer can order the animal's removal from city limits or arrange for its humane euthanasia.

According to City Attorney Justin Johnson, the authority to decide whether a dog should be euthanized rests with any officer appointed by the city's police chief.

“All of our officers are authorized and qualified to handle such cases if necessary,” Johnson said.

Hoffman also claims that the ordinance, as applied, is inconsistent with South Dakota's legal framework regarding dog bites, which has a “one-bite rule” that states that a dog owner is only liable for injuries if they knew or should have known that the dog posed a danger. In contrast, Mitchell's ordinance appears to prescribe more immediate and severe consequences without considering the state's laws.

Johnson clarified that South Dakota's “one-bite rule” is a general principle regarding civil liability rather than a binding law.

“The one-bite rule is more of a general principle regarding an owner's civil liability for a dog bite. It does not mean that a dog has to be bitten once before the owner is responsible,” Johnson explained.

Johnson also stressed that the vicious animal charges were incompatible with civil claims for damages.

“These are different types of litigation and they are not dependent on each other,” he said.

While Johnson acknowledged that Hoffman favors consistent adherence to the one-bite rule, he explained that there is no legal requirement for such an approach.

A key problem for Hoffman is that the regulation does not explicitly state that owners have the right to be heard before their pets are euthanized.

“I have appealed, but that is not the same as due process,” he explained. “Dogs are property. They are entitled to due process.”

Hoffman also criticizes the city's use of the Dunbar Scale, which was recently added to the ordinance. The scale rates aggressive animal behavior on a six-point scale, with level 6 meaning a fatal attack. Mike Kosters, who was police chief at the time of the incident, classified Benny's bite as a level 5 on the Dunbar Scale. However, Hoffman claims the scale is intended to rate dog attacks on humans, not dog-to-dog incidents. He contacted the Dunbar Academy, which confirmed the scale is only intended for dog-to-dog interactions.

Hoffman advocates for a more thorough legal process. He argues that the city should conduct a fair and unbiased review rather than letting animal control officers make a decision alone. Hoffman claims that the current system gives the police chief too much unchecked authority. He argues that it is inappropriate for a single person to have the power to investigate, adjudicate, hear appeals, and ultimately decide an animal's fate without adequate checks and balances or due process for animal owners.

“It has to be decided by a judge, by someone who is not involved in the case. It has to be an impartial third party. That is a fair process,” Hoffman said.

City Attorney Johnson defended the goals of the current ordinance.

“When the regulation was last amended, the aim was to introduce a system that applies equally to everyone, is based on objectively measurable criteria and minimises subjectivity in decision-making. The current regulation does this,” Johnsons said.

Johnson also stressed that while the city disagrees with many of Hoffman's legal interpretations, it is open to suggestions for improving the ordinance.

Although Benny was euthanized last October, Hoffman continues his fight and calls for changes in the ordinance. He believes it is critical to ensure a fair trial for pets and their owners and hopes his efforts will prompt a reassessment of how the city handles vicious animal cases.

“If there's anything I can do to prevent a family from going through this, that's my thing,” he explained.