By Shawn Hogendorf, Correspondent 

After reviewing the case and hearing the arguments in its first dangerous dog appeal, the city has ruled “it is reasonable to conclude that Jake and Karma aggressively approached and endangered the safety” of a woman and her dog this summer.

The ruling came a week after an Oct. 2 hearing and was handed down by Assistant City Administrator Scott Somers, who served as the hearing officer. Somers had to look at two very different sides – public safety verses the future of a family’s pets.

Joe Husman’s family pets are a pure-bred Stafford Terrier (pit bull) named Karma and a mixed-breed pit bull named Jake.

The hearing took into account the appeal process arguments for and against overturning the “dangerous dog” declaration for Jake because of a previous incident. Karma did not have a dangerous dog designation before the hearing. The ruling came pursuant to a Minnesota Statute that allows an appeal to a “dangerous dog” declaration.

This is the first time the city heard arguments in a dangerous dog appeal due to recent changes in the state statue that gives a dog owner the right to a hearing by an impartial hearing officer, as opposed to a hearing in District Court.

Since 1998, 51 dogs have been declared “potentially dangerous” in the city of Savage. So far in 2008, nine dogs have been declared “potentially dangerous” by the city and Jake is the only dog that has been declared “dangerous,” according to Colleen Johnson, the city’s code enforcement officer. Jake

The state statute says “a dog may be considered a ‘dangerous dog’ if the dog, without provocation, inflicts substantial harm on a human being on public or private property; killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or has been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is “potentially dangerous” the dog aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.”

The case

According to city records, a woman from Savage was walking her dog and claimed two unidentified, “tan pit bulls” attacked her dog by “nipping her dog about the body” on the sidewalk on Glendale Road near 140th Street before running southwest across Glendale Road toward a large fenced yard.

Police became involved with the case after officers were flagged down by a motorist who assisted the victim following the incident, but neither 4 Paws nor police found any loose dogs.

The victim told police that she did not believe her dog was bitten, but the dog’s fur showed the dogs nipped at the victim’s dog, according to the police report. Police asked a neighbor if any pit bulls lived in the area, and they told police there were pit bulls located at 14077 Kipling Ave.

“It almost seemed like a witch hunt,” Husman said. “They (police) asked a neighbor who owns pit bulls and the neighbor said Joe has them. That made my dogs guilty right off the go. The description the woman gave didn’t even fit my dogs.

“What I can’t believe is that the city failed to recognize that there are more pit bulls in the area than mine,” Husman continued. “When I went down to 4 Paws there were four other pit bulls from the Savage area there. I think it was total B.S. that the officers tried to tell me they didn’t know of any others in the area. There are other dogs in the area that look just like mine.”

Although the skin was never broken on the victim’s dog, Husman had previous notice that Jake was “potentially dangerous” and thereafter endangered the safety of the victim and her dog.

Husman maintains his dogs “have never” gotten out of the padlocked and fenced-in yard. So he doesn’t believe his dogs “attacked” the victim, which was at the heart of his argument during the hearing.

But Savage Chief of Police Rodney Seurer testified differently.

Seurer testified that the dogs were indeed in the Husman’s house when he knocked on the door following the incident the morning of June 23. And Seurer also testified that he had no doubt the dogs involved in the incident were Jake and Karma.

Supplemental reports completed by Savage police officers state that according to Husman, “…kids left the back gate open, which allowed his dogs to get out.” This admission further supports the likelihood that Husman’s dogs were those that endangered the safety of the victim, Somers wrote in a letter to the Husmans.

Husman said he told police about the open gate in an effort to be cooperative when they called him at work. But once he got home, his son denied leaving the gate open and he doesn’t believe his original statement to police is what happened.

“While it was compelling that the victim was not able to identify Karma out of the 12 dogs shown as exhibits at the Oct. 2 hearing, it does not rule out that Karma and Jake were more than likely the dogs that endangered the safety of the victim and the victim’s dog,” Somers wrote.

Before Somers’ decision was handed down, Husman raised questions about his impartiality.

“It just seems funny that the guy who is judging the case (Somers) is the assistant city manager and is probably a friend or at least acquaintances with the people bringing the case against me,” he said, “He’s not a judge. How can he be unbiased? How do you win against something like that?”

Somers was appointed by the city administrator. State legislation states that an employee of the city or someone outside of the city can act as the hearing officer and make a decision within 10 days of the hearing.

Previous history

This case wasn’t the first time Jake had a run in with the law.

On June 15, 2006, police responded to the 13600 block of Huntington Avenue for a report that a 14-year-old boy was bit by a dog.

The boy told police that he was bit while riding his bike on a path near Eagle Ridge Junior High between 8:45 and 9:15 p.m. According to the police report, the boy had numerous scratches and a puncture wound where the dog bit him on the right side of his body. The boy told police that as he was riding on the path, the dog ran over to him and bit him without being provoked.

Husman claims Jake was protecting his owner. Husman said he was playing with Jake in the park when he let Jake off the leash to chase a squirrel or a bird when the boy appeared as a dark figure on the path and spooked Jake. The dog responded in a protective fashion.

As a result of the incident, Husman was cited for not having the required license for his dog and no micro-chip as a result of a “potentially dangerous dog” designation. After challenging the citations in Scott County District Court, both citations were dropped, but the “potentially dangerous dog” label remained.

Karma was not involved in the 2006 incident.

Husman was also ordered to provide micro-chip verification by Aug. 12, 2006. As of Aug. 14, 2006, no micro-chip verification was provided to the city. Records also showed that Jake was not licensed with the city.

Husman said he licensed Jake in 2006, and when he had the dog micro-chipped he thought everything was good.

But following the most recent incident, once again, Karma and Jake were not registered with the city.

“I read the ordinance wrong,” Husman said. “I guess you have to license them yearly. They still go to the vet, they get all their check-ups and vaccines, we just didn’t do the license part, but we should have done that.”

Husman said he thought he was fighting the “dangerous dog” designation in court against Jake. But he learned he wasn’t fighting the designation, but rather the citations.

“I feel terrible about what happened to that kid,” Husman said. “I apologized up and down, but it happened how it happened. There were no charges pressed by the kid’s parents.

“What made me feel bad is that I always keep my dogs on leashes especially at the parks,” Husman said. “It was the dumbest thing I ever did and I learned a huge lesson from that.”

After Jake bit the boy, it was taken very seriously, Husman said.

“We are responsible dog owners,” Husman said. “We walk our dogs every day, we took Jake to obedience school and worked on socializing him more. Our dogs don’t bark, in fact the only reason our neighbors know we have dogs is because they see us walking them.”

Husman said he thinks the prior incident involving Jake played a big role in this case.

“At first it didn’t seem like such a big deal,” Husman said. “But after they looked at the record it started to snowball. If it did happen, I feel bad, but it just doesn’t make sense to me.”

The woman said she was “attacked” by two tan pit bulls, Husman said. But it’s been proven that about 80 percent of the cases people say they were pit bulls, but they are not recognized properly, he said.

“You can imagine the scene when police come to the door and say we’re taking your dog,” Husman said. “My kid is crying, my wife is crying and we don’t believe it was our dogs because they were in the house.”

Jake was taken away without any kind of evidence, he said. Karma remained in the family’s home, while Jake was kenneled with 4 Paws.

“I felt helpless. I didn’t feel like there was any kind of justification. The whole thing just felt wrong,” he said.

Prior to the ruling, Husman said if the dangerous dog ruling wasn’t overturned, he would probably have to put Jake down. “But I don’t want to think about that right now,” he said.

The ordinance states that an owner of a dangerous dog must: have a proper enclosure for the dangerous dog and a posting on the premise with a clearly visible warning sign; proof of $300,000 in a liberty bond, insurance or a surety bond; micro-chip ID; proof of current vaccinations; dog license fee and an additional $500 registration fee.

Husman said he can’t afford that.

Husman must also pay the city of Savage $1,000 in hearing fees, the cost of kenneling Jake.

Shawn Hogendorf can be reached at shogendorf@swpub.com.