Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-05_MISC�'e, the undersigned residents of Galway Drive, and bordering streets in Edina, Minnesota, ask that the Edina City Council confirm that the dog named Frieda, owned by the resident or residents of 6621 Galway Drive, Edina, Minnesota, is a "Dangerous Dog" as that term is defined by Minnesota Statute 347.50 Subd. 2, and further request that the Edina City Council mandate that all of the requirements of Minnesota Law and Edina Ordinance .n regard to a "Dangerous Dog" be met by its owner or owners. 1.� 2. A A ei MIA(- OLAA 3. 4. 5. 6. 7._ 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. < /7_ vas O� lknl- . i1ol1 IQ . 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. October 5, 2008 Dear Edina City Council Member: Tuesday evening, October 7`h, the council will hear the "Dangerous Dog" case involving the dog who has viciously and randomly attack two people on the block of Galway Drive within the last 18 months. The most recent attack occurred on Monday, August 4`h involving my mother -in -law, Helen Strachan. Her case is not another simple case of a dog attack, but rather one with some disturbing details.. The owners of the dog in question are Kevin and Ann Deshler. Kevin's older brother is Brandon Deshler, a longtime and recently retired police officer from the Edina Police Department. Kevin's daughter, Shannon is currently a reserve officer with the Edina Police Department. What is most disturbing to our family has been the Deshler's total lack of responsibility as owners. They have demonstrated absolute recklessness, denial, and lying about any past incidents involving their dogs. These are strong statements, but the enclosed documents support what I believe is a very fuzzy account of the events involving my mother -in -law (Helen Strachan), Helen Deshler and their dogs on August 0. Document 1— My mother -in -law's account of the events leading up to the incident, the attack and what transpired afterwards. She repeated this account verbatim 3 -4 times as my wife (Pixie) and I drove her to the Urgent Care in St. Louis Park. Officer Price came to Urgent Care was told virtually the same story twice by Helen Strachan. I know this to be true because my wife and I, along with the nursing staff were all in the room. Document 2 — The filed police report. When we read this we couldn't believe what our eyes. Just days before the Officer Price called my mother -in -law to let her know that he had finished his report and that he included (in the report) that this was one of the worst dog attacks he has seen. That statement is nowhere in the report. Nor is any mention of Helen Strachan's account of the events. It tells a whole different story. The dog owner's side of the story is about how she miraculously pulled the dog off of her neighbor and later when she called to see how she (Helen Strachan) was, my mother -in -law told her that "she was fine ". Please see the enclosed photos of her injuries. Do you think she was "fine "? Or was she seriously wounded and in need of immediate medical attention? Document 3 — A copy of the Deshler's appeal letter that we obtained through Police Chief Siitari. In it Kevin Deshler contradicts the police report (his mother's account) by saying that "no family member was present in the home." Then how could she have pulled the dog off? Mrs. Dehhler is weak and has been using a walker. Just last week, a neighbor reported seeing Kelly, her granddaughter pushing Helen Deshler in a wheelchair over to visit my mother -in -law? Does that sound like someone who could pull 901b + dog(s) off someone who was being attacked? This is a situation that could have ended very quickly and without the City Council's involvement. Responsible people take responsible actions when others are injured or hurt by one's dog. Not so with the Deshler's. We, and the other victim's father (Doug Williams), through visiting with dozens of neighbors on Galway Drive and the surrounding streets, have come to learn that this was NOT just the second attack by this dog (Freida), but there have been over 10 cases involving attacks by both of the Deshler's dogs over several years. My mother -in -law was only the 2nd attack where a police report was actually filed. Having been a longtime former Edina resident and graduate, I know that Edina residents want to be good neighbors and do not want to cause trouble. But when the owners of such vicious animals neglect to face the fact that their dogs are dangerous and have bitten several people, have lied to protect their dogs, blame the attacks on the victim's actions (police reports), care more about their dog's welfare than that of their neighbors (young and old), deny that anything like this has ever happened before, make a statement to the neighbor that "they didn't pay for the boy's injuries and we are not paying for hers either (referring to my mother -in -law), it leaves the victim little option but to pursue protection for themselves and for the neighborhood through the legal system. In addition to the dogs, we are very concerned about Shannon Deshler (reserve officer for the City of Edina) and her lack of judgment and sensitivity regarding her own dogs. While out of uniform and driving an Edina squad car on Sunday August 10`h, just six days after the attack) she paraded the dog up and down the neighborhood without any regard or concerns for the safety of others expressed to their family regarding their dogs since this recent attack. Her disregard for the neighbor's concern for the future safety of their children and other residents from her dogs showed a level of carelessness and lack of responsibility for a potential future officer candidate. This lack of objectivity and poor judgment should be considered if she should even be on Edina's reserve force. Brandon may have been an outstanding officer, but to "grandfather" his niece on the force I question. The Deshler's have gone to extreme measures to protect these "dangerous" dog(s) How could Shannon possibly be remain objective and protect the residents of Edina in the future if she was presented the identical situation? She made a statement to the neighbor defending her dog attacking my mother -in -law because she was "in our house ", when in fact my mother -in -law was invited over and was later asked to assist Helen Deshler by bringing in her mail and to place it on a ledge inside. As elected officials, you have to responsibility to ensure the safety and protection of Edina and its residents. I hope that you will uphold the Police Chief's position that this dog is DANGEROUS. We believe that the older dog Amber is just as dangerous. This dog should not be transferred to another community or be allowed to remain within the neighborhood or the City of Edina. Sincerely, Spencer J. Werness Aug 5th, 2008 Written Statement from Helen Strachan recounting the events of Friday, August 4th, 2008 "Helen Deshler called the house at around 1 pm on Aug 4th. She called to invite me over to sit and visit. During that afternoon, I had made an encouraging note to bring to her later that day. I saw her sitting on her front step around 3:30. We sat and visited for about 45 minutes, just like we have done for years. We stood up and I helped her walk towards the house. She had recently gotten her mail and it was slipping out of her hands as she walked towards the door. She asked me to hold it while she opened the door to go inside. When she got inside, I was reaching inside to put the mail inside. She asked me to put it on the shelf,further into the house. I was one step inside the house, when I reached to put the mail on the shelf. The dogs came out of nowhere, and lunged towards me. It all happened so fast, I don't remember where I was bit first. Helen could not do anything. The dogs had such a tight grip and they were shaking me. I was bit in 3 places and was completely terrified. I tried to get away. When the dogs finally loosened its grip, I ran out the door and slammed the screen door. I yelled to Helen (Deshler), "The dogs bit me, they bit me." I ran back to my house and the phone rang. It was Helen, she was very distraught. She told me to tell them (police) it was dogs down the street. She said she was worried that dogs would be taken away and put down. I called my youngest daughter Pixie, and told her I was bit by the neighbor's dogs. They came to take me to the hospital." As dictated to Heidi Werness, granddaughter of Helen Strachan, currently a sophomore at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. rJ.tQ.VWn--t �- r yfi _;£ z �` Edina Police Department 08- 002350 Victim Offense Date / Time Reported STRACHAN, HELEN CONSTANCE AN- ANIMAL BITE Mon 081041200817:23 THE INFORMATION BELOW; IS CONFIDENTIAL FOR USE BY Ai3TH0 RIZED FERSONNELbNLY : t . On 08 -04 -08 at 1723 hrs, I Community Service Officer Price was dispatched to 6617 Galway drive for a dog bite that took place. _ I CSO Price was notified that the victim (later identified as Strachan, Helen Constance D.O.B 03 -02 -1944) was at park nicollet clinic as a patient. I went to park nicollet clinic to speak with Strachan. Outside of the clinic I met up with Strachan daughter (Werness, Morley Constance D.O.B 06 -07 -1961) and son -in -law (Werness, Spencer Jay D.O.B 10 -7- 1959). The Werness stated that they took Strachan to the hospital after Strachan called them for help. From there they did not know the details of the dog bite. I CSO Price then spoke with the victim about the dog bite. Strachan stated that she and her neighbor (later identified as Deshler, Helen Eileen D.O.B 06 -16 -1955) were sitting in front of 6621 Galway drive talking. At around 1630 Strachan stated that she had to go home. Helen Deshler asked Strachan if she could place her mail inside of the house. Strachan stated that she was half way inside of the house and was placing thp� irmil down.,when a German shepherd came from an unknown location and bit the victim in 3 different locationeon the body. Strachan then ran back to her house and called her daughter Morley Werness and son -in -law Spencer Werness. The Werness family came to pick up the victim and brought her to the hospital; 4 Looking at the bite wounds she was bitten in 3 different locations. 1 st location was underneath the right arm pit, 2nd bite was on the right leg just above the knee and last was on back of the leg just below the buttocks. Looking at the bite wounds there was blood coming from each wound indicating that the dog bite did penetrate the skin. I took a picture of these bite wounds and will electronically add it to the report. I then gave Strachan my card with name and badge and explained what I would do next. I CSO Price then responded to 6621 Galway drive to speak with the dog owner. Upon my arrival I met with both dog owners. Helen Deshler stated the same facts as Strachan. However, Helen Deshler stated that she grabbed her German shepherd and pulled her back while Strachan ran away. Helen Deshler stated that she tried to call Strachan and check on her status, Strachan stated that she was fine. Then, I spoke with the second primary dog owner (Kevin Deshler) and explained what happened and will happen next. I told the Deshler family that since the dog bite penetrated the skin I would have to initiate a quarantine. I explained the Quarantine policy to the Deshler family and asked Kevin Deshler to sign the document. The document will be electronically added to the report. Also the dog is up to date on rabies vaccination and will have the proof of update added to the report. Reporting Officer: PRICE, J. Page 4 Printed By: LOISON, SUP33CP151 08/19/2008 13:29 Do u .I V w q V , August 22nd; 2008 Timothy Hunter Animal Control Officer Edina Police Department 4801 West 50" Street Edina, MN. 55424 Dear Mr. Hunter, In reference to your letter dated August 15 ", 2008, which declared my German Shepherd "Frieda" to be a "Dangerous Dog" per state statute, I am submitting this letter of appeal in accordance with the provisions of Edina City Code Section 300.17, subdivision 6, clause "D." Germane to my appeal are several issues I consider to be a misapplication of the state statute, including a . misinterpretation of what constitutes "Substantial Bodily Harm ", and the fact that my dog was not afforded the classification of "Potentially Dangerous ", a prerequisite, given the circumstances of this event, before being assigned the more egregious "Dangerous Dog" classification. There is also the fact that this incident, regrettable as it is, took place inside of my residence where the victim is not a regular visitor, was not in the company of a family member, and is not known to either of my dogs who have lived there for the past 14 and 8 years respectively. I would offer that this circumstance alone might have an impact in determining whether my dog's response to this "stranger's" presence in the dog's domain was truly an `unprovoked" reaction. (By the way, the state statute's "Definitions" section does not delineate the meaning of provoked or unprovoked) The first "bite" incident you make reference to, and in which no action was taken by the City of Edina, also took place on my property when the "victim" who sustained minor abrasion/bruising came running towards my dog and mother who has just fallen in the front doorway of my home, was bleeding profusely and ultimately transported by Edina paramedics. A neighbor who witnessed this event also made the observation that my do was standing next to my fallen mother as though guarding and protecting her. csq, 0 0 W I certainly do hope that this response is not interpreted as cavalier or otherwise inconsiderate as to the victim's experience. As I .have previously stated, this was an extremely unintentional and regrettable event for which I definitely assume responsibility. However, I would have fully expected "Frieda" to be classified as "potentially dangerous" based on the 8/4/08 event, and also per one of my conversations with you. I was frankly shocked upon learning that "Frieda" had not been afforded the 2nd chance the state statute provides for, especially given the totality of the circumstances. I feel compelled to contest your decision as I truly believe that "Frieda's" actions were born out of an instinct to guard and protect her habitat as opposed to indiscriminate and unmotivated assault of the public at large. Sincerel , 7 Kevin Deshler 6621 Galway Drive Edina, MN 55439 D(X-Q M-kn-r 3 uu 2 2 2ua� Recommendation: Affirm the Dangerous Dog,declaration of the German Shepard, Frieda, at 6621 Galway Drive. Info/Background: A German Shepard named Frieda at 6621 Galway Drive has bitten two neighbors in a 15 month span. A five - year -old boy was bitten on May 25, 2007 and an 84- year -old woman was bitten on August 4, 2008. A dangerous dog is defined by MN State Statute 347.50 as any dog that, without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property. After reviewing the case file and photos, the wounds to the second victim appeared to meet the legal definition of substantial bodily harm - bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ (MN SS 609.02 subd.7). The victim had three separate bite wounds - knee, buttocks and underarm.. In looking at the. question of provocation, the legal definition of provocation under MN State Statute 347.50 subd. 8 is an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite. The dog was on its owner's property. However, the female victim had entered the home at the owner's request to drop off some mail when the dog attacked. I do not consider this provocation. I declared Frieda a Dangerous Dog. This is a judgment call and I chose to err on the side of safety. The severity of the bite and the multiple bite wounds contributed to the declaration. I have talked with several neighbors and they have expressed fear of Frieda. The City Attorney has also reviewed the incidents and found that there are sufficient grounds for the Dangerous Dog declaration. Although the August 4, 2008 incident is the basis for the declaration I did consider the bite on May 25, 2007. The five - year -old victim was in the yard at 6621 Galway but the incident report states that the dog charged out of the house and bit the victim. REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item II.B. From: Mike Siitari, Police Chief Consent Information Only ❑ Date: September 16, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Subject: Dangerous Dog Declaration Action F] Motion ® Resolution aOrdinance Discussion Recommendation: Affirm the Dangerous Dog,declaration of the German Shepard, Frieda, at 6621 Galway Drive. Info/Background: A German Shepard named Frieda at 6621 Galway Drive has bitten two neighbors in a 15 month span. A five - year -old boy was bitten on May 25, 2007 and an 84- year -old woman was bitten on August 4, 2008. A dangerous dog is defined by MN State Statute 347.50 as any dog that, without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property. After reviewing the case file and photos, the wounds to the second victim appeared to meet the legal definition of substantial bodily harm - bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ (MN SS 609.02 subd.7). The victim had three separate bite wounds - knee, buttocks and underarm.. In looking at the. question of provocation, the legal definition of provocation under MN State Statute 347.50 subd. 8 is an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite. The dog was on its owner's property. However, the female victim had entered the home at the owner's request to drop off some mail when the dog attacked. I do not consider this provocation. I declared Frieda a Dangerous Dog. This is a judgment call and I chose to err on the side of safety. The severity of the bite and the multiple bite wounds contributed to the declaration. I have talked with several neighbors and they have expressed fear of Frieda. The City Attorney has also reviewed the incidents and found that there are sufficient grounds for the Dangerous Dog declaration. Although the August 4, 2008 incident is the basis for the declaration I did consider the bite on May 25, 2007. The five - year -old victim was in the yard at 6621 Galway but the incident report states that the dog charged out of the house and bit the victim. twfk':4,, �I a., 3A t �� y i -4N i WA ov*lli r lftmj 14% owl low, � .?'� M A� '' , i W, OW1 *ft .p` t 4 r hr y� yy z' T i l .� v �r r `:3' _ ', r _ , mac••- t _ lip ��.Il�iii �`: ,vw ..44460 J00 I i. r ,a — w �•� , A l ir' Poe~ • 1 • �w; V �k H h W-- a A POW it p �1. .4 1 W! i