Mansfield law director calling for animal control officer after pit bull attack

Emily Mills | Mansfield News Journal

MANSFIELD - The Mansfield law director has renewed his call for the city to have an animal control officer after city residents shared stories of their children being attacked by dogs they described as pit bulls during an emergency safety committee meeting Tuesday night.

"We have a moral and I believe a legal obligation to protect the children of our community, and for that reason, in light of what we know statistically, in light of what's happening in our community and the expected increase in numbers of dangerous dogs in our community, we can't sit by idly and do nothing," law director John Spon said. "Otherwise, a child's going to die."

Spon said council should create an animal control officer position that works an eight-hour shift five days a week. Spon said the animal control officer allows for prevention rather than response when it comes to irresponsible owners.

Spon said if the hypothetical officer found dogs weren't registered, they would have the legal authority to take the dogs "so that we try to protect our citizens."

"But right now, if they see a dog out there running free, the citizens have no phone number to call," Spon added.

Council members last year voted against creating two unfunded animal control officer positions for the city, citing Mansfield's financial concerns.

But Spon suggested the cost of the position could be covered by fines from citations the officer would write.

More: Council rejects creating Mansfield animal control officer position

More: Law director wants Mansfield to have animal control officer

Dogs attack 13-year-old

Pastor James Spencer of Bellville, of Peoples Baptist Church in Mansfield, said his 13-year-old son was attacked by two dogs he described as pit bulls.

Spencer said he drives a church bus in the community to pick up children to take them to church each week.

He said his son went to a front door of a residence to pick up some children the morning of May 27, and while on the porch, a dog he described as a pit bull jumped out a window, knocked his son down the steps and to the ground and chewed on his backside and legs.

Spencer said a second dog he also described as a pit bull jumped out the window and went for his son's neck.

Spencer ran over and kicked the dog on his son's neck before carrying him to the bus and rushing him to OhioHealth Mansfield Hospital, calling 911 on the way, as he was concerned the dogs would attack someone else.

"If those dogs had had one more minute, I wouldn't have a 13-year-old son," said Spencer, who choked up while recounting the story.

Spencer said his son was in the hospital for about six hours and left on crutches, saying doctors told him the bite was within two centimeters of his carotid artery. He added his son is athletic and a "tough kid."

"If this had been a 5- or 6-year-old, we would not be talking about somebody going to the hospital for stitches," he said.

Spencer said the dogs remain in the owner's home in the 100 block of Washington Avenue.

According to the police report on the incident, the 41-year-old woman who owns the dogs said she was aware of their aggressive behavior. According to Mansfield Municipal Court records, the woman faced another dog-at-large offense in 2008.

Mansfield's first assistant law director Mike Kemerer said Tuesday the Richland County Dog Warden's Office deemed the dogs dangerous, a designation Kemerer said he disagreed with.

Kemerer said dangerous dogs are defined as those that cause a human harm, while vicious dogs are defined as those that cause a human serious harm, meaning harm that requires hospitalization or puts the person at risk of death.

"It was their position that because this boy walked away from this, those were not serious harm, merely harm. I disagree with that," he said. "I'm not an expert. I'm not a doctor. I think that's a risk of death, but that was not the determination made by the county office."

Richland County Dog Warden Dave Jordan said Wednesday morning the incident did not meet the state's definition for a vicious dog, which is the definition the dog warden's office uses.

"The definition for a vicious dog would be a dog that has killed another person or caused serious injury, meaning a life-threatening-type injury. A dangerous dog is a dog that, without provocation, has caused injury to a person, other than killing," he said. "So it met the definition of a dangerous dog and not a vicious dog.

"We did everything that we could do in that case within the parameters of the law, and by the definition of a dangerous dog, it met that definition," Jordan added. "However, it failed to meet the definition of a vicious dog."

Kemerer, who said the dogs weren't licensed and didn't have rabies shots, said the case was arraigned Tuesday morning, and the dog's 41-year-old owner, who was charged with a dog at large violation, pleaded no contest.

Kemerer said a restitution hearing is set for Aug. 16, as dog at large violations allow for damages to be awarded to the victim if there's a conviction. But he said the woman told the magistrate she's unemployed.

"Even though the law allows for damages, we can't punish an indigent person for not paying their debts," he said. "So there is a very real chance, even though the law allows for damages, no damages will ever be paid."

Kemerer added an arraignment date for a failure to license charge through the dog warden's office is set is in two weeks.

Jordan said the dog warden's office issued four citations in the case: two for failure to license and two for unreasonable control. Both dogs were also deemed dangerous.

Spencer said he believes "there is something that is bred into these dogs that...when they decide to attack, they do not attack to play. They attack to kill.

"The dog can attack a human, and nothing happens," Spencer added. "It's a travesty of justice. It's wrong in every aspect. It's morally wrong. It's socially wrong...we have to at some point value the life of our children."

Humane Society of Richland County officials have said in the past a dog's breed cannot be determined by sight, saying it requires a DNA test. Humane society officials have also said a dog's temperament is determined by its owners and its environment, not its breed.

More: Humane society recommends spay/neuter laws

Dog attacks 5-year-old

In a second incident, Cassidy Coleman of Mansfield, who works at Vasu Communications, said her 5-year-old daughter, Railynn, was attacked by a dog she described as a pit bull.

Coleman said one of her coworkers got the dog April 14 and brought it to work two days later, on April 16. Coleman said the woman was told by the office manager she shouldn't have the dog at work.

Coleman said she had to pick up Railynn from daycare and bring her to work with her because the girl was sick.

The mother, who said her daughter is a dog lover, told her 5-year-old to leave the dog alone, as she didn't know its background.

Coleman said while at work, the dog bit her daughter in the face, leaving her with 30 stitches.

"We've had a pit bull. I know how they are, and honestly, I was never against them," Coleman said. "Until now."

Kemerer said because the incident happened on private property and the dog was licensed, no laws were broken. He added he was unaware of the case until Railynn's grandmother overhead him discussing Spencer's case at the police department and told him about it.

Kemerer said the dog in that case was declared dangerous by the dog warden's office.

Jordan said Wednesday morning the dog met the definition of a dangerous dog that without provocation caused injury other than serious injury or death, not the definition of a vicious dog.

"You have to look at the definition of serious injury. It's that of an injury that could be life-threatening," he said. "And though it sounds bad she got bit in the face, and, you know, it's gonna leave a scar for a long time, that's not what would be considered a serious injury, and so it only met the definition of dangerous."

Jordan added the dog was returned to the shelter it came from in a different county and euthanized.

Possible legal changes

Mansfield eliminated its controversial pit bull ban in November 2017 after the city temporarily lifted the ban in June after the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals struck down in April a similar ordinance in Reynoldsburg as unconstitutional.

Spon previously said Mansfield's ordinance, which classified pit bulls and other similar breeds as vicious dogs and banned them from city limits, could no longer be enforced because Mansfield is also under the jurisdiction of the Fifth District.

More: Mansfield eliminates pit bull ban

More: Mansfield eliminates pit bull ban, discusses animal control officer

More: Mansfield could change dog laws after pit bull ban lifted

More: Mansfield temporarily lifts pit bull ban after court ruling

More: Council considers adding stiffer penalties to vicious dog ordinance

Mansfield's elimination of the ban puts the city in line with the state's current law on dangerous and vicious dogs, as the State of Ohio in 2012 changed its legislation from breed-specific about pit bulls, like Mansfield's, to non-breed-specific.

During the emergency safety committee meeting Tuesday night, Kemerer suggested banning dogs that have been declared dangerous from the city. Currently, only dogs that have been declared vicious are banned.

"If a dog has caused a human harm, especially serious harm, I don't want it in the city because it can do that again," he said. "We need it removed."

Kemerer also suggested declaring pit bulls dangerous dogs, although he acknowledged it could set the city up for a legal battle with the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court.

"I'm not saying...we make all pit bulls per se dangerous because we're gonna run into the same battle with the courts we did before, but I feel that's the answer," he said. "If you're going to have a dangerous item, you be responsible for it."

Additionally, Kemerer suggested adding a forfeiture clause to the city's dangerous dog ordinance for dogs that are unlicensed under the argument that they are contraband.

Spon said the dog warden's office "doesn't want to take financial responsibility for these dogs" and doesn't remove them from homes after these kinds of incidents.

"The county dog warden is refusing to remove dangerous or vicious dogs that have attacked our children of our community and has refused to remove from them from our community and repeatedly puts them back with the same owners that were already irresponsible," Spon said.

But Jordan said Wednesday morning he does not have the authority to remove dogs based on their classification.

"That has to be determined by a judge," he said.

Jordan added that euthanization of dogs is done at the dog owner's expense.

"It's not always the dog warden's responsibility to euthanize a dog owner's dogs," he said. "That's usually the responsibility of the dog owner to have that done."

Jordan also said Wednesday morning he is not required to enforce city ordinances — only state laws.

"We would not cite under the city ordinance...We're not permitted by law to enforce city ordinances unless we have a contract with the city," he said.

More: County dog warden responds to city officials' complaints

More: City says county not enforcing laws

A previous $30,000 contract paid for the county to enforce the city's ordinances by funding an additional dog warden officer. But as financial difficulties hit, Jordan previously said the city contract was eliminated in 2009.

Under Ohio law, county dog wardens and their deputies are required to "patrol their respective counties and seize and impound on sight all dogs found running at large and all dogs more than three months of age found not wearing a valid registration tag."

On adding an animal control officer in Mansfield, Jordan said, "Certainly, more law enforcement officers on the job would always be beneficial than less."

Safety committee chairman Don Bryant told Spencer and Coleman Tuesday the issue "troubles our committee and city council."

"We've ran down this avenue before in trying to create an animal control officer position, and it's a very complicated argument," he said. "We will look into this further. This does not fall on deaf ears. We hear you, and I hate that that happened to both of you."

ejmills@mansfieldnewsjournal.com

419-521-7205

Twitter: @EmilyMills818