Collared : Every Dog Gets Its Day in Court When Accused of Being Dangerous, Obnoxious

The hearing had all of the appearances of a courtroom drama.

Each side was represented by an attorney. Witnesses were called to testify under oath. Each side was admonished against further emotional outbursts.

The defendants, however, were not there. They were caged at the East Valley Animal Shelter.

Three pit bulls accused of attacking a 10-year-old Lake View Terrace boy in January were the subjects of the hearing, among the first to be held under a law passed by the Los Angeles City Council one year ago.

The law, approved after a rash of pit bull attacks in California, allows the city to impound dogs that bite people and to destroy the animals in the worst cases. It also permits the city to impose restrictions on owners of dogs that bark excessively.

After six months of hearings, animal control officials say the law has enabled the city to respond more swiftly to the 8,000 reports of dog bites and 5,000 barking-dog complaints filed each year in Los Angeles. As a result, some people who have been bitten will be spared a repeat incident, and some residents who have been bothered by barking dogs can now live in peace. But many pet owners who have gone through the hearings criticize the process as too formal and intimidating.

“I was just floored when he read me my Miranda rights,” said Nancy S. Ettl, an Encino attorney and dog owner, referring to an animal control officer who summoned her to a barking-dog hearing.

Dogs Destroyed

So far, 121 hearings have been held--67 for barking dogs and 54 for dangerous animals. Nine dogs have been ordered destroyed, including a German shepherd mix named Princess who bit people on eight occasions. Their owners also have been prohibited from owning another animal in Los Angeles for three years.

When a dog is not deemed vicious enough to warrant its destruction, but is ordered out of the city, the owners have the option of turning their pets over to city officials. If not adopted within 45 days, the dogs are destroyed.

Most dog owners, however, have been given a second chance. They were told to install fences and warning signs, muzzle their dogs or put them through obedience school. Owners who refuse can have their pets taken away. They also can be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

“Criminals don’t even do as much time as my dogs have done,” complained Gerri Garcia of Lake View Terrace, whose three pit bulls have been impounded since the Jan. 4 attack on the 10-year-old boy.

“You don’t just take a pet and destroy him,” said Barbara Lederman of Van Nuys. “I don’t think that is fair.” Lederman is appealing an order for one of her Lhasa apsos to be destroyed and two others to be removed. Authorities say the dogs attacked people four times while running loose, once biting an 84-year-old woman 10 times. Lederman acknowledged two of the attacks, but said they may have been provoked.

“These are not exactly killer dogs,” said Lederman, who got an animal behaviorist to testify that her dogs have “reasonably good dispositions.”

Animal control officials say the process still is in its infancy and problems are being worked out as they surface. For example, the city is investigating one instance in which a dog was put to death by accident.

Nevertheless, officials say, the hearings have streamlined the process. “It’s an improvement over what we had,” said Dr. William Putney, a veterinarian who serves on the Animal Regulation Commission, a citizen advisory panel. “Before, it took months and months to get any kind of hearing. Now, we’re getting reasonably prompt hearings and confronting the issues head-on.”

Putney, who trained dogs during World War II to sniff out enemy troops for the Marines, also defends the destruction of some dogs. “There are incorrigible animals, just as there are incorrigible people. And society needs a method to protect itself from them.”

Before the law went into effect, the city’s only recourse for dealing with a vicious dog was to get a court order to destroy the animal. That procedure was rarely used because it was lengthy and costly and “putting a dog to death is not the way to handle most dog problems,” said Robert Rush, general manager of the city Department of Animal Regulation.

Now the law permits officials to impound a dog immediately after an attack.

A decision on whether a hearing is held--and whether a dog is destroyed--is based on whether the attack was provoked, the severity of the bite, the animal’s history, whether the dog was permitted to run loose and “whether the dog can be effectively trained to change its temperament,” Rush said.

“In all of the cases, severity is there,” he added. “It isn’t just a little nip.”

The hearings, which have lasted as long as 16 hours over two days, are conducted at an animal shelter by a Department of Animal Regulation employee trained in administrative law and animal behavior. Another uniformed animal control officer presents the prosecuting evidence, calling victims or witnesses to testify. The dog owner, or his attorney, cross-examines the witnesses and presents the defense.

The examiner makes a recommendation to Rush, who can dismiss the case, impose restrictions or order the animal’s destruction. His decision can be appealed to the Animal Regulation Commission, which makes recommendations to the City Council. Some dog owners also have vowed to take their cases to court if necessary.

A dog need not attack a person to be ordered destroyed or removed from the city. For example, a pit bull was ordered out of the city after it bit a horse several times and chased the animal through a Sylmar neighborhood.

Many of the cases have involved pit bulls. But records of dog bites show that no single breed attacks more than others, Rush said. The pit bulls, because of their powerful jaws and tendency to hang on, are capable of doing the greatest harm, he said.

The hearings can be “pretty intense,” said hearing examiner Richard Felosky, a 20-year employee of the Department of Animal Regulation who has found himself in the middle of neighborhood squabbles. He said he has had to order people out of the room because of emotional outbursts.

Torn Clothing, Scars

Often, the bite victims and the dog owners are represented by attorneys. Evidence such as ripped-up clothing, photographs of wounds, recordings of barking and logs of sleepless nights are sometimes presented. At a recent hearing before Felosky, a 9-year-old girl bitten on the leg by a German shepherd showed her scars as evidence.

Many dog owners complain that the process favors the complainant. Garcia, whose three pit bulls attacked the 10-year-old boy and who has spent close to $4,000 in legal fees defending the dogs, agrees.

She contends that her animals--Mistral, Patches and Max--are victims of “pit bull hysteria.”

“My dogs are very lovable animals,” she said, pointing out that she has baby-sat children in her home with the dogs present.

Animal control officers say the attack on Michael Degraphenreed Jr. occurred as the 10-year-old was climbing a rope in front of his home. The pit bulls bounded out of Garcia’s yard next door and charged toward him. The boy scurried up the rope, but one of the dogs leaped into the air and locked its jaws on the boy’s buttocks, officers say. The boy required 30 stitches, an attorney for the boy’s parents said.

After an emotional 8-hour hearing, hearing examiner James Connelly recommended that the pit bulls be ordered out of the city and that the Garcias be prohibited from owning dogs for three years.

“I personally observed these dogs on several occasions during their confinement at the East Valley Animal Shelter, and all three dogs displayed aggression to strangers without provocation,” he said. “This aggression included baring their teeth, raising their hackles, growling and jumping against the kennel fencing.”

Connelly recommended against the animals’ destruction, however, saying the boy probably contributed to the attack by “conditioning the dogs’ aggressive behavior toward him with a history of agitation” including teasing and rock throwing. He also said the dogs had no prior history of attacks.

Garcia is upset that the hearing process has taken so long. She wonders whether her dogs’ long confinement since January will cause them psychological damage.

Rush, however, is not sympathetic. He said the boy could have been killed if Garcia’s husband had not arrived to call off the dogs.

Ettl said that when she was summoned to a barking-dog hearing at the city’s West Valley Animal Shelter, she was surprised to hear an animal control officer inform her of her constitutional rights against self-incrimination. “That’s for criminals,” she said.

Felosky said dog owners accused of violating the law are read their rights “to let them know that it is a serious matter.”

Ettl complained that she was refused an opportunity to question the complainant at an informal meeting she was ordered to attend, and she was refused a chance before her hearing to review the department’s records. “I’m an attorney, and I was just appalled by this,” she said.

“I can’t stop the dogs from barking completely,” Ettl said. “That’s the nature of dogs. The Dobie barks if something is going on in the alley.”

Hearings for barking dogs are similar to ones conducted for dangerous animals. But owners of dangerous dogs can be summoned to a hearing immediately, whereas owners of barking dogs are given two chances to correct the problem before they are called to a hearing.

Some dog owners have won their cases because they brought in several other neighbors who testified that the animals did not bark excessively.

A hearing can be ordered even if only one neighbor complains about the barking.

A Laurel Canyon man who complained about a neighbor’s three barking dogs offered cautious praise for the results he got. The animals’ owner was ordered to train the dogs, keep the animals indoors at night and be present whenever the dogs are in the back yard.

“Things have been improved, but really with no sense of assurance that they will stay that way,” said the man, who asked not to be identified for fear of antagonizing the dog owner.

Of the hearing, he said: “It’s like going to court. I would never have wanted to go into it without an attorney.”