High Court Refuses to Give Dog Its Day in 2-Year Legal Struggle

The Supreme Court received another last-minute request Friday morning to stop an execution, but this one differed in an important respect: The plea was made on behalf of a dog.

After brief consideration by the justices, the request was denied.

Taz, a Malemute/Akita-type dog that was described as “husky and playful” by its Oregon attorney, had already lost rounds before a county board, two state courts in Oregon, a federal district judge in Portland and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Why did the dog’s owner file appeals for two years?

Action Called Unfair

“Because he loved his dog,” said Kerry Rydberg, a Eugene lawyer who represent dog owner Shane Bowlin. “We also think this was unfair and unconstitutional. We think the evidence was not very strong, and we were not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses.”

According to the thick court record, Taz’s troubles began on Jan. 23, 1987, when he was seized by Deschutes County officials for having “engaged in the killing, wounding or injuring of livestock.” Specifically, he had been seen by a ranch owner “chewing on and biting a llama” along with two other dogs, including a pit bull.

After two hearings before the county board, Taz was sentenced to “be killed in a humane manner on Feb. 18, 1987.” But the county agreed to stay the execution while Bowlin appealed.

In his petition to the high court, Bowlin contended that he had been “denied fundamental due process of law.” The county ordinance under which Taz was convicted “violates the 14th Amendment” because it does not require a full adversarial hearing. Second, “plaintiffs were not permitted to confront and cross-examine the witnesses” who identified Taz as one of the attackers.

Vicious Attack Cited

County officials say they had ample evidence that all three dogs took part in the “vicious” attack. But Rydberg says Taz may have been mistaken for another dog.

On Dec. 23 last year, U.S. Judge James M. Burns in Portland turned down the constitutional challenge.

“Federal courts used to be viewed as austere, even learned tribunals,” Burns began. “Not any more. Thanks to the expansion of civil rights jurisprudence, this is now a ‘doggie court.’ Indeed, this case is an animal ‘double-header’ since it involves both dogs and llamas.”

But, in a 13-page opinion, Burns carefully considered and rejected the dog owner’s legal contentions. He even added a footnote assuring dog owners that he meant “nothing derogatory” by his comments.

Stay Denied by Court

Last Tuesday, the 9th Circuit Court denied a motion to stay the execution.

The two-year court fight came to an end Friday afternoon. Minutes after the emergency petition was denied by Justice Antonin Scalia, Taz was “put to sleep,” according to county officials.

“We knew it was a long shot. But we didn’t want to give up without trying,” Rydberg said.