| UNFAIR PARK | Dangerous Dogs? Audit finds shortcomings in how Dallas investigates aggressive and dangerous dogs. BY JACOB VAUGHN I n July, three dogs attacked and killed 4-year-old Lea Janae Freeman in southeast Oak Cliff. Both the neighbor who reported the attack to 911 and Freeman’s mother, Tiara, told The Dal- las Morning News that the dogs had gotten loose in the neighborhood and threatened people several times before. Lorie Penning- ton, the 911 caller’s sister, said she had tried reporting the dogs to the city more than once before Lea’s death, but to no avail. A recent audit found flaws in the city’s process for investigating and determining whether a dog is aggressive or dangerous. For one thing, the process can be time-sensi- tive. Additionally, once a determination is made, Dallas can’t ensure owners of aggres- sive dogs are in compliance, which could lead to repeat attacks, according to the audit. Updating the process and amending city code could lead to improvements, but the changes will have to be approved by the Dallas City Council. Whitney Bollinger, as- sistant director of Dallas Animal Services, told the Observer this could take as long as six months. Dogs that harm people and other animals are divided into two categories in the city code: “dangerous” and “aggressive.” A dog is designated as dangerous if it commits an unprovoked attack causing bodily injury. It doesn’t have to cause bodily harm to be designated as dangerous, though. The dog could also be labeled dangerous if an unprovoked attack gives someone reason to believe it could cause bodily harm. A dog can be labeled aggressive if, while it wasn’t restrained, it killed or injured an- other restrained animal. Some dogs fit into both categories. As of mid-July, the city had documented 247 dangerous or aggressive dogs. There were 184 dangerous dogs, 96 aggressive ones and 33 that belonged to both categories. The biggest shortcoming the audit found was an ineffective hearing process meant to ensure that owners of aggressive dogs were in compliance. Due to the way this section of city code was written in 2018, Dallas can’t hold legitimate and effective compliance hearings for owners of aggressive dogs. The section of city code titled Require- 4 4 ments for Ownership of an Aggressive Dog; Noncompliance Hearing doesn’t offer any details on how these hearings should func- tion. “Without details, no hearings are held,” the audit said. The next section of the city code, Attacks by an Aggressive Dog, says these should be held in municipal court for a decision to be made by the director of animal services. But the director can’t make decisions for munici- pal courts. Because of this, the audit said, “Dallas Animal Services and the City Attor- ney’s Office concur that no effective hearings can occur.” Bollinger said, “In clarifying the ordi- nances, the hearings process will be similar to that of the dangerous dog noncompliance hearings, which the audit found to be far more effective.” Owners of dangerous dogs were more compliant. This might have something to do with the fact that city code details how non- compliance hearings for owners of danger- ous dogs should take place. However, when dealing with dangerous dogs or aggressive dogs, DAS doesn’t have formal procedures outside of these hearings to ensure that owners are meeting require- ments. These include locking down liability insurance coverage or financial responsibil- ity of at least $100,000; restraining the dog at all times; and other requirements. The city also doesn’t have a target time- frame for the entire investigation and deter- mination process, which could prolong it to as long as 85 days. Most of the data for the audit was collected during the pandemic, which may have affected the timeliness of investigations and determination, the audi- tor noted in his report. Investigations can usually be concluded in eight days – longer than the seven-day target – but they can hit a few snags along the way that extend the process to nearly three months. It may take time for a notice to investigate to hit the animal services de- partment’s inbox, which can cause delays. From there, it may take time for the agency to get to the investigation, and the final de- termination after the fact could cause the whole process to take even longer. DAS “agrees that establishing an overall timeframe goal for completing the investiga- tion and determination process will en- hance the process and reduce public safety risk,” Bollinger said. “Our staff is currently analyzing the process to determine what that timeline should be; however, we have not yet reached a conclusion.” The city also isn’t doing the best job at tracking dangerous and aggressive dogs. Most data about these dogs was stored in case files and spreadsheets, instead of in ani- mal service’s online information system. The information that was in the online sys- tem wasn’t all that reliable. “Online registries of dangerous and ag- gressive dogs included duplicate entries and were not updated during a seven-month pe- riod in 2021,” the audit says. There are also legal challenges to the pro- cess that the auditor said city staff should address, such as witnesses not attending hearings for cases on appeal. “If the witness does not testify, as oc- curred for at least ten dogs since October 2018, that may factor into why the determi- nation was overturned,” the audit said. “Sev- eral reasons were cited for witnesses not attending, such as a move to another city, an improved relationship with the dog or its owner, and concerns regarding the CO- VID-19 pandemic.” Additionally, the City Attorney’s Office and animal services department disagree on the deadline for owners to surrender their dogs after they’re determined to be noncompliant. Dallas has singled out 247 aggressive dogs. Unsplash The auditor hopes all of this can be ad- dressed in updates to the department’s pro- cedures and amendments to the city code. It could take months, but Bollinger said, the team “is committed to moving the process forward as efficiently as possible.” ▼ PUBLIC HEALTH KIDS WITH COVID I HIGH SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN EXPERIENCED A 75% WEEK-OVER- WEEK INCREASE IN COVID-19 CASES. BY PATRICK STRICKLAND n Dallas County, COVID-19 cases are surging among school-aged children, ac- cording to a tally by the Parkland Center for Clinical Innovation. Last Thursday, the center said that ele- mentary and middle school-aged kids had experienced a 61% week-over-week inci- dence of COVID-19 cases. At the same time, health authorities have recorded a 75% week-over-week spike among high school- aged children. Altogether, pediatric cases represent one-third of the total COVID-19 infections, the center said, describing that number as a “pandemic high.” Despite the uptick in cases, hospitaliza- tions and intensive care unit and emergency room cases didn’t increase, the center said. Last Wednesday, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins confirmed the numbers on Twitter, urging followers to get the CO- VID-19 vaccine and booster if they haven’t already. “It is important that we all remain up-to- date,” Jenkins wrote. “Most individuals are now eligible for the updated vaccine >> p6 MSEPT X MONTH XX,2 14 ONTHE BEMX–R 15–21, 202 0 DALLAS OBSERVER DALLAS OBSER | CLASSIFIED CLASSIFIED | MUSIC MOVIES | | MUSIC | DISH | | CULTURE DISH | CULTURE | UNFAIR ZE P |ARK | CONTENTS NTS | NIGHT+DAY | FEATURE | SCHUT UNFAIR PARK | CONTE | dallasobserver.comdallasobserver.com
