Mitchell Kaminski
COLUMBIA Mo. (KMIZ)
A Cole County family is asking a judge to stop the county from euthanizing its pit bull, arguing the dog does not meet Missouri’s definition of a dangerous dog and that previous biting incidents occurred only when law enforcement officers entered the family’s property without advance notice.
Keith Nilges filed the lawsuit Monday against Cole County Animal Control Officer Andrea Putnam after receiving a notice ordering the family’s pit bull, Scooby, to be euthanized. The petition asks the court to block the order while the case moves forward.
The lawsuit comes as local officials say the state law ( RSMo 578.024) used to penalize owners of dangerous dogs is rarely applied.
Cole County Sheriff John Wheeler said his office has pursued only two cases under the statute, the current case and another in 2024. According to Wheeler, in the 2024 case, a judge allowed the dog to be relocated outside Cole County instead of being euthanized after a disposition hearing.
Boone County Animal Control Supervisor Kevin Meyers said his office generally relies on local dangerous or vicious dog ordinances before seeking charges under state law.
“I can only think of one time that I have charged someone with Missouri State Statute 578.024 for keeping a dangerous dog,” Meyers said in a statement.
According to Meyers, that case involved a dog previously declared vicious that had bitten multiple people and whose owners repeatedly failed to comply with county requirements. A Boone County judge ultimately found “overwhelming evidence” that the dog should be euthanized under state law.
Meyers said most dog bite investigations never reach that point.
“We frequently quarantine dogs that have bitten people,” Meyers wrote. “Most dog bites are provoked and the dog is quarantined at home if it’s bitten an owner or family member.”
In cases involving unprovoked bites, Boone County typically issues warnings or classifies dogs under local ordinances before considering the state statute if bites continue, Meyers said. He added the county’s advisory board has heard several appeals over the years, but he could recall only one instance in which a dog’s vicious designation was ultimately revoked.
“Overall, we do not typically jump to that state charge, though it is an option in cases in which owners refuse to comply with ordinances and their dogs continue to bite people,” Meyers said.
According to court records, Scooby bit a Cole County deputy June 27 after the deputy arrived at the family’s rural property while no one was home. The deputy was treated at a hospital for what court documents describe as a “Level 4” bite. Scooby was impounded before being released July 1. The following day, the family received a letter informing them the dog had been declared dangerous and must be euthanized within 10 days.
However, the lawsuit argues Scooby was inside an invisible electric fence at the time of the incident and that warning signs alerted visitors that dogs were on the property. It also claims the dog had to be forced out of the fenced area because it had been “rigorously trained to adhere to that fence line.”
The petition acknowledges Scooby has bitten people on three occasions but argues each incident happened when someone came onto the family’s property unexpectedly while no family members were present.
Christian Melhado, an attorney representing the Nilges family, said those circumstances distinguish Scooby from dogs that routinely threaten the public.
“You see the report, you see that this is the third incident and that obviously rings alarm bells. And it did for me when I first heard, when I was first contacted by my client. What’s important to know is that each of these incidents occurred on their property involving someone who was there unannounced and when no one was present at the home,” Meldado told ABC 17 News. “So it’s very different from a case where you hear of a dog constantly escaping from his backyard, running down the street, terrorizing the community, biting random people. Scooby does not leave the property.”
According to Melhado, the first incident occurred when a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper came to notify the family about a crash on their property and was bitten in the leg by Scooby. After investigating, the Cole County Sheriff’s Office determined Scooby was not a dangerous dog.
Melhado said law enforcement instead recommended the family install an invisible fence, and reached an informal agreement to call before coming onto the property so the dog could be secured before officers arrived.
A second incident occurred when a sheriff’s deputy responded to a report of a child driving a four-wheeler on the property. Melhado said Scooby jumped on the deputy, scuffing the deputy’s vest.
The current incident happened after another deputy arrived to notify the family that a vehicle with a flat tire had been moved from someone else’s property. Melhado said the family believed they had an understanding with law enforcement that officers would call before entering the property.
“I’m not trying to blame the sheriff, and the deputies are trying to do their job, and we understand that,” Melhado said. “Regrettably, we think that the parties had come to an understanding about how to avoid these incidents and that for whatever reason no call was received in advance of each of these cases.”
He added that Scooby has not shown aggression in other settings.
“He’s never posed an issue to his vet that looks at him once a year. The people at the pound didn’t suggest they had any issues when he was there, this last time. My client told me that when he went to pick up Scooby on July 1, the worker at the pound came out with Scooby, and then when they were outside of the pound, he dropped the leash and Scooby ran over to my client. I think these incidents that have occurred are avoidable.”
Melhado said the family is willing to accept restrictions, including using a muzzle and taking additional precautions, if Scooby is allowed to remain with them.
Missouri law makes it a crime to own a dangerous dog if a dog that has previously bitten a person or domestic animal without provocation bites someone again.
The statute generally requires the dog to be seized and, after written notice, destroyed. However, owners have the right to appeal the impoundment and proposed euthanasia in circuit court. During that appeal, the dog remains impounded until a judge decides whether it should be euthanized.
Dr. James Crosby — who is a canine aggression expert, retired police officer, former animal control director and research associate with Harvard University’s Canine Brain Project — questioned why officers continued approaching the property without first contacting the family, if prior incidents had established a pattern.
“If the police department knew that there had been problems with officers coming on to the property without letting the owners know, which appears to be the case, then why in the world didn’t they just pick up the phone and give him a call this time?” Crosby said.
Crosby also said invisible fencing can unintentionally increase the risk of aggression when unfamiliar people approach.
“The fact that there was an electronic invisible fence involved could be a player in any or all three of these supposed cases,” Crosby said. “Because if a dog is confronting a stranger and hits the zap zone, dogs tend to interpret that as a potential attack and will turn and focus on the nearest person.”
Drawing on his own investigations, Crosby said he has handled fatal attacks involving invisible fences and believes officers should carefully evaluate warning signs before entering private property. He also argued many departments do not adequately prepare officers for encounters with dogs.
“Part of the problem is departments do not train adequately for their officers to go to less lethal and non-lethal means in dealing with animals,” Crosby said. “Back in the day when I was first a police officer in the late ’70s, yeah, it was shoot ’em. Now we’ve come a lot further. There are a lot more options, including a course called Law Enforcement Dog Encounters training that has been approved by the Department of Justice.”
Crosby said that course, developed in partnership with the National Sheriffs’ Association, is offered free of charge and gives officers the tools they need to safely handle encounters with dogs. However, he added that many agencies still underestimate the importance of that training.
“There’s two things, basically. No. 2, the value of dogs has changed over time,” Crosby said when asked why more departments don’t utilize the training. “They have gone from being working tools that the farmer would round up the sheep with to being companions and parts of our family. That’s part of the change police departments have to adjust to. There’s a perception that they don’t have the time and money to invest in that training.”
Rather than resorting to deadly force or escalating encounters, Crosby said officers already carry effective alternatives to help prevent getting bitten.
“The officers already have less-lethal tools that are highly effective. They’re carrying O.C. or pepper spray. Pepper spray works almost all of the time, even more than it does with humans. A baton. Not for hitting them, but to sling it out and then use that as a space-gaining alternative. A dog tends to bite the closest thing to them,” Crosby said.
ABC 17 News reached out to the Cole County Sheriff’s Office about the lawsuit. Wheeler said the department does not comment on pending litigation.
Click here to follow the original article.
