11-19-12 Special Called Mtg.pdfCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES
6:00 P.M. — November 19, 2012
IN ATTENDANCE:
Veda Harless, Chair
Dayna Williams, Secretary
Juliette Hagist
Alan Jensen, City Attorney
Ian Luthringer
Suzanne Green, Prosecuting Attorney
Richard Ouellette
Benjamin de Luna
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:
Nicholas Dodaro
Vic Gualillo, Commander
John Stinson, Alternate
Kelley Caton, Animal Control Officer
ABSENT:
Meade Coplan (Excused)
Chair Veda Harless called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
Secretary Dayna Williams read the roll, finding a quorum was present.
1. Approval of Minutes
Motion: Approve minutes of the Special Called Code Enforcement Board Meeting of
November 1, 2012.
Moved by de Luna, Seconded by Ouellette
The motion was approved unanimously.
2. Administration of Oath to Defendants/Witnesses
Chair Veda Harless gave the oath to the defendants and witnesses.
3. Old Business:
A. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17084: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
B. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17085: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
C. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17086: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
Prosecuting Attorney Suzanne Green stated they are presenting a case today with one owner and
three dogs with numerous incidents. She stated they are asking each dog to be declared
dangerous. She stated instead of proceeding dog by dog by dog, she felt it was more concise to
go by date of incident, because these dogs attack in packs, in twos, and so on. She stated the
Board would see in front of them a summary of incidents of how she is going to proceed. She
stated when the Board is deliberating she needs the Board to look at each dog individually, how
they acted, and if they fit under the dangerous dog provision. She stated we are proceeding
under 4- 10(1)(d) which is when the dangerous dog has, when unprovoked, chased or approached
a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent
attitude of attack, provided that such actions are attested to in a sworn statement. She stated she
had eyewitnesses and the Animal Control Officer. She stated we would hear testimony of severe
injury which is under 4- 10(1)(b). She stated we are presenting evidence and asking the Board to
find every dog under (1)(d), however, if you feel you need to add (1)(b) on top of that, that is
fine, but we are proceeding under (1)(d).
Ms. Green stated Attorney Robert Willis, representing the respondents in this case, had a
procedural issue to present. Attorney Willis came to the podium stating he has not previously
appeared in any proceedings which have predated tonight's events. Mr. Willis stated he has filed
a Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Relief which is the title of the motion. He stated it has to
do with due process considerations. He stated it is an overview of where we are generally, not
just from a pure legal standpoint, but from the standpoint of where we are addressing the
complaints that are here tonight. He stated the principal owner and custodian of these dogs is
Ms. Babillis, who is here tonight. Ms. Babillis and her mother live here and have lived in the
same home since 1982. He stated Ms. Babillis is a student at The University of North Florida
and her mother is an engineer. He stated the three dogs are rescue dogs they have acquired at
different times. Mr. Willis stated what they believe is going on here is there have been a series
of incidents all of which are related to the undeniable fact that Ms. Babillis has allowed these
dogs to run at large without a leash. He stated, as far as knowing there was some kind of
unprovoked, menacing behavior such as contemplated by the Ordinance, that is not something
we had notice of. Mr. Willis stated they were furnished notice of that on October 10, 2012. He
stated since that time the respondents have ceased that behavior, and in fact somewhat preceding
that they ceased that behavior, and these dogs have not been the occasion of any further
complaints since then. Mr. Willis stated he did not want to bog the Board down in the legalities
because he has been told by Mr. Jensen and Ms. Green that is something we preserve for another
day, if there is another day. He stated, according to what he is seeing from Mr. Jensen, Mr.
Jensen perceives it is not the Board's position to legally decide such motions, and Mr. Willis
stated he does not necessarily disagree with that; we are trying to preserve it, Mr. Willis stated,
as we read the Ordinance, we believe we were entitled to notice and the opportunity to correct
the problem. There are two exceptions under the Ordinance, neither one of which apply here,
and the only notice we got in the sense contemplated by the Ordinance is the notice which we got
on October 10, 2012, and there has never been a period provided during which we could correct
the problem. He stated the first reaction you may have is this is not a problem you can correct,
but that is not true. If the dogs are misbehaving in any way you can spend five minutes on the
internet and you can find any number of dog behavior experts that can modify dogs behavior,
including this kind of behavior. He stated the proposition that we have concluded that motion
with is the same proposition that we conclude here. He stated we perceive the statute and this
Board's efforts to be corrective in nature and not punitive in nature. He further stated these
Ordinances are drawn so that any dog, on even a single occasion, were to growl at someone in an
unprovoked fashion, it would qualify as a dangerous dog under your ordinance, and he does not
think that is what we have in mind. He stated that he thinks what we are concerned with is
protecting the citizenry from repeated behavior of that nature. He stated that is why it is called
corrective, it is not a penalty imposed on the dog or the owner because of the behavior, but to
correct and make sure that it does not occur in the future. He stated we have taken steps to do
that as demonstrated by the fact there have been no more instances. He stated there is no more
running at large, they keep the dog in the back yard properly fenced in, and so what we have
concluded the motion with is a request for a relief to allow us a period of time within which to
correct this problem and not go to the extreme of declaring these dogs, any one or more of them,
as being dangerous. He stated the simple reason for that is if you do declare these dogs
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 2 of 20
dangerous, there are some onerous conditions which are imposed, some of which can be
accommodated, but there is one in your Ordinance which cannot, and that is the requirement that
you purchase or acquire a three- hundred thousand dollar liability policy. Further, if you are
going to get insurance, you have got to notify the insurance company that the dog has been
declared dangerous and show written proof to the city that you advised the insurance company of
that, and the only alternative to that is to purchase a surety bond. Mr. Willis stated his view is
there is no such coverage available in the marketplace. He further stated the surety bond or the
insurance are so far beyond the ability of these persons to pay; that in effect, if these dogs are
declared to be dangerous and nothing is done to undo that finding, then the net result is they will
lose these dogs. It will be a taking by the government in the same way that imminent domain or
condemnation of property or any other. He stated that is what they think the ultimate bottom line
is here and that is what the outcome will be by your actions. He stated for all of those reasons,
we are suggesting we ought to find some solution to this problem that should have been a
neighborhood problem and handle it in a way that gives these folks the opportunity to retain their
property, their chattel, and their dogs, without going to the extreme of, in effect, denying them
their property. That is our position.
Chair Harless stated she was going to address the motion and, as Mr. Jensen briefly explained to
the Board, we did not receive that prior to this meeting. Ms. Harless stated, as they are not a full
judicial board, what we will do tonight is hear the case presented. She stated she understood Mr.
Willis's concerns and if any of the other Board members have questions after Ms. Green has
presented her information, he will have an opportunity to answer other questions by the Board
and see if we can come to an agreeable resolution for this. Mr. Willis stated his only purpose in
bringing that up was he had furnished this motion to Ms. Green and Mr. Jensen on Friday, and
sent a cover letter to Ms. Green with it, stating he was not familiar with how we file things
before this Board. He stated if the Board has not had an opportunity to see the motion then he
thinks that is a problem that should be addressed; but his interest is in preserving that issue. He
stated that is what he is here to do and if that issue has, in effect, been reviewed by you and your
counsel and you are satisfied we should go forward, not withstanding our motion, then that is
okay with him; he just does not want to be waiving an issue that we have presented. Chair
Harless stated she would leave that to legal counsel between Mr. Jensen and Ms. Green. Chair
Harless stated what the Board is hearing today is the Notice of Violation of a code. She stated
Mr. Willis brought up some great questions regarding the Code and if it is what it should be. She
further stated the Board could only vote on what is going to be presented tonight and do our best
to come out with an agreeable resolution for all.
Ms. Suzanne Green stated she has prepared an evidence packet for the Board and Ms. Williams
has a copy of the evidence packet in front of her. She stated the first thing she would like to
introduce is an affidavit and she is doing this in time line. She stated the affidavit is from
January 20, 2009. She stated the affidavit is from Jennifer Chalot and she wanted to introduce it
as Exhibit 1. She stated this affidavit concerns Jack, a brown pit bull mix. She stated we would
be hearing about three pit bull mixes. We have Jack, we have Lola, who is brown and white or
tan and white, and then we have Jewel, who is black. She stated those are the three dogs to keep
in mind when you are hearing all the instances. Ms. Green stated on January 20, 2009, Ms.
Chalot testified Jack was roaming on her street and ran in front of her car as she pulled in her
driveway. Ms. Chalot testified Jack began barking when she honked and refused to move. Ms.
Chalot testified she parked her car and attempted to walk to her mailbox when Jack charged at
her growling with teeth bared. Ms. Chalot testified she avoided eye contact and tried to calm
him while walking to the mailbox, but he became increasingly agitated. She testified she
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 3 of 20
covered her face and moved slowly back to her car but Jack followed her within inches. Ms.
Chalot testified he ran into her garage as she drove in and continued to bark at her. She testified
she was afraid to get out and hid in her car out of the dog's sight until he lost interest and left.
Ms. Chalot testified she called Animal Control and left a message, then called the Atlantic Beach
Police Department. Ms. Chalot testified she also contacted Jack's owner, Ms. Babillis, and let
her know she had contacted authorities in Atlantic Beach. Ms. Chalot testified she now carries
an electronic dog deterrent device whenever outside for fear Jack will get loose in the future.
Ms. Green stated this was the testimony given on the first affidavit and submitted it to the Board.
Chair Harless stated as these exhibits are submitted they will start with Secretary Williams and
end with Board member Nicholas Dodaro. She asked Mr. Dodaro to please keep them in order
and give them to Ms. Williams at the end of the meeting.
Ms. Green reiterated we have a white and tan or white and brown pit bull mix, Lola; a brown or
tan or reddish brown full color, Jack; and another full color black, which is Jewel. Mr. Willis
stated he was not familiar with our proceedings, so please forgive him if he was out of order.
Mr. Willis stated he wanted to object to the introduction of the affidavit. He stated he had
received three letters notifying him of the scope of this hearing and the incidences at issue, and
the affidavit Ms. Green read was not identified in any one of those three. He stated there is a
letter for each dog. Chair Harless asked what was not identified. Mr. Willis stated neither the
exhibit or the incident itself. He stated he has just seen some of these exhibits for the first time
tonight. Mr. Willis stated that is not as important as the fact that the letters we received, which
are our notice of what we are called upon to defend, did not include reference to this 2009 event.
Chair Harless asked if the notice was from Animal Control and Ms. Green stated it was an
affidavit given to Animal Control. Chair Harless asked if the affidavits are shared with the
owners. Animal Control Officer Kelley Caton stated the affidavits are public record and the
owner or the recipient of a citation written on an affidavit is always welcome to come and get a
copy. Ms. Caton stated she asks if they want one but she does not hand them one. She reiterated
they may always come to get a copy. Chair Harless asked if they are notified that a report has
been made to Animal Control. Ms. Caton stated if a citation is written on the affidavit, the
citation is marked as such, and the complainant's name is on the citation. Ms. Caton stated when
she issues the citations, she always tells the recipient they may come in and get a copy of the
affidavit. Chair Harless asked if a copy of this particular instance was given to the owner. Ms.
Caton stated a citation was written by Officer Freycinet, who is no longer with this department,
and she does not know if he gave a copy of the affidavit to Ms. Babillis, but it was always
available. Chair Harless asked if it was protocol for the offender to receive a copy of the written
citation as notification. Discussion ensued and Ms. Green stated the respondent was given the
citation in this instance. Chair Harless stated she wanted to clarify that Ms. Babillis was notified
of the citation and stated to Mr. Willis she was unsure if that is outside of the scope. Mr. Willis
stated the concerning fact is the scope, as he understood it, of what we were to defend was
included in these letters received on October 10, 2012 and there is no reference at all to any of
that. This is the first he has heard it. Mr. Luthringer stated it was his understanding the
Ordinance requires counsel to notify the respondent of the provision under which they are being
charged. Mr. Luthringer stated he has not seen the part of that provision that requires you to
disclose your list of exhibits and evidence. Mr. Luthringer asked Ms. Green if there is a
provision to that extent and, if not, then he asked Mr. Willis if he was posturing there is a
provision that requires evidence disclosed pre- hearing. Mr. Willis stated evidence is not required
to be disclosed. Mr. Willis stated that is not the concern, but the notice of the instrument we
received outlining the charges is dated October 10, 2012 as to all dogs and there is no reference
to that and there is a difference between entitlement to evidence and entitlement of notice for
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 4 of 20
what you are being charged with. Ms. Green stated that once she has presented all the separate
incidences there will be more than enough for the Board to consider.
Ms. Green called Animal Control Officer Kelly Caton to the podium. Ms. Green asked the
witness to state her name and position. The witness stated Kelley Caton, Animal Control
Officer for the City of Atlantic Beach. Ms. Green stated we are here with regards to three pit
bull mixes, Jack, Lola and Jewel. She asked the witness if she was familiar with the animals and
the owners, She asked the witness to state the owners' names and Ms. Caton stated Cecilia
Babillis and Suzanne Leviseur. Ms. Green asked if there was an incident Ms. Caton took and a
police report was written for an incident on July 26, 2012. Ms. Caton stated that is correct. Ms.
Green showed the police report consisting of nine pages to Ms. Caton and asked if it looked
familiar and Ms. Caton stated yes. Ms. Green submitted this to the Board as Exhibit 2. Ms.
Green asked the witness to tell the Board what incident occurred on July 26, 2012, what time and
what Ms. Caton found. Ms. Caton stated she received an affidavit from Ms. Davis stating on the
26th of July she witnessed a dog running through her yard and into the yard of 346 Magnolia
Street and the dog charged and bared it's teeth at a pet sitter, a woman and a child. Ms. Green
asked where the dog ran from on her report. The witness stated the dog ran from 330 Magnolia,
ran through her yard, and then into the yard of 346 Magnolia. Ms. Green asked what was the
color of the dog and Ms. Caton stated a black pit bull mix. Ms. Green asked if 330 Magnolia
was the address of the dog's owners Ms. Babillis and Ms. Leviseur, and the witness stated yes.
Ms. Green asked what the complainant, Ronelle Davis, said the dog did to her. The witness
reiterated the dog charged and bared its teeth at a pet sitter. Ms. Green asked if there was also a
young girl and her grandmother riding their bikes down the street about the same time and Ms.
Caton stated yes. Ms. Green asked what happened with the child and grandmother. The witness
stated Ms. Davis witnessed the dog approach the little girl and growl. Ms. Green asked if the
owner of the dog finally came out of their home and the witness stated yes, Ms. Babillis came
and retrieved the dog. Ms. Green asked what happened after she retrieved the black dog and the
witness stated the other 2 dogs, Jack and Lola, came out and circled the child on the bicycle and
the woman, as well. She stated the pet sitter grabbed a palm frond and tried to shoo the dog
away. Ms. Green asked if the pet sitter put herself in between and does Ms. Caton know the pet
sitter's background. Ms. Caton stated the pet sitter did put herself between them and stated the
pet sitter is B. J. Lester a former animal control officer who was able to contain the situation.
Ms. Green asked if the witness did a follow -up and Ms. Caton stated she did. She stated she
called Ms. Davis and was able to touch base with Ms. Lester. Ms. Green asked how Ms. Lester
described the dogs. The witness stated Ms. Lester described the black dog as fearfully
aggressive and it bared it's teeth and barked at her. Ms. Green asked if there was also a follow -
up by Sgt. Tusing and the witness stated yes, he was assisting her.
Ms. Green called Sgt. Tusing. The witness stated his name, Jonathan Tusing, Sergeant with
the Atlantic Beach Police Department. Ms. Green asked the witness if he investigated an
incident involving the dogs he has heard about that occurred on August 10, 2012 and asked if
this was a copy of his report. The witness stated yes and Ms. Green submitted the report as
Exhibit 3 to the Board. Ms. Green asked the witness to tell the Board about his investigation.
Sgt. Tusing stated on October 2, 2012 he conducted a follow -up investigation into the Animal
Control Affidavit received from Mr. Bruce Robbins in reference to an incident that occurred on
August 10, 2012. The witness reported Mr. Robbins stated in his affidavit that a brown and
white pit bull mix nipped a roofing contractor that was working at his house at the time of the
incident. The witness said Mr. Robbins stated the contractor grabbed a hammer to back the dog
down and Mr. Robbins stated he observed the dog growling at the contractor. The witness
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 5 of 20
reported that Mr. Robbins stated the nip was minor in nature due to the contractor's quick action.
Sgt. Tusing stated he contacted Mr. Robbins by phone and conducted a follow -up investigation
with him. The witness stated Mr. Robbins provided the name of the contractor as Romano's
Roofing. Ms. Green asked if, in the follow -up, the witness found the incident to be minor but
was stopped by the hammer and the witness stated, yes, according to Mr. Robbins. Ms. Green
stated that was all she had on this incident. Chair Harless asked for the address where the
contractor was bitten and the witness stated 310 Magnolia Street.
Ms. Green called Officer Jevic. The witness stated his name, Sgt. Lenny Jevic, Atlantic Beach
Police Department. Ms. Green asked Officer Jevic if he investigated an incident that occurred
on August 20, 2011. The witness stated that was the date the affidavit was filled out. She asked
the witness to tell the court what he investigated and he asked to see a copy of his report. Ms.
Green submitted the report as Exhibit 4. The witness stated on October 4, 2012 he initiated a
follow -up investigation into the Atlantic Beach Animal Control Affidavit received from Vanessa
Chamberlin in reference to an incident that occurred in August of 2011 in Howell Park. He
reported that Ms. Chamberlin stated in her affidavit her wheaten terrier, Kingston, approached
the pit bulls and was immediately and viciously attacked. Ms. Chamberlin further stated the pit
bulls were being walked by their owner, an older lady with white hair, when they broke away
from the owner, who clearly had no control over them. He reported Ms. Chamberlin stated
Kingston was bitten�by the pit bulls multiple times, suffered severe lacerations which required
sutures and underwent surgery at her veterinarian's office, Pet Doctors of America, and has
permanent scarring as a result of the attack. Ms. Chamberlin also submitted 3 photos of
Kingston's wounds. Ms. Green showed the witness the photos and asked if they were the ones
submitted and he stated yes. Ms. Green asked if the witness knew the extent of the injuries and
Officer Jevic stated no. She asked, as a result of the investigation, did the witness determine the
owner of the dogs. The witness stated he asked Ms. Chamberlin and she identified Suzanne
Leviseur as the owner of the dogs, and he asked how she knew that. Ms. Chamberlin stated she
described the woman to Lindsay and Lindsay told her who owned those dogs. He further stated
he asked if Lindsay was present at the time of the incident and Ms. Chamberlin stated she was
not. Mr. Luthringer asked Sgt. Jevic what date he conducted the investigation and the witness
stated October 4, 2012. Mr. Luthringer asked Ms. Green to confirm the incident occurred on
August 20, 2011 and the investigation was October 4, 2012 and Ms. Green concurred.
Ms. Green called Ms. Caton. Ms. Green stated the next packet is Exhibit 6 for an incident on
August 21, 2012, which she submitted to the Board. She asked Ms. Caton what she investigated
on August 21, 2012. Ms. Caton stated she received an affidavit from Ms. Deters -Smith stating
her friend, Ms. Mills, was leaving her house and she witnessed a black pit bull and a red pit bull
off leash in her driveway and the black dog stood between Ms. Mills and her car and barked in a
menacing way. Ms. Caton stated the owner of the dogs, Ms. Babillis, came out and could not
grab the dogs because they did not have collars and the dogs did not respond to her commands.
Ms. Green asked, when Ms. Caton asked about menacing, what did Ms. Deters -Smith say. Ms.
Caton stated she asked Ms. Deters -Smith to define menacing and she stated the dogs, while
barking, were no more than 6 inches from her friend, blocking the entrance to the car and would
not back up.
Ms. Green asked Ms. Caton to explain an incident she investigated on September 6, 2012 with
regards to a William Ross. The witness stated Mr. Ross said he was driving south on Magnolia
to his house and observed 3 unleashed dogs being walked by their owner. He stated once he
arrived home he was pulling a surfboard out of his vehicle and turned around and saw that one of
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 6 of 20
the dogs had lunged at him. He stated the other 2 dogs were in the front yard barking
aggressively and also lunged at him. He stated he had to swing his surfboard back and forth to
keep the dogs away as he was afraid they were going to bite him. Ms. Green asked if he feared
for his safety and the witness stated he did fear for his safety and stated, if not for his surfboard,
he felt he would have been bitten. Ms. Green asked if Mr. Ross described the pit bulls when Ms.
Caton did her follow -up. The witness stated he said one dog was spotted and one may have been
brown. Ms. Green asked if he described the behavior of the dogs and the witness stated one of
the dogs lunged at him and the other two dogs were 3 to 10 feet away from him barking
aggressively. The witness asked Mr. Ross how he would define barking aggressively, and he
stated they were growling, a deep, loud barking, and baring their teeth. Chair Harless asked for
the address of the incident and the witness stated 301 Magnolia Street. Chair Harless asked if the
dogs were in his yard and he stated yes.
Ms. Green called Sgt. Jevic to the podium. She stated to the Board, that because the officers go
back and forth, that at the end of the officers' testimony, Mr. Willis will have an opportunity to
cross- examine them. The witness stated his name, Sgt. Lenny Jevic, Atlantic Beach Police
Department. Ms. Green submitted Exhibit 8 to the Board for an incident that occurred on
October 7, 2012. She asked the witness about his investigation of the October 7, 2012 incident.
Sgt. Jevic stated the investigation was actually October 10, 2012 on the affidavit dated for the
October 7, 2012 incident. Sgt. Jevic stated he did a follow -up investigation with Animal Control
Officer Fonda Spratt. He stated he made contact, via telephone, with Bruce Robbins on October
10, 2012 at approximately 8:45 p.m. for clarification on the incident. He said Mr. Robbins stated
he was taking out the trash to a trash area across the street from his home, located at 310
Magnolia Street, on October 7, 2012 at approximately 7:40 p.m. Mr. Robbins stated he was
about 50 feet from his driveway when he looked up and saw a pit bull in the road, off leash,
approximately 150 feet north of him. Mr. Robbins stated the pit bull came at him, running full
speed, growling and showing its teeth. Mr. Robbins stated he dropped everything in his hands
except the shears and started waving them toward the dog to keep the dog from attacking him.
Mr. Robbins stated the dog came within 36 inches of him as the dog ran past him. Mr. Robbins
stated he thought the dog would attack him if he did not have the shears. Mr. Robbins stated the
dog made 3 additional passes toward him, as the dog turned around from the initial pass, it came
running toward him from the south, turned around and came at him again from the north, turned
around once again and charged him from the south. Mr. Robbins said the dog continued to
growl as he was waving the shears during all of the dog's passes. Mr. Robbins stated the owner,
who he identified as Willie (Ms. Babillis), a younger female who lives at 330 Magnolia Street
was standing across from her home on the east side of the street when the dog was coming at
him. Mr. Robbins stated while the dog was charging him Willie was yelling at the dog to stop
and calling her Lola. Mr. Robbins stated Willie got the dog under control after the 0' pass by
him and said to him, "sorry, Mr. Bruce ". Ms. Green asked if this was a follow -up from Animal
Control. The witness stated it was from an affidavit that was received. Ms. Green asked if the
witness identified the 3 dogs and the witness stated, no, this was the date I issued the dangerous
dog classification notices to Ms Leviseur. Ms. Green clarified that the witness did issue a
dangerous dog classification for the 3 dogs Jack, Lola and Jewel and the witness stated yes.
Ms. Green called Ms. Caton. Ms. Green asked the witness if she investigated an incident on
September 10, 2012. Ms. Caton stated, on September 11, 2012, Shannon Porter came into the
station to tell Ms. Caton she had an incident at her friend's house, Ms. Cole, at 338 Magnolia,
which is next door to 330 Magnolia. Ms. Porter stated as she was pulling in a white and brown
pit bull charged her car and she was afraid and would not get out of the car until the owner came
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 7 of 20
and took the dog away. Ms. Caton asked Ms. Porter to describe the owner and she said it was a
young, white female, who I later discovered to be Ms. Babillis. Ms. Green asked the witness if
this was all 3 dogs and Ms. Caton stated Ms. Porter witnessed 2 pit bulls in the street, one was
brown and one was brown and white spotted. Ms. Green stated it was not the black one and the
witness stated correct. Ms. Hagist asked if that was Jack and Ms. Caton stated it was Lola who
charged the car.
Ms. Green called Sgt. Jevic and asked about an incident that occurred on October 9, 2012, that
he and Animal Control Officer Fonda Spratt investigated on October 10, 2012 for a Mr.
Huffman. Sgt. Jevic stated an affidavit came in on October 10, 2012 about an incident that
occurred on October 9, 2012. The witness stated, on October 10, 2012, Ms. Spratt received an
affidavit from Andy Huffman in reference to an incident that occurred on October 9, 2012 at
approximately 11:20 a.m. According to the affidavit Mr. Huffman stated he was standing near
the garage at 338 Magnolia Street reading a manual regarding the lights he was hired to install.
Mr. Huffman noticed a young lady walking south with 2 pit bulls, one black and one white and
tan. Mr. Huffman stated as the pit bulls were north of the driveway the black pit bull was
barking at him and trying to break free from the owner and lunged toward him, but the owner
yanked the canine back. Mr. Huffman stated he heard more barking and the white and tan pit
bull came out of nowhere and was charging him at a rapid speed, growling, baring its teeth and
snapping at him. He was immediately fearful of being attacked and mauled so he kicked the pit
bull. The pit bull retreated briefly and then circled back and charged at him and then circled
back and charged at him a second time coming in the garage, again growling and snapping at
him. Mr. Huffman stated both dogs appeared to be extremely aggressive for no reason and
completely out of control. Sgt. Jevic stated he did a follow -up, via telephone, on October 11,
2012 with Mr. Huffman and reiterated the same testimony given in the affidavit. Mr. Huffman
provided some additional information to the affidavit, stating the dogs eventually went back to
the owner and she put both dogs into the house directly next to and south of 338 Magnolia Street.
Mr. Huffman stated after the owner put the dogs inside the house, she came over and asked Mr.
Huffman if the dog had bitten him and he stated no.
Ms. Green stated this concludes the police reports and she was going to defer to Mr. Willis to
cross examine any of the officers involved on those incidents you have.
Mr. Willis called Sgt. Tusing to the podium. The witness stated his name, Sgt. Jonathan
Tusing, Atlantic Beach Police. Mr. Willis asked about the discussion involving Exhibit 3
regarding Sgt. Tuning's investigation of October 3, 2012 which occurred on October 2, 2012.
The witness stated the incident occurred on October 10, 2012 (August 10, 2012). Mr. Willis
stated what he was interested in was how many dangerous dog complaints you received
regarding any one of these dogs prior to September 28, 2012. The witness stated he was
unaware of any at all. The witness was excused.
Mr. Willis called Sgt. Jevic. Mr. Willis asked Sgt. Jevic about the episode he described for the
Board that occurred in Howell Park where this lady was walking her dog. He stated, I believe
you had pictures, which you at least introduced in evidence or showed to the Board, that she was
walking this small dog and said that she was attacked by 2 pit bulls, is that correct. The witness
answered that is what the affidavit stated. Mr. Willis asked, when the witness spoke with this
lady, she identified the person who was walking these pit bulls as Ms. Leviseur, is that correct
and Sgt. Tusing stated yes. Mr. Willis asked what was her basis for doing that. The witness
stated she had talked to Lindsay Cole and described the lady and the dogs and was told who
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 8 of 20
Suzanne Leviseur was and believed that was Ms. Leviseur. Mr. Willis stated so that was the
basis for her identification, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Willis asked the witness if he was
familiar with this whole situation prior to September 28th of this year and what, if any,
complaints did you have about any one or more of these dogs. Sgt. Tusing stated as dangerous
dogs he had none, however, I do walk my dog regularly in my neighborhood and some people
know that I am a police officer. He further stated on one occasion he had a person state there are
pit bulls up the street and how they would run loose occasionally, though this person could not
identify what house they came from. Mr. Willis stated he was more interested in the question of
dangerous dog than running loose. He asked the witness how many complaints, if any, had you
received prior to September 28, 2012 on any one or more of these dogs. The witness stated
none.
Mr. Willis called Ms. Caton to briefly remind the Board about the events presented as Exhibit 6
for the August 21, 2012 affidavit and the September 21, 2012 follow -up investigation. Ms.
Caton stated this was the incident involving 2 dogs from 330 Magnolia Street that blocked Ms.
Deters - Smith's friend from getting to her car. Mr. Willis asked when this lady brought this to
Ms. Caton's attention. Ms. Caton stated a month after the incident and the witness stated she did
ask the lady why she took so long to report it, and the lady stated because she had tried to resolve
it neighbor to neighbor. Mr. Willis reiterated she tried to resolve it neighbor to neighbor,
meaning that she just wanted to work it out and Ms. Caton replied yes. Mr. Willis asked what
changed her mind. The witness stated she received a letter from Ms. Cole and when she realized
she was not the only one having problems, she decided to write an affidavit. Mr. Willis asked
the witness if she was familiar with a letter, or letters, from Ms. Cole and has she seen them. Ms.
Caton stated she has seen one. Mr. Willis stated there was a letter dated September 28, 2012 and
asked if there was one that predated that. Ms. Caton stated she did not know. Mr. Willis then
presented a letter to Ms. Caton and asked her if it was the letter to which he made reference and
she stated she believed so. Mr. Willis asked her to follow along while he read it and advise the
Board if he varies from what it says, and Ms. Caton stated yes. Mr. Willis read the letter from
Lindsay Cole (which is attached and made part of this Official Record as Attachment A).
Upon completion of reading the letter, Mr. Willis asked Ms. Caton if that was accurate and she
stated yes. Mr. Willis asked the witness if she knew how these letters were distributed and she
stated no. Mr. Willis asked if they were just put in mailboxes and the witness stated she did not
know; she had been given a copy by Ms. Babillis when Ms. Caton went to see her. Mr. Willis
discussed Exhibit 7, stating Mr. Ross filed his affidavit on September 6, 2012 and the witness
conducted a follow -up on October 2, 2012, is that correct. The witness stated yes, she received
the affidavit on September 26, 2012. Mr. Willis stated that was before the September 28th letter,
but we know there was a letter before that. Mr. Willis asked in the follow -up, did Mr. Ross
explain to you he did not intend to report the incident regarding the surfboard until he received
the letter from Lindsay Cole. Ms. Caton stated that is correct. Ms. Caton was excused.
Ms. Suzanne Green called Ms. Caton back to the podium. Ms. Green stated there was an
incident involving a bite on the beach and asked Ms. Caton if she knew when that occurred. Ms.
Caton stated it was in the spring, approximately March 2012. Ms. Caton stated she received a
call about an incident on the beach. The witness stated Scott Owens had been walking his
French bulldog on a leash and Ms. Babillis did not have her dog on a leash and her dog ran up
and bit Mr. Owens' dog. The witness stated Ms. Babillis received two citations for that incident.
Ms. Green asked where the bite was on the dog and the witness stated on the neck. Ms. Green
asked if it broke the skin and the witness stated yes, there was blood. Ms. Green stated Mr.
Owens and his dog have since passed away. Ms. Green stated Mr. Willis asked Ms. Caton if she
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 9 of 20
had received, as the Animal Control Officer, complaints about these dogs and the witness stated
yes. Ms. Green asked what other complaints she received that may not be presented in tonight's
documentation. Ms. Caton stated in 2009 there was citation written for a bite by Officer
Freycinet and she does not have the details. She stated she has received complaints about
barking and running at large and she has sent several letters to Ms. Babillis and Ms. Leviseur.
The witness stated she had called them on occasion and told them we have received complaints
about both barking and running at large. Ms. Green reiterated the way we are proceeding here is
on the dangerous dog and there have been numerous other complaints. The witness stated as far
as the dangerous dog ruling there was the bite on the beach and the bite at the convenience store.
Ms. Green asked about the bite at the park and the witness stated she did not know about that
one, but there was a third bite at a convenience store in 2009. Ms. Green asked about the bite at
the convenience store and the witness stated she did not handle the incident. The witness stated
Officer Freycinet handled the case, but apparently the dog was tied up to a pole outside and as a
woman was walking out of the convenience store she was bitten on the leg. Ms. Green asked
which dog and Ms. Caton stated it was Jack on both occasions, at the convenience store and on
the beach.
Ms. Green called Sgt. Tusing. The witness stated his name, Sgt. Jonathan Tusing, Atlantic
Beach Police. Ms. Green asked the witness if he tools a report from a Spencer Brogden and
would he please explain when that was and what his report entailed. Mr. Willis stated, for the
record, this was also not included in the overview he received, so he objects on that basis. Sgt.
Tusing read his report for the incident that occurred on October 3, 2012 (which is attached and
made part of this Official Record as Attachment B). Ms. Green asked the witness if these
were the two incidences he reported. The witness stated this was one of the incidents and the
other incident occurred May 20, 2012. Sgt. Tusing further read portions of Incident Offense
Report 12 -17084 (which is attached and made part of this Official Record as Attachment
Q. Ms. Green asked if this was the brown dog, Jack, and the witness stated yes.
Ms. Green called Chief Michael Classey and asked him to state his name and position for the
record. The witness stated Michael Classey, Chief of Police City of Atlantic Beach. Ms.
Green stated, as one of your duties after an investigation, you issue a Dangerous Dog Declaration
pursuant to the Ordinance, correct. The witness stated yes. Ms. Green asked if he issued one
against Jewel and what was the date of that. The witness stated, yes, and the date was October
10, 2012. Ms. Green asked if this is a copy of his declaration and he stated yes. Ms. Green
stated Mr. Willis has made some comments about notice and asked the witness if he noticed four
instances in this letter. Chief Classey stated this is the letter for Jewel and there were four
specific instances in the letter. Ms. Green asked if the witness had received other complaints.
The witness stated we have received other complaints and it is noted in the letter that additional
complaints were continuing to be filed so some additional ones may have been received. He
further stated this was an initial proceeding stating there is sufficient cause existing at this time to
make an initial determination that the dog is dangerous. Ms. Green submitted this as Exhibit 12
to the Board. Ms. Green asked if the witness issued another Dangerous Dog letter regarding
Lola on the same date of October 10, 2012. The witness stated yes. Ms. Green stated there were
7 separate instances referenced in that letter and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green reiterated that
the witness had received other complaints but these were the most serious at the time and the
witness stated yes. Ms. Green submitted this as Exhibit 13. Ms. Green stated there was also a
Dangerous Dog letter issued for Jack dated October 10, 2012 with eight instances. The witness
stated yes, including the one for May 20, 2012 that was just brought up that was said not to be
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 10 of 20
noticed, it was in this letter about Jack. Ms. Green submitted the letter as Exhibit 14. Ms. Green
excused the witness.
Ms. Green called Ms. Caton. Ms. Green stated, according to the Ordinance, you are to issue an
Animal Complaint Affidavit and did you do so in this instance. The witness stated yes. Ms.
Green asked if she issued one for Jewel and asked if this was a copy of it. The witness stated
yes. Ms. Green stated the time and date of incident shows multiple dates including, but not
limited to, three separate instances and the witness stated correct. Ms. Green asked if that was
the signature of the witness on the affidavit and Ms. Caton stated yes. Ms. Green tendered this
as Exhibit 15 for Jewel. Ms. Green asked the witness if she issued the same thing, same date,
with multiple dates including four instances for Lola and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green
submitted this as Exhibit 16. Ms. Green asked the witness if she issued the same thing, same
date, with multiple dates including four instances for Jack and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green
submitted this as Exhibit 17.
Ms. Green called Robert Hammesfahr and asked the witness to state his name and title. The
witness stated Robert W. Hammesfahr, an Animal Behaviorist. Ms. Green asked if he has
testified before this Board previously and he stated yes. Ms. Green asked if he had been
qualified as an animal behaviorist before this Board previously and he stated yes. Ms. Green
stated you have submitted your resume and asked if this was a copy of his background and
resume and he stated yes. Ms. Green tendered this as Exhibit 18. Ms. Green asked the witness
to tell the Board about his background with regards to animal behavior training for dogs. The
witness stated is it pretty long and pretty extensive (which is attached and made part of this
Official Record as Attachment D). Ms. Green stated that Mr. Willis stated he had no objection
to tendering Mr. Hammesfahr as an expert in dog behavior as he was tendered before. Ms.
Green asked the witness if he had a chance to review the multitude of police reports and data in
this case. The witness stated yes. Ms. Green asked the witness to tell the Board what he
reviewed. Mr. Hammesfahr stated the Commander gave him three sets of files about three
separate dogs, Jewel, Jack, and Lola. The witness stated he reviewed them, looking specifically
for behaviors as exhibited; it had nothing to do with the breed or anything of that nature. Ms.
Green asked the witness to explain to the court what his findings were and his evaluation. Ms.
Green tendered his report to the Board as part of Exhibit 18, which includes his resume
previously tendered. Mr. Hammesfahr presented his evaluation (which is attached and made
part of this Official Record as Attachment E). Chair Harless asked if there were any
questions. Ms. Green asked the witness, after hearing testimony of numerous other instances,
does that change his opinion or enhance it. The witness stated he had the complete cites that
were mentioned this evening. He stated the cites he put in his report were chosen because they
are examples of behavior. Ms. Green asked the witness if it was his opinion they do fit the
behavior of a dangerous dog as described in our ordinance and the witness stated yes. The
witness stated he was not here to describe the Ordinance, just the behavior.
Mr. Willis stated Mr. Hammesfahr has told the Board he has not laid eyes on these dogs and the
witness concurred. Mr. Willis asked the witness if he would not ordinarily want to meet the dogs
or have some interaction with them before making a diagnosis or evaluation. The witness stated
he was asked to take a look at the reports and see if it fit patterns and these patterns are consistent
with dogs that will go through the full predatory motor pattern. Mr. Willis asked if this was
based on the reports he has seen and the witness stated yes, he finds them very descriptive. Mr.
Willis stated the witness is obviously taking the reports at face value. The witness stated they are
pretty clear. Mr. Willis asked if he had talked to any of the people who made the reports and the
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 11 of 20
witness stated he had not. Mr. Willis stated the witness is relying on the information in those
reports and his conclusions are as good and valid as the information in the reports. The witness
stated he is just going on what he read. Mr. Willis asked if someone employed you to try and
work with dogs would you go strictly on these reports or would you not want to meet these dogs
and interact with them in some fashion. The witness stated whether or not he was going to work
with a dog is outside the scope of what he was asked to do. Mr. Willis stated he understood all
that, but his question is if you are going to evaluate a dog and come to conclusions about what
that dog is or is not, would you not normally want to meet and interact with that dog. Mr.
Hammesfahr stated if it was his purpose to evaluate and train the dog he would do that, but that
is not what my purpose was here. Mr. Willis asked if he makes any kind of distinction or
culpability or dangerousness among any one of the three dogs. Mr. Hammesfahr stated no. Mr.
Willis stated, in other words, the witness thinks they are all equally dangerous. The witness
stated the problem you run into is when he says individually and collectively; once dogs begin to
act in the pack nature, if you have one dog they can act as an individual, if you have three dogs
they will act in the supportive pack nature to go through the predatory cycle; so that makes all
three of them just as culpable and dangerous. Mr. Willis asked if you dissolve or separate that
pack, does that change the individual's behavior. The witness stated he could not tell from the
report. Mr. Willis stated so you do not know whether it would or would not. The witness stated
the reports he read indicate these dogs would go through a full predatory cycle, regardless of
who the dog is. Ms. Green asked the witness if he would describe their behavior as a menacing
fashion. The witness stated that is what was described in the reports that he read. Ms. Green
asked, in an attitude of attack, and the witness stated yes.
Mr. de Luna asked Mr. Hammesfahr if the dogs could be rehabilitated once the dogs are in this
predatory cycle he described. The witness stated that is really a difficult thing; he has not seen
the dogs; he has not had the opportunity to evaluate the dogs; all he can say is this is how these
dogs were acting. He further stated if they are allowed access and things of that nature they can
do that and they are capable of killing another dog, or potentially a human. The witness was
excused by Chair Harless.
Ms. Green called Officer Caton. Ms. Green stated there was testimony about interaction with the
animals and Mr. Hammesfahr has not interacted with the dogs. Ms. Green asked the witness if
she has interacted with them and what has she observed with her interactions with the dogs. Ms.
Caton stated she has interacted with them. She stated she has gone to the house several times
and when she knocks on the door Jewel and Jack will slam up against the window and bark, even
if there is an owner home. The witness stated when she went to the home to take pictures of the
dogs, she requested the owner bring them out one at a time so she could take the pictures, and
she asked them to bring them out in a specific order. She stated Jack came out first. Ms. Caton
stated Jack is the one who has bitten and he was okay. She further stated that Lola charged her
and this was unsettling. She stated she has dealt with dogs professionally for seven years and she
has only been afraid of a couple of dogs and Lola was frightening. The witness stated Ms.
Babillis had Lola on a leash and Ms. Caton stated she was a good four feet away, trying to make
it as calm a situation as possible. Ms. Babillis brought Lola out on the leash and the dog charged
me and the owner was able to grab the dog back. Ms. Caton stated Ms. Babillis then brought out
Jewel, who she described as very fearful. She stated even when she knocks on the door, Jack
and Lola will charge the windows but Jewel will stay at the top of the stairs. She stated she was
able to view Jewel through the windows. The witness stated when Ms. Lester described the dog
as fearfully aggressive she would concur with that assessment. The witness further stated of the
three dogs Lola is especially scary and Jack has proven to be a biter.
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 12 of 20
Ms. Green called Vanessa Chamberlin and tendered Ms. Chamberlin's Affidavit as Exhibit 19.
The witness stated her name and address, Vanessa Chamberlin, 901 Ocean Boulevard. Ms.
Green asked the witness about an affidavit she filed on August 20, 2011 regarding her dog,
Kingston. Ms. Green asked where she was with her dog and the witness stated in Howell Park.
Ms. Green presented a copy of the affidavit to Ms. Chamberlin and the witness stated it was her
affidavit. Ms. Green asked the witness to read what she wrote in her affidavit and which two
dogs does it involve. The witness stated one tan and one white and tan, Jack and Lola (which is
attached and made part of this Official Record as Attachment F). Ms. Green presented some
photos to the witness and asked if she had taken them and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green
asked if they were photos of Ms. Chamberlin's dog and were they a fair and accurate
representation of what it looked like from the result of the bite. The witness stated yes. Ms.
Green tendered the photos as part of the composite of Exhibit 19.
Mr. Willis asked Ms. Chamberlin to clarify the date of the event we are discussing. Ms.
Chamberlin stated August 2011. Mr. Willis stated this has been a year and three months ago and
the witnessed stated yes. Ms. Willis stated he understood, from earlier testimony, she made the
identification of this lady, Ms. Leviseur, based on a conversation she had with Lindsay Cole and
the witness stated yes. Mr. Willis asked the witness what she remembered about that
conversation. The witness stated Ms. Cole asked her for a description of the dogs and the person
walking them and the witness explained the person she remembered seeing and Ms. Cole had a
name. Mr. Willis asked how Ms. Cole came to Ms. Chamberlin's attention and vice versa. The
witness stated she received a letter in the mail. Mr. Willis presented a copy of the letter from
Lindsay Cole and asked if this was the letter she received and the witness stated yes. Mr. Willis
asked if the witness recognized this lady here, indicating Ms. Leviseur, and the witness stated
yes. The witness stated she did not know her name, but she has seen her before because she used
to walk her dog by Ms. Leviseur's house every day. Mr. Willis asked if she recognized her as
being the one walking the dog that attacked you, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Willis asked if
she has seen this lady since the incident and on how many occasions. Ms. Chamberlin stated
yes, a couple of times. Mr. Willis asked the witness if she had made any effort to identify her or
otherwise know who she was, and the witness stated no. Mr. Willis asked if she told Lindsay
Cole she had seen Ms. Leviseur after the incident, and the witness stated she could not
remember. Mr. Willis asked the witness if she ever walked up to Ms. Leviseur after the incident
and she stated no. Mr. Willis stated he was curious because he believed Ms. Chamberlin had
stated in one affidavit the veterinary bill was $500.00 or $900.00. Ms. Chamberlin stated it was
$900.00. Mr. Willis stated she was out $900.00 in fees to the veterinarian and made no effort to
talk to this lady about reimbursement. Ms. Chamberlin stated her dog was off leash and she felt
as though it were her fault and that is the reason she never reported it. Ms. Green stated if there
were no other questions for the witness she was going to release her from the meeting. Ms.
Chamberlin was excused from the podium.
Ms. Green called Ronelle Davis and asked her to state her name and address. The witness stated,
Ronelle Davis, 354 Magnolia Street. Ms. Green asked the witness if she filed an Animal
Control Affidavit for the incident on July 26, 2012 and asked her to verify the copy of the
affidavit. The witness stated she had filed and identified the copy. Ms. Green asked the witness
to describe what she saw. The witness stated she was inside her home on the morning of July
26th when she saw Jewel, the black dog, running through her yard and into her neighbor's back
yard at 346 Magnolia. She stated she witnessed the homeowner's pet sitter pull in and abruptly
stop her car in front of my neighbor's driveway. The witness stated the black dog circled the car
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 13 of 20
and, as she exited the car, the black dog came at her baring it's teeth. The witness stated she left
her house to call out to her and warn her about the dog. She stated the pet sitter said she was
going to close the gate so the dog could not enter her neighbor's yard again, and she intended to
make sure the dog went home. The witness reiterated the pet sitter had been an animal control
officer, so Ms. Davis felt she was qualified to handle the situation. Ms. Davis stated she noticed
to the north, which is Howell Park's entrance, a little girl on a bike with training wheels and her
grandmother on a bike heading south on Magnolia. She further stated the black dog left the pet
sitter and started circling the little girl and growling. The witness stated she saw the dog's
owner, Ms. Babillis, come from 366 Magnolia, which is a vacant property, and picked the dog up
to carry it, as it did not have a collar on. The witness stated Ms. Babillis apologized and talked
to the women in the street before carrying the dog home to 330 Magnolia Street. The witness
stated the women stayed in the sheet talking. She further stated Ms. Babillis immediately came
back, walked around the group and went down the driveway of the vacant house next door to her
home. She stated Ms. Babillis was about half way down the driveway when Ms. Davis heard a
noise and the dogs Lola and Jack came running out past Ms. Babillis and began circling the little
girl and her grandmother. The witness stated the pet sitter picked up a stick and was using it as
an extension of her arm to keep herself between the little girl and the dogs. Ms. Babillis was
able to pick up one of the dogs and left and the other dog followed. Mr. Ouellette asked the
witness who the pet sitter was sitting for. The witness stated her neighbor south of her,
Gretchen's pets. Mr. Ouellette asked if she was a regular sitter and was she familiar with the
dogs. The witness stated she was a regular sitter, but did not think she was familiar the dogs.
Mr. Willis asked Ms. Davis if it was correct that she did not file an affidavit until the end of
September. Ms. Davis stated she filed after she learned the other two adults did not and she did
not know she could file as a witness only, but learned she could. Mr. Willis asked where she got
that information. She stated when she met with the City Commission. Mr. Willis reiterated the
fact of the incident occurring July 26, 2012 and the affidavit not being filed until September
2012. Ms. Davis stated she did call Animal Control on July 26, 2012 and she knew the pet sitter
also called Animal Control, and she thought they were doing the affidavit. Chair Harless
excused the witness.
Ms. Green called Mr. Robbins and tendered his affidavit as Exhibit 21. The witness stated his
name, Bruce Robbins, 310 Magnolia Street. Ms. Green asked the witness to confirm the
affidavit was his and he stated yes. Ms. Green stated he has had a couple of instances and asked
him to tell the Board about the two instances. The witness stated the first one involved the
roofing contractor. The witness stated he was coming out of his side gate and the contractor was
in the driveway next door and he observed the dog coming at the contractor, head down,
growling and snarling. He stated the contractor had a hammer in his hand and the dog turned
around and left. Mr. Robbins stated he approached the roofing contractor who showed him his
arm with a small bite, small nip. The witness stated the second incident occurred October 7,
2012. He stated he was taking yard trash from his driveway across the street where it is picked
up. He stated the dog, Lola, saw him from 3 lots north of him and came at a full charge. He
explained when he states full charge, he means the dog was running full speed. The witness
stated the dog came at him growling, circled, came back from the south running north and then
went back down the street and came charging again. He stated the second time it charged, he
dropped what he had in his hands except a pair of 17" shears and he used the shears to make sure
the dog did not approach too close. The witness further stated the dog was 36" from him and if
he had not had the shears he believes it would have been him versus the dog. Ms. Green
confirmed that in his first affidavit the dog was brown and white, which is Lola. The witness
stated he knew it was the dog's name because he heard the dog's owner calling the dog trying to
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 14 of 20
get the dog under control. Chair Harless asked if the owner saw the incident involving the
shears, and the witness stated yes. Mr. Luthringer asked if it was the same dog on both
occasions and the witness stated yes. Chair Harless excused the witness.
Ms. Green called Ms. Deters - Smith. The witness stated her name, Gretchen Deters- Smith, 346
Magnolia Street. Ms. Green stated that Ms. Deters -Smith had heard the testimony and was a
witness in one of these incidences with her friend, Kathy Mills, and asked the witness to describe
what she had written in her affidavit. The witness stated her friend was leaving her house and
she had already gone upstairs when she heard loud barking that sounded very close. She stated
she went out on her porch to find the black pit bull between her friend and her friend's car. The
witness stated she went out to the driveway and witnessed another dog running loose, the red pit
bull dog, Jack. The witness stated she asked Ms. Babillis to get her dogs and Ms. Babillis kept
calling to the dogs, but they would not come. The witness stated the dogs did not have on collars
or leashes. The witness stated Ms. Babillis was finally able to grab the dog and take it home, but
the dogs did not respond to her commands and Ms. Babillis finally chased them away. The
witness stated she tools a leash down to Ms. Babillis and asked her to please walk her dogs on the
leash. The witness stated she did not initially report the incident because she did not realize there
was something she could do. She stated once she learned there was something she could do, she
filled out an affidavit. The witness stated she had heard there were other incidences and she felt
her talk with Ms. Babillis did not have much of an effect. Chair Harless excused the witness.
Ms. Green called Shannon Porter and tendered the affidavit for Ms. Porter as Exhibit 23. Ms.
Green asked the witness if she filed an affidavit for an incident that occurred on September 10,
2012 involving 2 pit bull mixes, one brown, and one brown and white. The witness stated yes.
Ms. Green asked the witness to describe what she observed. The witness stated she was driving
to 338 Magnolia Street. The witness stated once she arrived she saw 2 dogs off leash, in the
middle of the road, and the owner was in front of the dogs. She stated when she turned into the
driveway the brown and white dog turned around and ran into the yard at 338 Magnolia. The
witness stated the dog stood about five or six feet from her car door charging, barking and
snarling and refused to let her get out of her car. The witness stated she was scared to death and
she stayed in her car. She stated the owner was out of her vision, but she assumes the owner
summoned the dog because then it ran away. The witness stated she stayed in her car for a few
minutes until she felt it was safe to get out of the car. She stated she does not live on the street,
but she is friends with Ms. Cole and she has witnessed these dogs on other occasions, on the
rooftop or on the patio barking at people. Chair Harless asked if she had seen the dogs off leash
prior to that one visit, or has she just seen them barking from the owner's property. The witness
stated yes, she has seen them on their property off leash. Mr. Willis asked if she was visiting a
friend and the witness stated yes, she was visiting Lindsay Cole. Ms Green asked if she
recognized the owner from this incident and the witness stated she presumed it was the daughter,
Ms. Babillis. Ms. Green excused the witness.
Ms. Green called Mr. Huffman, Mr. Ross, and Spencer Brogden. The witnesses were not present
at the meeting and Ms. Green tendered three affidavits for the witnesses. Ms. Green tendered the
affidavit for Mr. Huffman, dated October 9, 2012 involving one black dog (Jewel) and one white
and tan dog (Lola). Ms. Green stated this is the incident the Board heard about in the police
report. Ms. Green stated it was when Jewel was barking and growling at Mr. Huffman and
trying to break free from the owner, but the owner yanked the dog back. Ms. Green stated Mr.
Ross's affidavit involved all 3 pit bulls and the surfboard incident. Ms. Green stated the Board
could read Mr. Ross's affidavit with regards to that. Ms. Green stated Mr. Brogden's affidavit is
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 15 of 20
the incident the police officer testified about with regards to Mr. Brogden grabbing his machete
twice. Ms. Green tendered those as the next 3 and last exhibits. Mr. Willis asked Chair Harless
if we could take a ten - minute break and she concurred.
Chair Harless called the meeting to order at 8:12 pm. Mr. Willis called Chief Classey and asked
about the letters the witness sent the two respondents on October 10, 2012. Mr. Willis asked the
witness if he is aware of any additional complaints that have been lodged against any one of
these 3 dogs since that time and the witness stated no.
Mr. Willis called Ms. Leviseur. The witness stated Suzanne Leviseur, 330 Magnolia Street.
Mr. Willis asked if the witness was present earlier in the meeting when Vanessa Chamberlin
testified and the witness stated yes. Mr. Willis stated Ms. Chamberlin testified regarding an
incident in 2011 where she was walking in Howell Park with her dog and her dog was unleashed
and she stated her dog was attacked by 2 pit bulls. Mr. Willis asked the witness if she was the
one in Howell Park on that day. Ms. Leviseur stated absolutely not. The witness stated she had
never seen Ms. Chamberlin before. The witness stated she saw the pictures of the dog and she
has never seen that dog before. She stated she is a dog lover, she has had dogs her entire life,
and if a dog was attacked in front of her she would remember it and she can tell him honestly
that never happened. Mr. Willis stated he had heard Ms. Leviseur mention something earlier
about somebody else at the beach that bears similar resemblance to her. The witness stated she
has been approached many times being called Shannon. The witness stated at least once a month
somebody will come up to her and call her Shannon. She stated she has no idea who that could
be, but perhaps there is another person that has 2 pit bulls. The witness reiterated she has never
seen Ms. Chamberlin before and that never happened. The witness stated another issue is the
fact that she never walks those 2 dogs because they are too strong for her. Ms. Green asked the
witness if she heard Ms. Chamberlin's testimony describing the pit bulls as 1 tan and 1 tan and
white and asked the witness if she has 1 tan and 1 white and tan pit bull and the witness stated
yes. Ms. Green asked the witness if she heard Ms. Chamberlin identify and point to her as the
woman in the incident, and the witness stated yes and added she has never seen Ms. Chamberlin
before. Mr. Ouellette asked Ms. Leviseur if she knew the other complainants. The witness
stated yes, they are her neighbors. Mr. Ouellette asked the witness if she was aware the
neighbors were speaking of her 3 dogs and she stated yes. Mr. Luthringer asked the witness if
she denied any of the other occasions that were presented this evening. Ms. Leviseur stated she
only knows what she heard because she was not there when any of them happened, adding she
works in town. Ms. Green asked if the witness and her daughter were co- owners of the dogs and
the witness stated yes. Chair Harless asked the witness how she would describe all 3 of her dogs.
The witness asked individually or as a group. Chair Harless stated in relationship to people
outside your family. Ms. Leviseur stated Jack is the one they have had the longest. She stated he
is a pit bull mix and prior to being fixed he was a bit rambunctious. She stated he was fixed in
May of this year, but prior to that, she stated they used to take him many places. She stated her
daughter used to play soccer at the University of Columbus and the entire soccer team would
come out and play with him. The witness stated he is normally a very friendly dog. Ms.
Leviseur stated they adopted Lola from the pound eighteen months ago. She stated Lola is a pit
bull, bull dog mix, and is a much stronger dog. She stated Lola probably looks the most
threatening appearance wise. She stated someone had described one of these dogs as being the
size of a great dane and these dogs weigh between 40 and 60 pounds. Members of the audience
and the Board corrected the witness, stating the description of a great dane was in regards to
another dog. The witness stated Lola prances and loves to show off who she is and she tends to
run a lot. The witness stated Jewel roamed the streets of Columbus, Georgia and was rescued by
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 16 of 20
her daughter. She stated Jewel has been abused, hit by cars and was emaciated when they got
her. She stated Jewel is fearful of everybody, but especially men, so anytime she gets around a
male she tends to growl. The witness stated when they have had issues with the dogs it is
because they have been let loose out of the house. She stated they are normally in the house, in
the yard, or, when she is with them, on a leash. She stated now, when her daughter is with them,
they are on a leash. The witness stated when she walks them it is five o'clock in the morning
and there are not a lot of other people out then. Chair Harless asked which dogs she walks and
the witness stated usually only Jewel and Jack, Lola is too strong. Mr. Dodaro asked the witness
after hearing about a dozen instances in different cases and from a variety of community
members who have characterized the dogs in multiple ways, does she disagree with their
characterizations, all of them, or does she feel some of them are accurate, or does she feel
everything presented is incorrect. Mr. Dodaro asked the witness what is her perspective on the
presentation tonight. Ms. Leviseur stated her perspective on the presentation, that really has not
been emphasized, is these incidences may have happened over the last couple of years, but all
these affidavits happened between the middle and end of September 2012, even though the
incidences may have happened a year or two ago. She stated she had no chance to even deal
with the corrective measures that could have happened. The witness stated as far as what she
received, she got a letter in April and one in July. She stated one was for barking and the other
was for the dogs at large. She stated she received a ticket on August 28"' for the dogs running at
large, and the next thing she knew she had sixteen citations for all this other stuff that had
happened. Chair Harless asked if the witness disputed those things happening. The witness
stated she was not there and she only knows what she has been told from her daughter and from
what she has read. She stated her daughter does assert that some of the incidents did happen.
Mr. Dodaro asked why she feels there was a sudden outpouring of citations. The witness stated
she read the City Commission meeting minutes stating they were going to have a workshop on
how to write affidavits after a couple of her neighbors complained to them. The witness stated
she never had any of the neighbors come to her, other than the occasional note from Lindsay
Cole in her mailbox saying the dogs were barking. Mr. Luthringer asked the witness about her
statement that Jack was a good dog most of the time. The witness stated since he has been
neutered. Mr. Luthringer asked what happens the other part of the time and the witness stated
prior to that is when the bite on the beach and the convenience store incident happened. Mr.
Luthringer asked the witness if she was aware of those incidents and she stated yes. Ms. Hagist
asked which dog got out of their leash, and the witness stated her daughter was with the dogs at
that time. Ms. Hagist asked since all the incidents that happened with her or her daughter when
walking the dogs, did she ever think about putting a muzzle on the dogs because they are
aggressive. The witness stated she did not realize they were being aggressive. The witness
stated this has all happened since and now the dogs are not allowed off her property. The
witness stated this has all happened so fast, even getting a different leash or collar, she has done
some of that, but has not bought a muzzle yet. The witness added she does not have a lot of
spare change, she has 2 children in college, one income and a big mortgage, so she can only
spend so much money. Mr. Dodaro stated she is unaware of most of these instances, yet the
description of the other individuals where someone had to come grab the dog, call the dog, pick
up the dog, that was her daughter most of the time. Mr. Dodaro asked if her daughter
communicated any of this to her throughout this eighteen month period and the witness stated no.
Mr. Dodaro asked the witness to confirm she was not made aware of any of these events her
daughter was involved in, and the witness stated her daughter did not tell her about any of them.
Ms. Green stated the Chief of Police stated there have not been any instances since the citation
was issued and that is because the witness has been under restrictions and those conditions were
also set due to a continuance she needed as well. The witness stated that is correct and they have
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 17 of 20
adhered to everything they were asked to do. Mr. Willis asked what she does for a living and the
witness stated she is a mechanical engineer. Mr. Willis stated since the witness has become
aware of this dangerous dog idea she has kept the dogs penned up in the back yard or in the
house and the witness stated yes. Mr. Willis asked are there any other efforts she has made to try
and correct this situation. The witness stated she hired a dog trainer, she has cleared some of her
yard so the dogs could have more room, she has torn down part of their deck to give the dogs
more room. Chair Harless asked what her plans would be should the Board decide that it is not a
dangerous dog; how is she going to treat the dogs and handle the dogs going forward. The
witness stated she would continue the trainer for the dogs and she would get muzzles. The
witness stated she was not sure what else to do other than make sure they are maintained on
leashes and on the property. The witness was excused.
Chair Harless asked Ms. Green and Mr. Willis if they had any other questions or witnesses to
call and they turned it over to the Board for deliberation under the Dangerous Dog Ordinance.
Chair Harless stated she would like to hear from Ms. Babillis. The witness stated her name,
Cecilia Babillis. Chair Harless asked the witness if she was aware of all the incidences
presented to the Board as affidavits and she stated yes. Chair Harless asked if there was a reason
the witness did not share this information with her mother prior to this coming down as citations.
Ms. Babillis stated the majority of the affidavits were given to them when she learned they had
been written, and she had to go and get them. Chair Harless asked about the incidences
themselves; what was the reason she did not share them with her mother. The witness stated she
only sees her mother for an hour or two each day and she did not want to stress her out. The
witness further stated she did not think any of the people were scared. She stated none of them
talked to her. Chair Harless asked about the gentleman with the shears and the witness stated
that was the one time someone actually reacted scared. The witness stated if that happened six
months ago we would never be in this position, but no one ever acted scared. Chair Harless
mentioned the incidents of the dogs circling the little girl on a bike and when the woman was in
the car. Ms. Babillis stated she has a different testimony and Chair Harless asked her to please
share it with the Board. The witness read her statement of the incident that occurred on July 26,
2012. She stated on that day she and her dogs were on a walk down the street and back, all three
without leashes. She stated she went up to the door of an unoccupied home in her neighborhood
to check out some papers she saw on the door. She stated while doing this she heard some
people coming outside next door by Ronelle Davis's and Gretchen Deters - Smith's houses. She
stated it was probably the pet sitter because her car was already parked there. She stated when
she heard the people she immediately put Lola and Jack in the back yard of the vacant house so
she could get Jewel under control. She stated Jewel did not listen and ran over to see what was
going on. She stated a lady was attempting to pull out of Gretchen's driveway and Jewel was
barking at the lady. The witness stated the lady decided to get out of the car, which made Jewel
bark even more, and the lady grabbed a stick and began chewing her out about how the dogs
should be on a leash because they are pit bulls. The witness stated, at the time, she was unaware
the lady was a former Animal Control Officer who was pet sitting for her neighbor. The witness
stated she was finally able to grab Jewel and carry her to her house. She stated when she came
back out the lady had gone out into the street to warn/scare a little girl and grandmother, who
were walking down the street, about her dogs. The witness stated the pet sitter was still holding
the stick and the witness told the lady she was crazy while walking back to the vacant house with
Jack and Lola. The witness stated, trusting her dogs amiability and apathy towards women and
children, she let both dogs out without leashes to walls back to her house. She stated when she
let them out Lola sprinted by the child and grandmother, nearly 30 or 40 yards away, before
circling back to check that she was coming. She further stated she is guessing this is the circling
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 18 of 20
the witness, Ronelle Davis, described. She stated she admits saying, `shut up you old cow', to
the pet sitter, as Ms. Davis reported. Ms. Babillis stated, in retrospect, this is an incident she
feels bad about, as she was reacting defensively for her dogs. The witness stated Ronelle Davis
watched this incident while standing on her stoop and never said anything. She further stated she
would like it to be noted that she does not curse at people that show her disrespect. She stated,
other than this single sentence to the pet sitter, she has never disrespected anyone in her
neighborhood other than Lindsay Cole, and that was only after feeling disrespected by her first.
Chair Harless asked if she was aware the City Ordinance states dogs should not be without a
leash, and the witness stated yes, but she thought it would be looked upon as a nuisance, not as
being a dangerous dog. Ms. Hagist asked if she did not think a dog baring it's teeth and
growling and not letting a person get by would not be considered dangerous. The witness stated
it was mostly Jewel who would bare her teeth and growl. Ms. Hagist stated it seems like the
story from the witness is so much different than the other witnesses. Ms. Babillis stated all the
affidavits were written a month and a half or more after the actual event. Mr. Luthringer asked
her to give an account of the two attacks on the other animals. Ms. Babillis stated the first
incident was on Scott Owens and explained the testimony is the same as what she wrote on the
day it happened. She further explained Mr. Owens is the man who blew up and then continued
to stay on the beach and stalk her and her friend. She reiterated the affidavits given by her and
by her friend Ashley stated they felt harassed by this man and thought he was mentally unstable.
Ms Babillis admitted Jack was overly aggressive, but she denied the man's statement about
having to throw himself on her dog to get him off, and stated the puncture wounds were noted as
abrasions on the affidavit. She further stated she feels all this has gone way too far and she
wishes she would have corrected it and listened to the law instead of being stubborn. Mr.
Luthringer asked about the incident with Ms. Chamberlin in Howell Park. The witness stated it
never happened. She stated she was in school and her mother never walks Lola with another dog
due to her bad back. Mr. Dodaro asked how she felt about the dog behaviorist's suggestion to
hire a dog trainer. She stated they got a dog trainer. The witness stated her dogs are not at fault.
She stated she is the reason why they are here and she hopes the Board sees that and will give her
a chance to prove to the community the dogs are not an imminent danger. The witness stated the
majority of the affidavits were written after the Commission Meeting where Lindsay Cole was
slandering both her dogs and her mother and herself. She stated Lindsay was saying that she and
her mother were disrespectful and hostile in response to criticism and she stated that is not true.
Chair Harless asked how the witness felt when Animal Control Officer Caton came to her house
and the dogs behavior towards her, keeping in mind that Ms. Caton works with dogs all the time.
The witness stated it was 6:00 am in the morning and she admits that Lola looks scary. The
witness stated if she did not know Lola and the dog were to run at a sprint towards her, she
would probably be scared too. The witness stated she apologizes to her neighbors. Ms. Hagist
reiterated Ms. Caton working with dogs everyday and knows what she is doing when she is
assessing a dog's behavior. The witness stated she understood, but her dogs had been on house
arrest for over a week and Ms. Caton comes knocking on the door so early in the morning. Ms.
Hagist asked if she felt as though all these people are against you and your dogs. The witness
stated no, she felt like the people had been misled and stated if one of her dogs attacked she
would take care of it as soon as it happened. Mr. de Luna asked how long she and her mother
had lived at 330 Magnolia and she stated since 1984. Ms. Babillis stated she has lived there
since 1992 when she was born. Mr. de Luna asked if she had owned dogs prior to the ones she
now owns. The witness stated yes, she has rescued numerous animals, but has never had 3 at the
same time. Discussion ensued about the length of time she has had each dog and her history
with them. Mr. de Luna asked if she had ever received any citations for them prior to a year ago.
The witness stated when Jack was younger they may have gotten one or two citations. Chair
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 19 of 20
Harless asked if the witness had any closing statements she would like to say on her behalf, and
the witness stated she thinks everybody has made up their mind by now. Ms. Green stated there
was evidence presented about incidents that occurred and an affidavit by Jennifer Chalot in 2009.
Ms. Green stated there were five incidences in 2009 and asked if those were all for .lack, and the
witness stated yes.
Mr. de Luna had a point of order regarding the fact this case has been in newspapers and been
out there publicly he believes some sort of disclosure is required. Chair Harless stated yes, it is
Resolution #95 -26. Chair ]Harless stated if any of the board members have had any ex -parte
cointn.unication with anyone regarding this case please disclose that now.
_ Motion: The Board finds all three dos discussed at this hearing, owned b Suzanne
Leviscur and Cecilia Babillis whose address is 330 Ma nolia Road2 be declared a5
dangerous dogs under the provisions of Section 4 -14 of the Code of ('Ordinances of the City
of Atlantic ]Beach.
Moved by Luthringer, Seconded by Hagist
Chair ]-Harless asked Mr. Jensen, should the Board find the dogs as dangerous, the requirements
are multiple; one of which Mr. Willis stated as Section 4 -11 (2) {d} requiring liability insurance.
Chair Harless stated she has been told twice the amount required is not even available, so how do
we have that as an Ordinance and what can we do about it. Mr. Jensen stated only the City
Commission can change the Ordinance. Chair Harless asked if the Ordinance supersedes what is
actually available. Mr. Jensen stated we do not know if that is true and accurate information,
there has been no evidence made to her. Mr. Jensen stated the ramifications of any finding this
Board makes that are set forth in the Ordinances are not the Hoard's consideration at this time.
Ms. Green stated it is her understanding that a respondent we had in a prior hearing was able to
obtain the insurance. Mr. Luthringer stated it is something the Board should not even consider,
as it is outside the elements of the Ordinance that was cited. Chair Harless stated she wanted
clarification for her own edification. Mr. Ouellette stated it is the dogs and their behavior that is
on trial here. Mr. Ouellette stated any conclusion the Board makes is not directed at the two
owners. Mr. Ouellette stated when he votes lie has to be convinced these dogs will never hurt
anyone, if he votes no, as that is the reason for the Ordinance. He stated he has heard so much
evidence he is fearful of any incident happening again with these 3 dogs if the Board does not
take action.
The motion was approved unanimously.
4. Miscellaneous Business
None
5. Adjournment
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourncdl at $:54 p.1-n
Veda Harless, Chair
Day f„ Williams, Secretary
Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 20 of 20
338 Magnolia Street, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
lindsaycolel c gmail.com
September 28, 2012
Dear Friends and Neighbors:
ATTACHMENT A
(yU4) 739 -A000 <<.eu)
I am writing to advise the neighborhood of a situation involving potentially dangerous
dogs on Magnolia Street. There are three pit bull mixed breeds' living at 330 Magnolia Street,
one tan, one tan and white and one black, which are unpredictable and aggressive. Further
exacerbating the problem, the owners frequently allow the pit bulls to roam the streets vJithout a
leash. If you have ever walked down Magnolia Street towards Howell Park, you likely know the
pit bulls to which I ain referring.
Many of the neighbors on Magnolia Street have tried discussing the situation with the pit
bulls owner(s) in the hopes of reaching an amicable resolution, but have been met with hostility
and disrespect. It has come to the point that I and my neighbors are afraid for our safety, the
safety of our pets, and all of you, your loved ones and your pets.
We have now learned that these dogs have bitten people and their pets.
I have also been informed by many of you that you too have been scared and disrupted by
these pit bulls. In fact, I know that some of you no longer feel comfortable walking down
Magnolia Street. This is simply no way to have to live in our own neighborhood.
The City is aware of this serious problem and is working on a solution. However, the
City and Police need to know about all incidents that have occurred with regard to these dogs.
We MIDST have more people come forward and share their experiences regarding these pit bulls.
If you have ever been fearful of, confronted by, intimidated by, or disrupted by
these pit bulls, please email or write to the following as soon as possible:
Mayor and City Commission
electedofficials a,coab.us
City Manager
ihansonkcoab.us
City Attorney
alan a AJensenLaw.com
1 We are all dog lovers on Magnolia Street and have no animosity towards any particular breed of dog. The issue is
that these particular dogs are aggressive and not restrained by their owners, despite numerous requests by neighbors,
fines by animal control and warnings from the police.
_1_
ATTACHMENT A
Chief of Police
mclasseyna,coab.us
City of Atlantic Peach
800 Seminole Road
Atlantic Peach, FL 32233
- - -- — - --
Also, you can describe any incident that has taken place in the enclosed "Animal
Complaint Affidavit" and return it to the police department. If you experience any incident in
the future, please immediately contact the Atlantic Peach Police Department at (904) 247-
5859.
I know some of you have already received this letter, but I am updating it and expanding
the number of people who receive it. I know that many incidents with these pit bulls have gone
unreported. We cannot leave these types of occurrences unreported. It is unlawful for a dog to
approach a person in an aggressive manner. This has been a frequent occurrence on Magnolia
Street and must be reported. Also, please report any occurrence that you have witnessed in the
past.
I cannot stress this enough, you must contact the AB Police Department
iately if you see these nit bulls off leash or are ap roached by these nit bulls or hear
;t bulls outside barkinLy. Please contact the Police immediately anon the occurrence
of such an incident.
Please help me in protecting the safety and peacefulness of our wonderful neighborhood.
Feel free to contact me anytime at the number or email address above. If you email me, I will
gladly keep you apprised of the status of the issue. Thank you for your time and assistance in
this regard.
Enclosure
cc: Elected Officials
Michael Classey, Chief of Police
Jim Hanson, City Manager
Alan Jensen, City Attorney
-2-
Very truly yours,
�iindsay A. Cole
ATTACHMENT B
On October 3rd, 2012, I (Sgt. J.N. Tusing #1408) checked my work voicemail box and had a
message from Mr. Brogden. Mr. Brogden advised that he submitted two Atlantic Beach Animal
Control Affidavits for review. One of these affidavits pertains to this incident and the other
pertains to an incident with the same pit -bull that occurred on May 20th, 2012. I spoke to Animal
Control Officer (ACO) Fonda Spratt who advised that she had the two affidavits from Mr.
Brogden. At approximately 12:00 p.m., I initiated a follow -up investigation into the affidavit in
reference to the incident that occurred on May 26th, 2012 at approximately 2:00 p.m., at 310
Magnolia Street. Mr. Brogden stated in his affidavit that he was working at 310 Magnolia Street
and observed a brown pit -bull run up to a lady walking her dog. Mr. Brogden stated that the pit
bull circled both of them and was growling and, "looked as if it would attack at any moment."
Mr. Brogden stated he grabbed his machete "just in case" and the owner came and got the dog.
Mr. Brogden stated spoke to the victim afterwards and was shaken up and feared for her and her
dog's safety.
At approximately 1:30 p.m., I made contact with Mr. Brogden via phone. I advised Mr. Brogden
that I had a few clarifying questions in reference to the Atlantic Beach Animal Control
Complaint he filed about the incident that occurred on May 26th, 2012 at 310 Magnolia Street. I
asked Mr. Brogden if this was the second incident he witnessed with this brown pit bull and he
stated it was and that the two incidents were approximately one week apart. I asked him if it was
the same dog in both incidents and he stated it was. He stated that during this incident he
observed a white female in her late 40's to early 50's walking a very large dog approximately the
size of a Great Dane on a leash. Mr. Brogden stated he was in the driveway of Bruce Robbins
when he observed the incident occur in the roadway. He stated that the brown pit bull "charged"
the large dog and approached it from the side (dog's shoulder area). He heard the pit bull
growling and sniffing the large dog. He stated that he observed the pit bulls head to be below his
shoulders (crouching) as it growled at the dog. He grabbed his machete and stated that he would
defend the other dog or lady against the pit bull if he had to. I asked Mr. Brogden how close was
the pit bull away from the dog and he stated it was right next to the dog. He stated that the
incident tools approximately 2 minutes and observed the dog owner's daughter come into the
street and retrieve the dog. Mr. Brogden stated he spoke to the woman who appeared to visibly
shaken and nervous about the incident. I asked Mr. Brogden if he knew the owner of the dog
and he stated he did not and described her as a white female in her late teens to early twenties. I
asked Mr. Brogden if he knew the lady walking the dog and he stated that he has been doing
landscaping for Mr. Robbins for approximately 6 years and has never seen the lady or the dog
before this incident and has not seen them since.
w
ATTACHMENT C
rLgency Incident offense Report Agency Report Number
ORI 0160100 Additional Narratives 12 -17084
Title: SUPPLEMENT - AFFIDAVITS (MAY 20 & 26)
J. TUBING #1408
J. October 2nd, 2012, 1 (Sgt. J.N. Tusing #1408) initiated a follow -up investigation into the Atlantic
Beach Animal Control Affidavit received from Mr. Robbins in reference to an incident that occurred on
May 20th, 2012, at approximately 11:00 a.m, at 310 Magnolia Street. Mr. Robbins stated in his affidavit
that his landscaper Mr. Brogden called him, and stated that a brown pit -bull charged him when he was
working outside at 310 Magnolia Street. The landscaper advised that the canine was showing signs of
aggression by growling and snarling. The landscaper then - picked up a shovel to ward off the canine
from attacking him. The owner Ms. Babillis arrived and retrieved her canine.
At approximately 3:00 p.m., I made contact with Mr. Robbins via phone. I advised Mr. Robbins that I
received his Animal Control Affidavit and had a few questions that needed clarification and he agreed
to speak with me. Mr. Robbins advised that his landscaper who he identified as Spencer Brogden
reported to him an incident involving the brown pit -bull from 330 Magnolia Street. Mr. Robbins stated
that Mr. Brogden owns Spencer's Creations and his contact number is 327 -6842. Mr. Robbins stated
that Mr. Brogden was in the process of completing an affidavit in relation to this incident. 1 asked Mr.
Robbins if he observed the-incident with Mr. Brogden and stated that he did not.
At approximately 3:30 p.m., I attempted to contact Mr. Brogden via phone but received no answer. I
left a message for Mr. Brogden to contact me.
On October 3rd, 2012, 1 checked my work voicemail box and had a message from Mr. Bro den. Mr.
Brogden advised that he submitted two affidavits for review. One of these affidavits pertains to this
incident and the other pertains to an incident with the same pit -bull that occurred on _ Ma 26th,_ 2012.
1 spoke to Animal Control Officer (ACO) Fonda Spratt who advised that she had the two affidavits
from Mr. Brogden. At approximately 12:00 p.m., I initiated a follow -up investigation into the affidavit
in reference to the incident that occurred on May 20th, 2012 at approximately 11:00 a.m., at 310
Magnolia Street. According to Mr. Brogden's affidavit he working at 310 Magnolia Street and was
taking trash to put across the street when he observed a brown pit bull come "charging down the
street out of 330 Magnolia Street. The dog then ran into the yard of 310 Magnolia Street and chased
the owner's cat over the back fence. The dog then "charged me." The dog approached Mr. Brogden
with a "lowered head all the while growling and barking." He had his shovel in his hand and thought
that he may have to defend himself. At this time the owner's daughter retrieved the dog and told Mr.
Brogden that the dog "wouldn't bite.
At approximately 1:30 p.m., I made contact with Mr. Brogden via phone. 1 advised Mr. Brogden that I
had a few clarifying questions in reference to the Atlantic Beach Animal Control Complaint he filed
about the incident that occurred on May 20th, 2012 at 310 Magnolia Street. Mr. Brogden agreed to
speak with me about the incident. Mr. Brogden was asked where he was standing when he observed
the dog which he described as a brown pit bull, and he stated he was standing on the east side of the
street near the wooded area. He stated that the dog came "charging" down the street. 1 asked him to
describe what he meant by "charging" and he stated that the dog was "running with a purpose." He
described the dog as taking a "full sprint" as he observed it run from the driveway of 330 Mangolia
Street, and chased Bruce Robbins cat over the fence. He stated once the cat was gone, the dog looked
at him and charged at him. I asked Mr. Brogden how close the dog came to him and he advised
approximately 2 feet. He stated that he had his shovel in his hand and stated that he could have hit
the dog and would have if it got any closer to him. He described the dog as barking, crouching down,
growling, and showing his canine teeth (snarl). He stated that the incident lasted approximately 45
seconds to a minute and heard the owner yelling for the dog. He stated that the owner had to come
and grab the dog by the collar to get it to leave him alone. Mr. Brogden stated
gencyORI incident Offense Report
L0160100 Additional Narratives
I ATTACHMENT C
Agency Report Number
12 -17084
Title: SUPPLEMENT - AFFIDAVITS (MAY 20 & 26
that the owner who he described as a white female in her late teens to early twenties told him, "he
won't bite." Mr. Brogden stated that he felt that the behavior of the dog in this incident was overly
aggressive.
f. ;
-C ATTACHMENT D
Robert W. Hammesfahr
Education:
AS Math and Physics, Florida Keys Comm College, Key West, FL
BAE Adult Education, Univ. of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL
MBA Finance and Resource Management, _Univ. of New Hampshire,
Manchester, NH
MS Behavioral Psychology, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
I 000+ hours of CEU's in Canine Behavioral Science
Certifications:
Certified Professional Dog Trainer — Assn. of Pet Dog Trainers Behavioral
Certified Dog Behavioral Consultant — Intl Assn. of Animal
Consultants.
AKC Canine Good Citizen evaluator
Work History:
I've been a trainer and behaviorist in the greater Jacksonville area for Over
28 years.
Speaker at international education conferences on dog behavior.
Robert W. Hammesfahr, CPDT -KA, CDBC
Behavior Training for Dogs
November 15, 2012
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENT E
Excerpts are from:
"Canine Behavior, a photo illustrated handbook ", by Barbara Handleman,
M.Ed, CDBC. Woof and Word Press, Norwich, VT 05055. ISBN 978 -0-
9765118 -2 -3. Pages 203 — 215.
The above is only one of several well written books that describe Wolf and
Dog hunting behavior or `drives'. The behavioral terms for this activity is
`Predatory Motor Patterns'. Predation is the act of obtaining food by killing
and consuming prey. These patterns are exhibited by both wolves and
dogs. It is generally accepted in the behavioral community that the
behavior is genetically predisposed. All dogs share the same genetic
makeup with wolves. This being accepted, then why don't all dogs exhibit
this pattern? The answer is in the breeding of dogs. If humans do not want
dogs to exhibit strong predatory motor patterns then they will only breed the
animals that exhibit weaker or muted predatory patterns. After many
subsequent generations where this type of selective breeding occurs, the
result will be that dogs no longer exhibit these patterns.
As defined, the predatory motor pattern includes most and sometimes all of
the following behaviors:
• Scan and scent
• Orient
• Freeze
® Stalk
® Charge, pounce (also called foreleg -stab or mouse jump) or chase
® Grab bite
® Kill bite
® Toss (also called kill shake)
® Dissect
® Consume or cache (page 203)
A 1"1 AUHNIEN1 E
A dog is able to vary the pattern and may skip a specific behavior but the
overall result is the dog will be the death of the prey.
I have reviewed the reports of the three dogs in question and the following
are my opinion based on what is written in the reports. It is based on my
experience and training in the field of dog behavior. I have not seen the
dogs.
EXAMPLES of DOCUMENTED INCIDENTS:
Agency Report 12 -17084
Page 6 "The dog charged him with head down, growling and teeth bore."
"...the dog circled him three times."
Page 7 "The dog charged and bared its teeth" "The black dog then quickly
approached the little girl and growled at her." Two other dogs joined
Page 8 "...two dogs... aggressively approach the group, circling the little girl
on the bicycle..."
Page 9 "The dog had it's head down low to the ground and was acting very
aggressive, "squaring" up to the lady and young girl as it circled them."
Page 12 Presence of all three dogs in victims yard one of the dogs lunged
at him.
Animal Complaint Affidavit of Spencer Brogden incident of 5/26/2012. "1
witnessed the brown pit bull run up to the lady walking her large dog. The
pit bull circled both of them and was growling...."
The above are examples of Orienting and Charging.
Although it is not a direct part of the Predatory Motor Pattern, before a dog
will charge a large prey animal it will display a behavior called Testing. The
dog will work alone or cooperatively to test the prey (victim). The display
consists of the dog darting in close, bow (head down) and move away
quickly to keep themselves out of harm's way. This display is seen in the
above incidents and is a precursor to Charging.
The following is a full copy of a dog bite:
"Date5/3/2012
Subject Pit Bull attack on beach south of Dewees Ave
I was walking my French Bulldog on 48" nylon ( non - extension type) leash
just south of the Dewees access on the beach- in the surf. Two females
were out of the water with their red Pit Bull - on loose sand about 10 yards
A 11 At-riNWIN 1 r,
east of dunes and 20 — 25 yards west of the surf (tide was low). The dog
(off leash) came running towards the surf at my dog and grabbed him by
the back of his neck. The girls were running and screaming towards the
dog but he already had a hold of Beaux shaking him vigorously. I threw
myself on their dog and tried to pry him off. We eventually got their dog off
mine - words were exchanged and I ran to some workers at a house on
16th access and borrowed their phone allowing me to contact authorities.
Photos of abrasions to the back of Beaux's neck and some blood in the
anal region were taken by Animal Control Officer Kelley Caton #309"
The above is an example of full predatory motor pattern. The only thing
that prevented the dog from killing the French Bulldog was the intervention
of the human. It has Orient, Charge, Grab Bite, Kill Bite and Toss.
The following is an excerpt from a dog bite,report:
SGT J. N. Tusing #1408 dated 1010312012
On October 2nd, 2012 at approximately 3:25 pm, I Sgt .J.N. Tusing #1408
initiated a follow -up investigation into the Atlantic Beach Animal Control
Affidavit received from Mr. Robbins in reference to an incident that
occurred on August 10th, 2012 at approximately 4:45 pm at 310 Magnolia
Street. Mr. Robbins stated in his affidavit that the brown and white pit bull
mix nipped a roofing contractor that was working at his house. Mr. Robbins
stated that the dog ran at the contractor and the contractor grabbed a
hammer to back it down. Mr. Robbins stated that he then observed a dog
growling at the contractor. He stated that the nip was minor only due to the
contractor's quick action.
Later in this report it describes the bite as being a small break in the skin.
This is an example of the dog going through the predatory motor pattern up
to the Bite phase. It was thwarted due to the size and defensive maneuver
of the victim.
CONCLUSION
These two examples demonstrate that the dogs are not only aggressive but
are willing to complete the predatory pattern on not only animals but
humans as well.
AITACHMENT E
Individually and collectively this group of dogs, meet the behavioral
definition of being dangerous to animals and humans. In my opinion,
based on their documented behavior, they are capable of inflicting fatal
injuries on both animals and humans.
f�
obert W ammesfahr
.
A l l AUHMEN 1 I
4 v S�leiac :,T % e�
POLICE DEPARTMENT
850 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233
TELEPHONE: (904) 247 -5859
FAX: (904) 247 -5899
httolAmmooAUs
Animal Complaint Affidavit
I have been warned of my constitutional rights and know that I do not have to
make any statement at this time. I am freely and voluntarily make the following, knowing
full well this statement, or any portion thereof, may be used against me or any other
person at any time in any court, trial, or other issue. I further state that I have not been
subjected to any threats or duress and have received no promise of reward or immunity.
My name is Vanessa Chamberlin
I live at 901 Ocean Blvd 498 Atlantic Beach FL 32233
Address City State
and my telephone number is (904)993 -9197
Name /Description of Animal: 2 Pitt Bulls one tan (Jack) and one white /tan (Lola)
Name /Address of Owner: 330 Magnolia Street
Time and Date of Incident: August 2011 (confirm exact date and time with Veterinarian's
office
Describe the incident:
On the above referenced date I was walking my wheaten terrier. Kingston in Howell
Park. Kingston,. bein a friendly, loving dog approached the -Pitt bulls to say hello, when
he was immediately and viciously attacked At the time the �pitt bulls were being walked
by their owner (older lady with white hair - Suzanne LeViseur) when thev broke awa
from the owner, who clearly had no control over them Kingston was bitten by the pit
bulls multle times and suffered severe lacerations which required sutures. He also
underwent surgery at the Veterinarian's office and has permanent scarring as a result of
the attack I have attached color photos depicting the injuries. The name of m
Veterinarian is Pet Doctors of America located at 1103 3rd Street South Jacksonville
Continuation of Statement
ATTACHMENT F
Page 2_ of _2_ pages
Beach, FL .32250, and I authorize the City to obtain the records as needed The surgery
included his body being shaved and tubes being inserted to drain an infection that had
occurred due to his bite wounds. He wore a cone around his head and took over a ,month
to recover from the severe injuries. That day was horrifying as I truly believed my
beloved pet was being. killed. I am so thankful that the veterinarian was able to save his
life. His veterinarian did say he was ver y lucky to be alive!
I do hereby certify that I have read the preceding .statement and that it is true to the best
of my knowledge and belief,
r
t
Signature of Person Making Statement
Signature of Parent. or Guardian if Minor
STATE OF FLORIDA
�w,o�rn to and Mvk���(A cribed before me this `T day of (71; 1 20 ( by
WAS S . (N .Zofperson making statement)
Notary Seal: ,
Notary Public /Officer
Print, Type; or Stamp Name
Personally Known K OR Produced M
If Produced ID, type & nurnber
Notary public $tala.ol Florida
Karma Latasa
'My Comralsalori.Efl 103208
orRO Ezplres03120J201S