Board of Health - Regular Meeting

All right. So, we are gonna call the meeting of the Board of Health for the city of Appleton to order. Let it show that, older person Nate Wolf and Deborah Wirth are excused today. I'd like us to rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Roll call of membership. I just went through that. I'm seat 20 five-thirty nine, approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Can I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. Alderperson Jones, Mayor Woodford, are there any changes, corrections, or additions to those minutes that someone would like to make? Okay. Seeing none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Passes five-zero. Public hearings, we have none.

Action items twenty five zero zero three five. Approve ordinance changes to chapter 12 article four. Noise is identified in the attached documents. Can I have a motion to approve? Move to approve. Jones, is there a second? Second. Second. I am a Kane. And by the way, that was 25 did I say twenty five-thirty five? Okay. Good. Director Seipers.

And yeah, so as

I can take us through this. So as you can see in the red lining of the language, there was quite a few changes. But I just want to categorize them as the general nature of the changes to the noise ordinance was to take out sort of outdated language, sort of simplify that chapter. There's a number of things that are no longer used. For example, the specific megahertz bands and that sort of thing for the different levels.

And so just moving to a single decibel level for R1 commercial, which includes our central business district and our industrial area. So there's a daytime and a nighttime. And that's really one of the most largest changes in that piece. We did provide some clarification on the muffler noise as a traffic violation. So that wasn't necessarily clear in that previous language.

And then we just made clarity wherever we could. And things where we had received a lot of phone calls, where it was clear that it was not a violation, just sort of spelled that out. So one good example, a football game is not a violation of the noise ordinance, right? So making those sorts of things clear.

Okay. Are there any questions?

Chair, I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank Alder Martin Smith, who's been an instrumental partner in updating this ordinance. He has indicated to his constituents that addressing concerns about noise is a priority. And I appreciate his partnership with the administration in crafting these changes and being an advocate. And I think it's a great example of a collaborative process between a member of our legislative branch in this case, the Common Council and the administration. So I appreciate his advocacy and look forward to seeing this discussed at council should the board approve. Thank you, chair.

Excellent. Thank you. Any other questions? I just have one. This does not change the process of applying for a variance, correct?

Yes. That's That's for our listening public. Yeah. And in fact, that was an area, too, that we just sort of cleaned it up to clearly state what steps need need to be taken. Yep.

Okay. All right. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? 5, 0. 25003, 6. Approved schedule of deposit changes to chapter 12, article four, noise as identified in the attached document. Can I have a motion to approve? Move to approve. Alderperson Jones. Is there a second? Second. Second. Kathleen Yuchs. Anything you'd like to say, Director Seapers?

No. I think the memo speaks for itself in this case.

All right. Any questions from the board? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions passes five-zero. We're under 20 five-thirty four. This is a hearing of the appeal of a dangerous animal declaration. The Board of Health may go into closed session according to Wisconsin Statute five, 19.851A, for the purpose of deliberating the appeal of and I'd like to strike the word prohibited, dangerous animal declaration and then convene into open session. So because it's a hearing, we're not going to have a motion or a second at this time.

It is a statutory regulation, so we will be following the rules of the Wisconsin and our own ordinance. So attorney Glad will help, walk us through what the procedures are going to be.

Thank you, chair. So I'm Darren Glad from the attorney's office. We're set to hear an appeal of a dangerous animal declaration for a dog known as Chewy. I want to briefly explain to the board and others present what you can expect this hearing to look like. All people who speak during this hearing must use a microphone. This hearing will be conducted orderly, and the chair has ultimate authority as to how this hearing proceeds. I'm here as legal adviser to the board. Even though there's a few matters before this, just wanna make sure that the speakers' microphones are working. I don't see anybody indicating otherwise. So just wanna make sure that, it's functioning properly.

So the dog's owner is exercising their right to object to the dangerous animal declaration. This hearing is opportunity for the animal's owner to present evidence as to why the animal should not be declared dangerous. First, you'll hear from attorney, Erwin, who will present as to why the animal was declared dangerous. The board and the owner will have an opportunity to ask questions of any witnesses. Then once attorney Berwind's finished, the owner will have the same opportunity to present evidence as to why the animal should not be declared dangerous.

The board and attorney Berwyn have an opportunity to ask questions of any witness at that point. So each each party gets their own opportunity. The chair may allow additional evidence and opportunity for closing statements at her discretion. All witnesses will be sworn by me. The board then will decide whether to uphold the order declaring the animal is dangerous, rescind the order, or uphold the order while waiving certain requirements.

The requirements that can be waived generally are the registration, leash and muzzle requirements, confinement requirements, the signage requirements, spay and neutering requirements, and the liability insurance requirements. The board is allowed to deliberate in closed session but should vote in open session and a written decision will be provided to the owner or caretaker. With that, I'll turn this over to Chairperson Spears for a chance. Any final comments before we begin?

Nope. This is a very serious matter, and the board has always taken this seriously. And therefore, we do follow the state's and our own ordinance statutes. So we'll let attorney Berwyn present his case.

Thank you, chair. In terms of presentation, I'd like to begin with calling Community Service Officer Benjamin Yang to testify.

Chair, you'll need to turn on the podium mic.

Oh, okay. Which one? Top. Top. Okay. Great. Wanna make sure it's working.

Testing. Testing.

Alright. Thank you.

Alright. Can you, state your full name and spell your last?

Yeah. I am Benjamin Yang, y a n g.

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do.

Sir, how are you employed?

I'm employed through the City of Appleton Police Department as a CSO, Community Service Officer.

What are your duties as a Community Service Officer?

My duties as a Community Service Officer include helping stranded motorists assist and taking animal calls with anything animal related through our Appleton City ordinances, parking violations, as well as assisting city or citizen needs at a non emergency state.

Who's your supervisor in this capacity?

My supervisor would be my lead community service officer, Matt Phillip Brown.

How long have you been a community service officer?

I've been employed here at the Appleton of Wisconsin as a community service officer of March 2023.

Do you recall on or about 12/31/2024 responding to Appleton ThetaCare for an animal incident?

Yes, do.

What information were you given in responding to that particular location?

I was given information of a child that was bit by a dog, and that was all I was given.

When you arrived at that location, did you end up making contact with the individuals involved in that incident?

I'm sorry. Who was I making contact with?

Did you make contact with the individuals involved in that incident?

With the victim, no, I did not. But I spoke to his father that was identified as Steven Jenkins.

And Mr. Jenkins indicated the victim was his son? Correct. Do you recall approximately how old his son was?

I believe he would be six years old, a five to six years old.

When you first made contact with Steven, did he indicate that he was present for the incident that occurred?

No, he was not present during the incident that occurred.

Did he provide you any information about who had been present when the incident occurred?

Correct. It was, the victim's brother was identified as Noah.

And you're just identifying him. You've identified him by my first name here. Steven indicated that Noah was present when the incident occurred?

Correct.

Were you able to, at some point, speak with Noah about what had occurred?

Yes. I spoke over the phone over Steven's phone, in which I spoke to Noah through his wife's phone as well.

So you you spoke Steven let you use his phone to speak with Noah and Yep. His When you spoke with Noah, did he give you any information about what had happened?

No. He stated that he did not see or hear anything during the bite.

What did he tell you about the sequence of events leading up to it?

Tucker and the dog Chewy were facing each other, and the only thing that he saw was Tucker fall back.

What did Noah indicate he had been doing?

Noah had indicated that he wasn't quite exactly sure if Tucker was doing anything at the time, as he only saw Tucker and Chewy facing each other because the lights were off in the room.

What did Noah indicate that Noah had been doing at that time?

Nothing with the dog

in the room. Like I I I'm not talking about with the dog. What was he doing? He wasn't

Oh, standing with the dog. My apologies.

Was standing standing with the dog?

It was it was on the floor with the dog. At least that's what I was given from

Noah or Tucker?

Sorry. Noah. Noah was on the bed. My apologies. Tucker's the one who And Tucker's, yep, the victim of the case.

Hold on, let me finish the question. Tucker's the one who was bit, correct?

Correct.

Noah's the older boy, correct?

Correct, yep.

Noah was on the bed?

Correct. Noah was on the bed during the time that the bite occurred.

What was Noah doing on the bed?

Noah was I believe he stated that he was either playing video games or not paying attention to Tucker.

Did he indicate whether the lights in the room were on or off?

And the lights in this room were off.

Noah told you he had some thoughts about what might have been occurring. Is that fair to say?

Correct.

But he told you he did not see anything about how the bite occurred. Correct?

That is correct.

Did you have an opportunity to observe Tucker's condition after this occurred?

Yes.

Did you end up taking any photographs of that?

I did. K.

I'm gonna get a little bit ahead of myself here. But, ultimately, when your investigation was complete, did you draft a report documenting that investigation?

Yes.

And that would have been submitted to your supervisor. Is that correct?

Correct.

Same with those photographs?

Correct.

For the moment, I'd like to direct the board's attention to the attachments to the agenda which contain, the narrative reports, for CSO Yang, as well as the other witnesses who are going to testify, as well as the photographs that were taken by CSO Yang documenting the situation or the injuries at the time. What were your observations of the injuries?

I observed approximately seven total wounds inflicted to Tucker's face, specifically three to his right eye and then another three to his left eye and one closer to his left temple area.

Did Noah indicate anybody else was in the room with either of them at the time this incident occurred?

Nope. Noah stated that it was only him, Tucker, and the dog in the room at the time.

What did Noah indicate Tucker did after the biting incident occurred?

Noah stated that Tucker ran out of the room after the bite had happened, after falling back.

Did he indicate there was any blood blood trail left behind him as he went?

Yes, I believe so.

Do you recall to what degree that was?

I do not, but given the blood that was sustained on Tucker's shirt that day, there was quite a substantial amount.

But you didn't observe that in the residence. Is that fair to say?

Correct.

And to the extent there was any specific information about that given, that would have been documented in your report. Is that right?

Right.

And your report was completed closer in time to when this occurred than today?

Correct. So

Noah indicated there was nobody else in the room. Did you do any additional did you do any additional investigation regarding the vaccination state of the animals or no?

Yes. I did.

Were you able to determine whether or not the animal was, up to date with its vaccinations?

I believe I wasn't and that the, quarantine process went through the Fox Valley Humane Association.

And to be clear, the family was cooperative with that quarantine process. Is that fair to say?

Correct. Were

you able to speak with Tucker at all?

No. Did

you make an attempt to or was that simply not a possibility at the time?

I believe it was not a possibility at the time.

Typically, is that something you'd like to do if the victim is able to share information?

Yes.

I don't have any additional questions at this time.

Oh, yeah, we could. Mr. Jenkins, the attorney just suggested that perhaps you can sit closer up here. And if you have questions that you're in the mix, and so I can see if you want to say anything. At this time, as this is going on, does anyone from the board have any questions? Okay. Sure. Don't know if this Older person, sure. You can ask the question. This is of the testimony we've heard and what we have had written.

So if you have any questions regarding Mr. Yang's or Officer Yang's testimony, this is the time to ask him. But we do, as a board, reserve the right to be able to recall a witness to ask questions later on for confirmatory or conflicting questions or answers we may have.

So Alderperson Jones. CSO Yang. Had indicated that there were some injuries here, injuries here and over here. Were there any medical professionals that could give insight as to if it was multiple bites or what had kind of happened based on those wounds?

During the time, correct?

When you were at the Theta care?

I believe there was a medical staff there at the time that was willing to give antibiotics for the kid during the time.

Right, but

Is that the question

for Sorry.

I misunderstood that.

So with the incident

Correct.

How the dog responded.

Was it one bite? Was it two bites?

Was it scratches? Was there a medical professional at ThetaCare who saw those wounds here, here, and here Yes. And said, In my experience, one big mouth bite, or it looks like there were multiple bites.

Okay.

Was that conversation had or was that information given?

No, that was not Okay. Given at

Thank you.

Okay. CSO Yang, if I may. Sure.

Mayor Woodford.

What is the definition of an unprovoked attack?

Yeah, a definition of an unprovoked attack would simply mean that a dog or any type of animal would attack without being, I guess, tempted or causing inflictions for a specific reason.

And believe I read in your report, CSO Yang, that initial statements given indicated that it was likely that the dog had been somehow hit or pushed, punched otherwise. Is that correct?

That is correct.

So that was the initial report that you gathered in conversations with the family?

Correct.

And in your report, you also indicated that it sounded like there may be a may have been a history of that type of behavior between the child and the dog. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Okay. We're going to give Mr. Jenkins a chance to ask questions, and then we'll come back. I'm kind of going in the order that people raise their hands. So Mr. Jenkins, if you have any questions at this time, you may ask them.

Thank you. Good morning. I apologize. I'm nervous. I've never done this before.

Yep. That's fine. And we're not trying to do that. Does he need to be sworn in before he asks the answers? No.

Just the witnesses will be sworn in.

CSO Yang, I guess one of the only questions that I can think of is in your experience in seeing a dog bite or a wound or something similar if there has been a bite or a laceration to the face. Is it typically quite a large amount of blood as described and how it's being portrayed in this versus and over the amount of time from going from a home to a hospital how that could collect and how that could look like a lot in your opinion based off what you've seen?

Yes, based off what I've seen, especially that night given. Or would you say as well like in a provoking manner?

I guess, I apologize. My question is based on the amount of blood, a facial laceration is gonna have a lot more blood due to, in my opinion, due to the amount of blood that is flowing to the head. That is potential that it could look like there's a lot more to make it look a lot worse than it may actually be versus an arm laceration or whatnot. I'm just trying to touch on the focus that there was a lot of blood dripping on his clothes and everything that it just seems a little excessive on my behalf. Do you think that it was an abnormal amount of blood? Do you think it showed that the severity of the wound or do you think that it was just a normal amount for what was expected in the injury?

Yeah. Given that there were just multiple wounds and punctures on his face, I do believe that the amount of blood that was drawn I guess would be appropriate. That would be a good word.

Okay. Is that the any other questions? All right. And so now we'll go to Emma. She has some questions. Oh, I thought you said you did. Did you have another question? I

do, yes. Okay. Alderson Jones. It's stated in the report that this kind of this is a strong word, but there had been some hitting and punching of the dog a lot leading up to this. When it comes to unprovoked, because this dog has had a history of abuse from the child, does that play anywhere into the unprovoked?

Given the time, yes. I I think I I believed that what what Steven was telling me that the history of the the dog and Tucker, that's where I assumed with him that Tucker was using his regular behavior with the dog during the time in the room and that the bite happened because of that Tucker provoking and using that behavior with the dog.

Okay. And one last question. It seemed like the reports were conflicting. Was there pizza involved? Was there food involved somehow?

That was gathered through further follow-up. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

All right. Chair, I have Sure. A question

on as the subject.

This may be for the attorney. In order to be deemed a dangerous animal, does there have to be an unprovoked attack to make that declaration?

One second. In our code, there's a specific section on certain animals not being declared dangerous. So the site would be section three dash one thirty three. Sub b says no animal may be declared dangerous if death, injury, damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the animal. I think that is there's some other exceptions, but I think that's really what you're asking.

So am I to understand then that the answer is that, no, an animal cannot be declared dangerous under our code if the attack was unprovoked or was not unprovoked, was a provoked attack. I just want to make sure we understand that very clearly because as I see it, the matter before us really does hinge on that question.

I do think it's a really good distinction. And I just want to be careful saying provoked, unprovoked. It seems to be there's other parts of the ordinances that talk about that. But for the dangerous animal, we could equate teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the animal as the provocation. But I just want to use those. That's the terms in our ordinances, teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the animal.

And I would direct attention, that particular section relates to a domestic animal teasing, assaulting, tormenting, or abusing another animal is the way I read it. So there's other sections to that. But ultimately, I think, Mr. Mayer, you're correct that this, in large part, comes down to whether or not there's provocation, which is something I am going to explore more as we continue on. I'm just preventing presenting the initial portion of the investigation as we continue forward.

I have additional witnesses to provide additional information. But that is the way I'm reading that that portion, but the dangerous animal definition comes in three dash one. And and there's two sections which I think might apply. Dangerous animal means any of the following. Sub one, any animal which, when unprovoked, inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet, or animal on public or private property or sub three, any animal with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack to cause injury to or otherwise threaten the safety of humans or other domestic pets or animals. So those are the definitions that we're looking at. And provocation is a significant portion of that as well.

Thank you.

May I ask some follow-up questions on

Sure. This Definitely.

It's been noted, and this was in your report, that your initial assessment was that you believed this to be a provoked attack. What was your basis for coming to that conclusion initially?

Yeah. With what Steven had told me in the ER room of the of the history with that, I I did believe him that Tucker would quite possibly do such things because Steven used the words like slug with the dog. So from there, I kind of took into consideration that if Tucker were to slug this dog in a way, I could imagine that maybe a dog might react for that case. So

the thought process was that if he had slugged the dog, that would be provocation. Correct? Correct. Steven did tell you did not tell you he was in the room when that happened. Correct?

That's correct as well.

Noah did not say he saw somebody slug the dog. Correct?

And that is correct. Okay.

Ultimately, when you prepare a report and do an investigation, is that something that you have the final say in that declaration on? No. Whose decision is it to make those declarations one way or the other?

It would be my supervisor, who's Matt Filiprone.

And that is something that he reviews with all of the CSO's animal investigations? Correct. And in fact, that's a significant duty of his as a as the humane officer for the city of Appleton?

Correct.

So this isn't a situation where he inserted himself into your investigation and overrode you. This was he reviewed as he normally does?

That is correct.

Was there anybody that you had any contact with at any point during your investigation that said they saw anybody strike this dog?

No. That's all.

Okay. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

CSO Yang. Don't leave the room.

Next person I'd like to call would be officer Mitchell Martinez.

So you're gonna swear on this?

State your full name and spell your last.

Mitchell Martinez, m a r t I n e z.

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth shall help you God? I do.

Officer Martinez, how are you employed?

Through the city of Appleton Police Department.

What's your current duty assignment?

I currently work as a school resource officer.

Typically, does that involve any kind of animal related enforcement or investigations?

No. Not typically.

You heard CSO Yang testify about an animal investigation. At some point, did you yourself become involved in that investigation? I did. How did you become involved in that investigation?

I was asked by CSO Phil Brown to assist as a third party to the case to interview Tucker and Noah since they go to my school.

Did he indicate why he wanted you to assist?

Just, I think, essentially getting a just being, I guess, not part of the situation, not really knowing a whole lot about the situation, just my job is just to interview Noah and Tucker and document as such.

Just information gathering? Essentially, yes. You end up speaking with Noah about the incident that we've already heard discussed?

I did.

What did Noah tell you about what had happened?

So we first started off by talking about just the initial setup of the room. He started off by telling me it was him, Tucker, and the dog in the room. He mentioned it was a little bit dark. In that initial start of the interview, he used the words to the effect of, I kind of saw Tucker hit the dog. And then we kind of moved into, can you give me a more detailed layout of the room you're specifically in?

Let's talk about where everybody's sitting in position. So that specifically was stated. Noah was sitting facing his TV, which was across from up on his dresser or as he used the words wardrobe. Directly to his right was Tucker facing the dog. Noah had his headphones on, so he said Tucker was telling him something, but he couldn't necessarily hear what that was.

And he also had mentioned at this time that Tucker had pizza in his hand. And that's kind of when he got into essentially, Noah actually physically raised his hand and was trying to imply that Tucker may have been teasing the dog. But then he followed it up with something to the effect of, I don't know if I actually saw that. So based off everything I had gathered to that point, I actually, if I can back up a little bit, he also used the word something to the effect of Tucker was probably making fun of the dog. He does that a lot.

But just based off some of the quotes and stuff that he was saying, to me, it seemed very apparent that I don't know if Noah was necessarily giving me what he saw with his own two eyes. So that's what made me look into it a little bit further.

I want to back up a little bit. You prepared a narrative report related to this investigation as well. Correct?

Yes.

You've paraphrased or I think paraphrased a number of different things that were said, but you ended up did you quote some of these things verbatim in your report? Correct. So where there are quotations in your reports, those are verbatim quotes from what happened? Yes. Did you quote those in your report from memory, or did you end up going back and reviewing your quote? Back up and ask this. Did you end up recording the interview?

Yep, it was recorded.

The quotes, are those from your recording or from your initial recollection at the time?

From my recording.

So after some of this qualification language that you noted was provided to you in this initial account, Did you do any follow-up questioning with Noah as the interview continued? I did. Okay. What how did you go about doing that?

We just kind took a step back and just kind of went into it. I tried to take a little bit of a different approach. It was apparent to me that that approach wasn't working when one of the quotes Noah used was something to the effect of, I don't know, it's either he accidentally punched the dog or he teased the dog. So when I heard that, I took that as, okay, Noah is definitely not telling me what he actually saw with his own two eyes. He also used something to the effect of he just did whatever he did to my dog. So again, just kind of portraying that I don't think Noah was telling me what he actually saw. So then from this point, I made it much more simpler or tried to make it much more simpler for him.

How did you do that?

I essentially asked him, Okay, so we have Tucker with the pizza. We have you in the room. We have the dog. You see Tucker with the pizza. You see the dog. What is the very next thing you saw with your own two eyes? And that's when he told me he saw Tucker falling back with the pizza. Tucker covered his face, called for his mom, left the room, and confirmed that he did not see what caused the bite to happen.

So when asked specifically about what he saw with his own two eyes, he indicated to you he did not see what caused the bite? Correct. He indicated that there was pizza involved somehow? He did. But he did not tell you he saw Tucker tease the dog. Is that right?

I think at one point he did say. I thought I saw it, but again, it goes back to the effect of I don't you know, something on the effect of I don't think I actually saw that. So he was saying he did and then he went back and said he didn't see that.

So he was using that qualifying language when he said that? I said yes. Okay. Same thing with the hitting the dog?

Yes.

Did you attempt to speak directly with Tucker? I did. Were you able to do that?

Tucker did not use any words when speaking with him.

So you weren't able to discuss the situation with him in any substance? No. Did you update the kid's parents about your conversations with them after they occurred? I did. Did you ask them anything as far as if any more information came out about what happened?

Yeah. Essentially, told them too, like, maybe Tucker, you know, wasn't ready to come forward at this time, which is okay. But, you know, if he were to come forward with them at home to please call us and let

us know.

Your function here was just to gather as much information as you could about what actually happened. Is that correct? Yes. And that's all documented in your report?

Yes.

That's all

that I have. Thank you.

Okay. So does anyone from the board Alderperson Jones.

One thing that comes up in your report that we haven't heard yet is the term my dog. Is there more background to this that it says it's the family dog and then he says my dog? Is there anything that's of substance there to know?

Not that I'm aware of. Okay. No, not that I'm aware of. Okay.

Any other questions from the board? Mr. Jenkins has a question.

Officer Martinez, before you had gone and talked to Tucker, is it reasonable to understand that yourself and his parents, myself and my wife, Carrie, had the conversation and came to the conclusion that we thought it would be in our best interest or the best interest of gathering truthful information to approach Tucker and see if we can get some sort of information out of him from another party such as yourself? Does that make sense? I'm sorry. Are you asking if I'm asking me if I should talk to Tucker. I guess basically I'm ask I'm just trying to touch on the fact parents, we were trying to be cooperative.

And we came to understanding yourself and us that, hey, nobody's talked to Tucker, and we really are trying to find the root of this and and and let the cards fall where they are with the truth. And we're in agreeance, and nobody's tried to talk to Tucker and that should be done. Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah. Absolutely. That's all I have.

Okay. Any other questions? Alright. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

At this point, chair, I would call lead CSO Matt Philliprond.

You state your full name, spelling your last.

Yep. It's Matthew Philliprown, f as in Frank, I l l e, and the color brown, b r o w n.

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, shall I help you God?

I do.

Sir, how are you employed?

I am employed by the Appleton Police Department in the city of Appleton as the lead community service officer and humane officer. In your capacity as the humane officer,

what are your duties for the city Of Appleton?

So the humane officer is in charge of overseeing all state level crimes of animal cruelty, animal welfare? And then for the city of Appleton, the humane officer's duties are that of dealing with dangerous animal and prohibited dangerous animal declarations.

The dangerous animal and prohibited dangerous animal declarations, those fall under the city's local code. Is that right?

Correct, sir.

How long have you been the humane officer for the city of Appleton?

Probably since 2014, 2013.

And that entire time, that has involved you overseeing the Declaration of Dangerous Animals and Prohibited Dangerous Animals. Is that correct? J.

Correct. That's one of my responsibilities.

J. Additionally, responsibilities as the lead community service officer that involves oversight of the other community service officers. Is that correct?

That is correct. I am their frontline supervisor. So I am in charge of all hiring, training, going over the reports, follow ups, assisting them on their calls.

And that would include following up and overseeing investigations that they undertake regarding animal situations?

Correct. I read every one of the reports, kick it back for changes or corrections.

Were you at some point, did you come to review the reports of CSO Ben Yang regarding the incident that we've already heard testimony about today?

I did. And

that initial report that you reviewed, that's the same initial report that was provided to the committee, is that or the the board. Is that correct?

That is correct.

After reviewing that initial report, what was your, I guess, initial response or reaction to that?

I guess I'll try to keep that short, but it's kind of a long winded response. So when I read the reports of the CSOs, I'm I'm not there on scene. I'm not on the call. So I have to go off of what their report is and what their conclusion is to their investigation. So I read the report, I watch the Axon videos, and I look at any pictures that are associated with it.

In this case, with the incident with Chewy, I read CSO Yang's report, read the injuries, looked at the pictures, saw the severity of the wounds, and then read in the report that there was no witness to what led up to the attack, and at the bottom of the report read that it was cleared with provocation. So as the lead, my responsibility is to go, okay, do the elements of this report and all the evidence that they have found, does it add up to their conclusion at the end? And then when I looked at the evidence that was given in the report, the pictures that were associated with this investigation, and then the conclusion that it wasn't provoked, my training and experience as the lead and humane officer led me to believe otherwise.

What did you believe was missing for the conclusion that it was provoked to

be valid? So when we do these investigations, whether it's provoked or unprovoked, we look for cause. Like what could have caused this bite or attack or actions of the animal to happen. And as I was looking in the report, it was stated there was no sound recorded. Nobody heard the dog whimper. Nobody heard the dog growl. Nobody heard the dog bark. Okay? There's no signs of pre attack. We also have a report that said that nobody saw any acts of taunting or teasing.

Nobody said I hit the dog. I saw I saw them hit the dog. In fact, when I watched the acts on video, with CSO Yang's acts on video, when he was interviewing the older son, the son said I didn't see And then when you go further into the investigation, you see that, well, he did see the son fall back. I'm sorry, I apologize. His younger brother fall back. So he was able to see what was happening in the room, but he did not see any acts of taunting or teasing. So that's what I was looking for. We were looking for that provocation. We're looking for that unknown stimulus that would cause a level of reaction that Chewy did to Tucker. And that just wasn't there.

There was information about past behaviors with the dog, correct?

Correct, there was.

There was information about, I guess, conjecture that something would have happened, correct?

Correct.

Yep.

But there was no indication that those events that were being conjectured had actually occurred. Is that fair to say? Correct. Okay. When you make an initial review, are you locked into your decision at that point? Point?

In general, the CSOs of

Let me back up. You read the report and your initial assessment is that there's no evidence of provocation.

Correct.

At that point, is your mind closed to new information if it comes to you?

Oh, no. No. Absolutely. We're we're used to getting new types of information that come on in that can sway a judgment one way or the other. Like evidence is evidence. So if it comes on in, we'll take it, we'll analyze it, we'll put it on into the investigation, and then we'll go from there.

Is it ever your desire to find an attack to be unprovoked? No. Why is that?

I have many responsibilities in Stalin and as the humane officer, and one of them is the dangerous animal declarations if it raises to a level of severity and meets our ordinances and the codes. And that process is difficult sometimes for the people involved, the pet owners, the victims, and the city for everything that we have to do. And it's something that I will do, but the process is sometimes difficult for everybody. So I'm always hoping that there's a reason for an animal's actions that are leading it to get to my desk. But unfortunately, in this case, from the evidence that has been given to me, there's just not enough evidence to say that this is provoked.

So let's go back to right after your initial assessment or your initial review, I should say. You complete that review, you have your initial thought process. What did you do or what's your next step in the process? Who do you reach out to? Who do you talk to?

So, I mean, it changes, but I can I've reached out to the city attorneys before. I've reached out to my captain before. I've pulled up the information. I'll storyboard it on my board. I'll look for anything that can prove that it's this or anything that I can approve it's that. And in this case, for this instance, there just wasn't anything to show me due to the testimony of Noah in the room that stated that this was provoked. So the next step is usually to call the pet owner and have a conversation with them. Oh, this is what this is what my decision is going to be on behalf of the city, and that we are gonna go forward with a dangerous animal declaration.

Did you make that phone call to Steven in this case?

I did.

When you did that, did you end up explaining kind of what your what the facts you were relying on at that point, what they were?

Yep. To the best of my ability.

At at some point in your discussion with Steven, did you say when you're when you're reciting the facts, did you end up saying some things or a thing that was ultimately incorrect or that he corrected you on?

Yep. So he did. He did a very good job of that. So when I read through a report, I'll paraphrase certain parts of it. And I had mentioned that Tucker was sleeping on the floor. He was not sleeping on the floor. Was the son was on the bed laying down in CSO Yang's report. So it was a quick, just a quick mix up of who was where in the room.

Let me stop you there. When he corrected you, what did you do with that information?

Oh, I just re pulled up the report which was right in front of me, which I pulled it up in our Spillman program and just read the report to him just to verify that that was correct.

So you went through the report more directly with him?

Yep. Yeah. Instead of just paraphrasing.

Because you wanted to make sure you had the information correct.

Correct.

So when he provided you that information, you verified that he was correct about it? Yep. At some point, did he give you any additional explanation for what had occurred?

We touched on the previous history of what's been going on at the house with his son and the family dog, Chewy.

And and that's referring to the the past history of

Yeah. The past history of Tucker hitting the dog, chasing after the dog But, ultimately pulling

in his ear. Ultimately, there was no additional information about what occurred on that particular occasion. Is that fair to say?

Correct.

At some point, did you explain the potential citation and dangerous animal declaration process to

Yep. And I can't remember if it was the first phone call or the second phone call. So if you can remember, just let remind me. But did talk about, you know, if it's an unprovoked, it's the city's policy that we write tickets for it. So we went over to explain the tickets. I started to talk about the dangerous animal declaration, what it actually means, and then what can kind of happen going forward, what we've done previously in the past as well.

As you're initially going through this information or going through this phone call with with him, did he provide any information about his intent with the dog?

During my conversation with him, he brought up the fact that he was thinking of rehoming him, which is fine. He can rehome Chewy. It was also brought up originally, I think, in CSO Yang's report that they were thinking of euthanizing Chewy, which is fine too. That's their choice. So certain decisions were talked about of how they wanted or what they might do.

Do those decisions on whether or not to re home or euthanize sometimes impact your decisions as far as enforcement action?

Yeah, it does. Historically, we won't cite if the animal is euthanized. There's no need to do any type of more enforcement if the animal is euthanized. We just we won't we won't do it. If the animal is rehomed, which is fine, we'll still go through with the tickets and the declaration because that declaration has to stick with the animal for the next family. Because if we're saying it's dangerous and they wanna rehome it, which is fine, we have to protect that family too as well from the actions of Chewy that we have decided to be as a dangerous animal.

Were these things you explained or at least attempted to explain to Mr. Jenkins?

Yep.

At some point after that conversation I think that's as far into that conversation. I think it's worth going at this point. But at some point after that conversation, did you end up getting additional information from Mr. Jenkins, specifically referring to the appeal of your dangerous animal declaration?

I did. Mr. Jenkins did appeal, which is great. That's what the system is here for. And then I got a copy of that appeal, and then in the copy of the appeal there was a line from Mr.

Jenkins that stated that there is evidence from his son that through peripheral vision he saw Tucker punch Chewy. And so with that new information, to be honest, I was like, that could that would be provocation if you punch a dog in the face. Let's do a non biased, non me interview with the witness. Like, let's just keep it clean and I'll so I asked officer Martinez if he could do an interview to verify that statement that was in the the letter that mister Jenkins sent.

So you asked officer Martinez to follow-up on the information that Mr. Jenkins provided to you. Is that right?

Correct.

Because you wanted the truth?

Yes.

And I think you indicated previously that if it's unprovoked, that makes things or if it's provoked Yeah.

Provoked, it I mean, it's sad that this event happened, and I can't change that. It's sad that they have to have medical bills and anything else that goes with these types of situations. But if it's provoked, then we can't declare it as a dangerous animal, nor would we write tickets because it's provoked.

I should ask this. At some point during your initial conversation with Mr. Jenkins, did you ask him about the severity of Tucker's injuries?

Yep. We touched on it.

What did he indicate to you as far as the severity of the injuries?

Mister Jenkins did tell me that that Tucker did need stitches. I I I don't know how many, but I know that there were stitches that were needed.

What's the significance of the stitches in your experience?

What's the significance of stitches? Well, any wound that usually leaves in stitches is usually a severe bite. Over the years as the humane officer and lead CSO, I've seen many bites. I've seen scratches, I've seen bruises, I've seen nips, I've seen small puncture wounds, and then we've seen wounds that have led to the severity of stitches, and this, unfortunately, was one of them.

During the course of the investigations that occurred in this incident, and this refers to everybody who was involved, have you ever been provided any information other than in the appeal from Mr. Jenkins? Any documentation that anybody saw Tucker tease Chewy?

Leading up to the bite or previous inter

In the incident of the bite?

No. Nobody had any evidence that shows there was teasing happening at the time of the bite.

During the incident of the bite, did anybody provide information that Tucker hit Chewy?

Nobody saw the way. I'm sorry. Repeat that question.

For the incident of the bite, did anybody provide an account of Tucker hitting Chewy, either seeing it or hearing it?

In the initial letter that was sent, it was quoted as there was a witness that saw through peripheral vision Tucker hitting Chewy.

And that was the witness that officer Martinez interviewed later to follow-up on?

Correct.

Okay. Other than that letter, did anybody provide information that they saw or heard anybody abuse and I'm just gonna lump it all in together. Abuse, taunt, assault, or otherwise provoke Chewy?

Nobody provided that to me.

The one information the one piece of information that you had that indicated that on that occasion somebody had done something to provoke Chewy was the letter provided by Mr. Jenkins. Is that correct? Correct.

And that's when we acted on.

And officer Martinez followed up on that information. Correct?

Correct, sir.

And during the course of that interview, no indicated that he did not see or hear anything himself.

That is correct.

That's the information you ultimately have to go on?

Yep. That's what I based my, declaration off of.

Had Noah indicated that he saw or heard Tucker strike, abuse, taunt, or otherwise abuse Chewy, would that have changed your assessment? Yeah. How so?

Well, that would have been evidence of provocation. And I can't say 100% that it would have swayed it all the way. It would have to have been to a level to justify the wounds that he received. I mean, this is the family dog, and there is a history of Tucker acting not how he should with the family dog. So it's not an unknown stimulus.

I think even in the report it states that they are aware of this, and Chewy usually runs away. So it would have had to have risen to a level of provocation that caused those types of wounds to help it get pushed over to a provoked, which it would have helped. It would have opened up the case more for us to investigate. But what we have right now, which is nothing, it's unprovoked.

Beyond the conjecture, there isn't anything indicating provocation. Is that fair to say?

Correct.

That's all I have.

Okay. So questions? Did you have one? Mayor Woodford, we'll start on this side and we'll go now.

Humane Officer Philip Brown, under the relevant codes and statutes, does the severity of injury have any bearing on whether an attack is considered provoked or unprovoked?

Only when it comes to, I want to say, the prohibited decoration, when an animal is killed. It just has to be an unprovoked attack causing injury. If I'm remembering right from the ordinances, if anybody can verify that. But there is nothing that states that it needs to have stitches to be a dangerous animal. Did that answer your question, Mayor?

It did. Just a follow-up then. During your testimony, you indicated that you reviewed the reports that were submitted and that you also reviewed the photos including which demonstrated the severity of injury. And I just would like

to

understand how that has any bearing on your judgment as to the nature of the stimulus, whether there was a provocation or it was unprovoked, because you stated it in your testimony and it sounded, from your testimony, it sounded like that had some bearing on your determination, and I just want to make sure I understand that.

Yep. Nope, I can go into that a little bit more. So when I mention the word severity, that is the level of injuries that somebody can sustain. Like you can have a dog go bite somebody, leave a bruise, maybe not even a bruise, you can have a dog go bite somebody, and it's unprovoked, you're just walking on the street, and that's going to be an unprovoked attack. We are going to write a ticket and do everything else.

According to the code that we have here for dangerous animal declarations, any unprovoked attack could lead to a dangerous animal declaration. It could. Any dog that acts aggressively could lead to a dangerous animal declaration. There's no set number on there. It's kind of on my shoulders to put it all together and make sure we're following the code and make sure we're doing what we need to do that is appropriate.

When it comes to these declarations, I don't do them lightly. Like, I I I try not to have to go with this route. But when we have a family dog that caused injuries that needed stitches to a child, that according to the interviews and evidence and everything, we don't have evidence that shows that there was provocation for a bite, let alone a bite of this severity, it kind of helps weigh the importance of the dangerous animal declaration, as there is a lot more force that this dog has done than he could have. I don't know if I answered your question a lot. Long in the tooth, I apologize. I monologue a lot, so.

It does. Do think if I understand you correctly, though, the nature of the attack or the injuries or damage caused by an attack does not under the code have bearing on the determination of provocation or not?

Correct. Like it's not stated in the code. Correct. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

I just have one question.

Yep.

And that has to do with the pictures that were involved. In your estimation, do you or did you go to any medical person and ask if they thought it was one bite, two bites? Because I see scratches. I see multiple areas that were affected. So do you think in your do you have the ability to make that judgment? Or did you make a judgment on

That's a real good question. When I look at these bite pictures, you have to take into account the size of the victim, and you have to take into account the size of the dog, too. You also have to take in account to like where the dog can actually bite. How big was the mouth? What could have happened? To be honest, I was not there. I didn't see the bite. It looks like though, I mean judging at the pictures, that this was not a nip. This was a full on aggression bite. Whether it was two bites or one bite, I don't know if that matters judging by the statement.

I think it happened real quickly. I think whatever went through Chewy's head when he bit Tucker in the face, I think it was a bite fall back. If there is multiple scratches, that could have been from the dog the dog, I apologize from Tucker falling over backwards. If he's latched onto the face, it could lead into that. Could be one bite, could be two. It's tough to tell doing a forensics analysis at the And facial wounds, they bleed a lot. So what we know is that it's an unfortunate bite. It needed stitches and was on the face.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Alderperson Jones.

I have a couple questions. Yep. Just to kind of follow-up on the mayor's question, is there specific wording that once it hits a severity level of stitches or whatnot that it is called a mauling or some specific word. Did I read that somewhere?

Yeah. So I've been told I don't have a filter sometimes when I speak, which is a gift of mine and a curse sometimes. So when I was on the phone talking with the father, I mentioned the word mauling, because if an animal attacks somebody, it's just we have said it a billion times. That can be unsensitive sometimes. I can't go back in time and remove that. But there's nowhere in our code that states mauling, if that was

And I don't want to focus on that word. But I thought I had read somewhere that, you know, the threshold to severe attack or that extra level happens

So the Wisconsin state statute recognizes injury. There's like a whole bunch of things like bodily harm, severe bodily harm. I don't have it in front of me, but I'm paraphrasing.

That's where I would have

seen it. Paraphrasing again. But if a level of injury raises the stitches, then it's I think it's classified as severe bodily harm is what it is.

If I may to be clear, I think what's being referenced is the criminal code definitions within that which aren't directly applicable here, but I think Yep.

Correct.

Guideline or guiding wisdom is what's being referenced.

I just I understand this is a very difficult situation for everyone involved. It's very emotional, completely understandable that the formal statement defense against allegation of the unprovoked dog bite from the victim's parents. Again, there's just a lot of emotionally charged language in here, and I just want to make sure and confirm what's written in here from what we heard today. So by no means am I trying to call anyone out. I'm just trying to make sure.

Ask away.

So the okay. I don't know how to ask this. TJ, who was injured, had the opportunity to communicate with Officer Martinez. In the report said he wasn't using words. He is verbal, correct? He is able to communicate. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to confirm that.

Wait a minute. We are not questioning Mr. Jenkins right now? I So I would so that response can only be answered by the person who's the witness right now. So you can reserve that question for later on because we're not done with this yet. I just don't want to have it be that we're not following the correct procedures. So the questions that we're going to ask right now have to do with the testimony that we just heard or his interpretation of CSO Yang or Officer Martinez. That's what's on the thing right now, not the response from mister Jenkins. My next question I wanted to clear that up, so that's

why I asked that. I apologize. That's alright.

So I'm just trying to make sure we follow the correct procedures

as of my job. As of the most recent information, Noah had headphones on and was playing video games with friends. So if he had headphones on, TJ is not communicating what happened, potentially, there could have been a growl. There could have been a sound. It just wasn't heard necessarily. Is that fair to say?

Are you asking me if there was or if there was a possibility of him not seeing something?

I he said he's wearing headphones. And so my thought is, could there potentially have been a warning sign that Chewy had given, but it was just not heard?

I I can't say either way or because I I don't know what he can hear with him on, what he can't hear.

Okay. And then just to confirm, you had said that you read every report as the frontline supervisor. Yeah. So when it said you had inserted yourself into the situation, you were simply doing what you always do. This wasn't a special case. You you review all the reports.

Yep. Okay.

That's what I

We so we kind of touched on this earlier. You had made false statements. So you admitted that the child when we're asleep, you went through the report and corrected that, as you said.

Yeah. I yeah.

And then the sorry. I just gotta find my notes.

That's okay. Take your time. Or we can come back to you too and let miss Stone ask your questions.

You so okay. On the on the conversation with the victim's parents, It says here, Threatening manner giving ultimatums, including the dog to Chewy to be euthanized, issuing costly citations, permanently labeling Chewy as an aggressive animal, which comes with consequences. To be fair, whether or not how you delivered that, those are the consequences, that either the dog can be euthanized or these are the things that happen. Is that fair?

That is correct. We always tell them, this is what's going to happen. This is what can happen if you don't do it. These are the next steps. It's a yes.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

All right. And Ms. Thorn? No? Oh, I thought you had your hand up again. So you've gone like this, so I don't think you all right. Mayor Woodford has enough. And Kathleen, before I no, nothing from her.

All right.

JULIET Nothing? Okay.

JULIET Okay. Just want to be fair and let everyone Yeah. Have their chance.

Thank you, chair. So as I'm hearing the testimony and all of the testimony we've heard so far, there's a lot of conjecture, both on the part of the investigators but also on the part of the family. And so we're missing information. And it seems all of us are missing information. So my question to you, Humane Officer Philip Brown, is why should the board be compelled by your conjecture versus that of the families?

I can't tell the board how they should think or what conclusion they should come to. My job is hard, but in a way it's simple. We have the luxury of the law. So we'll do our investigation. We'll present the facts as best as we know it.

Like, this is what we know. And then when we have that, we just look at our ordinances. And we go, okay, if I don't have evidence for me that shows this, then I have to go here, and this is gonna be unprovoked. Because as of right now, I don't have enough to believe, as the humane officer, lead CSO, it's been doing this for twelve some years, that this was provoked at the time of the attack, that this was provoked. And then since I've made that decision, then we just go to these are the steps right there.

The great thing about how this is all panning out and how the system is that there is an opportunity for them to go against my decision. There's no anything in it from the police department standpoint to win or lose. We are just enforcing the ordinances and doing what we think is best for the people and the citizens of Appleton and for their son, that this dog poses a threat, and we are going to declare it dangerous. So that's just what our evidence has shown, and that's up to you guys what the evidence that they're going to show or talk about to make the decision, and we go from there.

And so just to maybe drill down a little bit more then on the question. Based on everything that's available to you as an investigator, could you succinctly summarize the key points that the key facts from your perspective that led you to make this declaration? I

can, Mira. I understand that question. I'll give you the quick bullet points. Quick bullet points are this. We have a family dog, and we have a young son. We have a statement that they can get along, and sometimes they don't get along. And there is undesirable behavior from the younger sons. Everybody has said that. We know that the history leading up to the attack, there has never been an attack. So we know that this is a known stimulus. He acts well sometimes, and he doesn't act well sometimes. The dog has done nothing. Nothing. It hasn't been recorded. No history of the dog ever doing this.

On the time of the attack, there is no witness that heard or saw, whether headphones or anything, but they were in the room, they were able to hear that he called for mom, they were able to see him fall backwards. There is no evidence that leads to a provocation of an attack of that severity. So with that evidence, it's unprovoked. And then if it's unprovoked, I'm going to move to dangerous animal due to the injuries that I saw that justify definition in the code. And if we're wrong, we're wrong. That's why we have the system here.

You done? Okay. And then, Mr. Jenkins, do you have any questions at this time?

Yes, ma'am. Just for my own curiosity, what is the level of training that you have in animal behavior? What is your background in understanding the way animals behave and similar circumstances?

So to be the humane officer, you got to go to a whole week of training to get certified for the state Of Wisconsin. And then every single, I want to say it's two years, I can't remember the ordinance number or the state number, I think it's like forty eight hours of continuous education that you have to prove, and then write in to the DAT cap of these are all the classes that I've taken on animal investigations, behavior, whatnot every two years, and then they give you your certification as the humane officer back. And then it's every single day of dealing with animal bites and dealing with animal captures and being a pet owner myself of 30 with dogs and kids too and throw it all together and that's what I got. Did that answer your question?

Yes. Thank you.

Okay. And is missus is that missus Jenkins? Does she wanna answer?

Is. I apologize. Didn't

No. No. That's fine. If she'd like to answer a question, the the the board will allow that.

Address the board, not him. Would

you call

Now I need you to speak into the microphone, though. Thank you very much. And for the record, you're Mrs. Jenkins, correct? I am. Thank you.

No problem. Every time that you called me and my husband has spoke with us, were all the calls recorded?

Yeah. They're on my recorded phone line, which has been provided to everybody here

as well.

So when you spoke to my husband and you said that earlier you said you explained the declaration of the ordinance to us, in your own words, what did you tell me of my husband?

In my own words, I could probably pull up the

I'm I'm gonna object to relevance at this point. That's not pertinent to the issue at hand.

And that you can ask that when you can do that on your own testimony if you'd like to, say things that that you thought you heard. So I I will agree with that because, we're talking about what his decision making process was. So if you would like to later on address how you felt at the time that you had that discussion, we can ask those questions then. How does that sound?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Any other questions for him? And that's fine. And and you can do that at at your own time too. When you're testifying, you can bring him up and ask him other questions if you'd like.

Is it possible that I have a moment to just read what my wife had written down just to make

sure that Sure. We're just gonna move on. Yep. And then at your time, when you, have that opportunity to be testifying to us, we can have you ask those questions of, of CSO Philip Brown. Does that sound good to everyone?

Thank you for working with us.

Is that a correct way to do it, attorney Glad? And I have one other question for you. Yep. In my history on this board, I think we've only had, like, six dangerous animals, I wanna say, since you've been in the last ten years where where we've had to have a hearing. Is that about right?

Six ish, seven ish?

Yeah. So just for the record, this is not something you look to try

No, I would rather not to be

happen. It is your responsibility Correct. Is it not to protect the citizens of Appleton?

That is. And the domesticated animals of of or any animal in the city of Appleton too. That is correct.

Okay. Thank you. Did you think of your question yet?

I am good, ma'am.

Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Attorney Glad? Attorney do you have any other questions? Attorney Erwin?

Berwyn, I'm sorry. No worries.

I guess one thing I want to follow-up on is just this idea of conjecture. Looking at the evidence, as you as you review cases like this, is it typical for you to rely on conjecture or speculation from third parties?

I'll listen to anything. Like, we'll gather all the type of information that we can, but we try to just use facts to base off of our decision. Like what are the elements of the case? Who, what, when, how, why, where? And then if we have all those that are solidified as facts of the case, that is what I use to go forward. Now it helps to have a full picture of everything that we'll put into it, But we will base everything, especially a case like this, off of the elements of what people are saying.

So in investigating, you're prioritizing facts. Correct. And in looking at this case and looking at the facts of this case, you found no facts that indicated provocation.

Correct. At this point, yes.

There

was conjecture that indicated that some people believed there was provocation, correct?

JAMES Correct.

JAMES But nothing to support that conjecture?

JAMES At this time, correct.

JAMES That's all.

JAMES Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, Mr. Mr. Jenkins has his question now.

Based off of that assumption, would it be fair to say that it's possibly conjecture to say that it was also unprovoked since we do not have facts to say that it went that way either based off of what you've been saying.

This isn't unprovoked. Did you mean to say provoked?

I apologize. Let me make sure I'm saying based It off of that gets confusing. Yeah. No. So based off of the fact that we are saying, and I think it's kind of agreed that there is a lot of conjecture and there is the understanding that there is not enough factual evidence to say this was provoked, do we have in your opinion, we have enough factual evidence to say that this is unprovoked? Is there anything that says that this couldn't have gone either way?

For my investigation, from where it is right now with all the evidence that we have, I am leaning to unprovoked. This is what I am going to base my decision off of, just the evidence at this time.

Based off of nobody seeing what happened?

Per what? Based off the bullet points that I listed before of what led up to it, the history of your son and the dog together, the history of them getting along, the history of them sometimes not getting along, and then when they don't get along, the history of him doing nothing. No report ever of an unprovoked or attack or anything, just ran away. So with all that history, all that information, all those facts of what everybody said leading up to the instance of the attack where nobody saw anything or heard anything in the room, when they did see things. They saw him fall back.

They heard him call for mom. So he was seeing and hearing things. There's nothing for me as the humane officer that makes me feel that this was provoked, that the injuries and I don't have my packet here. I'd show the you have the injuries right there in front of you. That leads to that this is what caused these injuries. So between you and me, I was hoping to hear that your son said that I saw him punch it, punch him right in the nose. But that's not the evidence that we have. So with that, I have a job to do, and this is my decision. Has nothing to do with you guys as parents. This is just the actions of the dog versus the child, and this is what the city is going to do.

That was a long answer. I apologize. I shouldn't have made that shorter.

But based off of the evidence that has been spoken of and has been acknowledged of him not doing anything or being escalated into into NIPS, which I do believe that I have made that statement that he has Chewy has done warning NIPS or just saying, like or a growl to say, hey. Stop. You're bothering me. I do believe that I have indicated that. And I do believe during our conversations that we that was discussed.

So I can go look in the voice recordings and take We a

also recorded the entire conversation. So I mean, were able to review it as well. I guess I just don't see how it can go one way or the other, but that is your provocative. That's all I

did. Did I answer the question? Did I answer the question for the board?

Mrs. Jenkins has a question, and again, speak into the microphone. Sorry. It's all right. I just we're recording all of this, so Yes, ma'am. Okay.

Do you think that you could possibly be wrong about this?

Nobody is ever a 100% on anything, but I feel with the evidence given to me that there is more for unprovoked than there is for provoked. That's just my decision, and that's just based off of my investigation and the years of doing this.

Okay. Have you ever been wrong?

Have I ever been in what category? Like my decision making? Yes. The board has overturned my decisions before.

Thank you. Yep. So me and Steve are the parents of Brandon and Noah or Noah and Tucker, right?

I think, yes. I've never met you.

So we would know them best. Correct.

Parents should know their child, yes.

And we do. So I feel like you're listening to some of the information, and then other information, you're blocking out. So when we know Noah, Noah is honest, and he's not coming

out and saying, oh, yeah.

This is what happened. He's innocent, and he's trying to do the best

he can.

Object at this point. This is testimony, not questioning.

That's true. This is something that you can ask if you give testimony because this you're asking a conjecture question versus you're stating facts to our committee or to our board. Yes, sir. So in a in a legal sense, what you're asking of the witness is a conjecture, whereas you can stand up here and tell us what you feel and what you think and how you think that you know best for your sons, if that's what I'm gathering Yes. Your question is. And that has nothing to do with CSO Philip Brow's decision making process.

Yes, ma'am.

So so you're asking him to say, if I'm reading this right, that you should be the ones deciding, not him. And that's your testimony to us, not his testimony to us.

Yes, ma'am. I apologize.

That's okay. So we're just gonna if you have a pertinent question to ask of what he testified to us to, that's fine. You can ask that at this time.

Yes, ma'am. Can my husband ask the question instead? Maybe he understands what I'm trying to ask. Did have a

question on that. He can ask that question. Go ahead, mister Jenkins, and then we'll we'll allow that and allow the attorney to overrule it if or ask for an objection.

Never mind. My husband That's okay. I apologize. I had

a question.

I just don't know how

to ask it. Right. And and you can think about it during your testimony part too if you're gonna testify to us. Yes, ma'am. Okay.

I believe we're good.

Okay. Any other questions for our witness? Okay. Thank you very much for

your Thank you, everybody.

Okay. Attorney Berwyn, any other witnesses?

No additional witnesses, just argument, once the presentation of evidence is complete.

Great. Okay. Mr. Jenkins, it's, you and your wife's time now to present any facts that you feel our board needs to know, any statements you'd like to make. We have a copy of your objection that you sent in to for your appeal process in front of us. So, if you'd like to step up to the microphone or if you'd like to call any witnesses, you may call them first if you'd like to and have them testify. You can do what you want. This is your opportunity to present to the board why you feel your animal's not dangerous.

Yes, ma'am. Again, forgive my ignorance. I would like to if Go ahead. He's going to call a

witness? Okay.

Yeah. If it's possible, I'd like to ask Ms. Vicki Pray to if she's willing to give her input based off of what she saw or or not saw, I apologize, but her observations of our daughter. If

she is one of your witnesses that you provided us information, so at this time if she'd like to testify to this board, we would welcome it. Welcome. Thank you. Okay. For the record, attorney Glad will, will do the honors of

State state your full state your full name and spell your last, please.

Vicky Pry, p r e y.

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

I do.

Ma'am, and I apologize if I caught you off guard. It's not my intention. Can you please elaborate on what you observed when we brought our dog Chewy into the Fox Valley Humane Society and your understanding of dog behavior and what your opinion would be based off of the what you have perceived through what has been said and what you have read, what your opinion is based off Achieve's behaviors. Sure.

Just a little background on myself. I too have been a humane officer since 2014 for Outagamie County. I also have thirty years of animal control experience with the village of Greenville, and I work as the shelter operations manager at Fox Valley Humane Association. I have worked there in multiple different roles, so have been involved in animal welfare and animal behavior for thirty plus years. Based on what we saw when Chewy came to the organization for his three observations as required by state statute, the first time Chewy came to us, he was very nervous, did not want to enter the building, showed no signs of aggression, just basically wanted to remove himself from an unfamiliar situation.

Once he was there and we talked with him, he calmed down. It takes a bit to do these observations and you also, because I've been doing these, all the rabies quarantines for the last ten years for Fox Valley Humane, I've become very interested and want to learn more about the behaviors and what goes into these bites and such. So once we finished that first observation, Chewy was fine during that time. Five days later, Chewy was brought in again and this time he entered the building more confidently. He wanted to approach.

Of course, being quarantined, he's not allowed to approach. So Mr. Jenkins did keep him close to him. He seemed very relaxed to be there during his ten or fifteen minutes that he was there for his observation. We got a little more information on the bite, and I was provided some pictures at that time also of the severity of the bite.

And when Chewy came in for his final observation, that has to be done by a veterinarian. We do veterinarians on staff. She was a new body in the picture, so Chewy he entered the building very confidently, went and sat immediately by Steve's side. When the vet approached for the final observation, he was a little nervous. He didn't know who she was.

But as she talked to him and she moved down to Duke because they have to do a physical observation also at the end, or a physical they have to actually put hands on, Chewy became very relaxed and finished up the exam and we were done with that. Based on the information, I have no factual, I have no I had not read any reports at this point. But based on the pictures that I saw and in my experience with these types of situations, I feel like the bite happened very quickly, as was stated. Whether it was provoked or not, I cannot absolutely say because I have no facts to bear that. However, the bite was probably one bite.

When the child pulled back, that's where you got the scratches from. It was one bite and there are multiple factors that could have contributed to the fact that in past Chewy has walked away, and this time he did not walk away. He may not have been able to flee. Dogs have two conditions, fight or flight. And this time, Chewy chose fight. I believe it was I believe it was just a reaction, a normal defensive reaction, and not out of aggression toward the child.

That's all I have, ma'am. Thank you.

So at this time, I'll allow attorney Berwind to ask any questions that he has of the witness.

So you say you can't say whether or not it's a provoked or unprovoked attack, but you feel it was a normal defensive reaction. Correct? Correct. Okay. You've never reviewed any of the reports?

I just last night. Okay. I reviewed reports.

The information that information you've gotten from the family. Correct?

And also from the police reports. So not you have Yes.

You said previously you had not reviewed the reports. Now you're saying you reviewed them last night. Correct. K. You observed this animal on three occasions? Correct. Ten to fifteen minutes each? Correct. You're not responsible for enforcement of Appleton City code, are

you? Correct.

You're not the city of Appleton's humane officer. Correct?