Questions Continue To Surface About Dog Ordinance

PROTECTED CONTENT

If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.

Username

Password

Login

Lost your password?

Username and Password Help

Please enter your email and we will send your username and password to you.

Email

Submit

← Back

WATER VALLEY –  County officials will take applications for a part-time dog catcher as part of continued efforts to address a vicious dog problem on County Road 224 and future occurrences in the county. The decision came at Monday’s supervisor meeting following discussion with the owners of a dog that was attacked and killed last month by a pack of vicious dogs owned by Sam and Phyllis Goodwin.

Monday’s meeting at the Water Valley courthouse ultimately turned into a continuation of discussion from a meeting a week earlier when Sam Goodwin addressed supervisors. Goodwin explained that a temporary enclosure had been constructed on his property to contain his dogs in order to comply with the county’s vicious dog ordinance. He also acknowledged that his dogs had tunneled out of the enclosure and plans were underway to build a permanent enclosure.

In response, Sandy Lott, Chestin Leard and Linda Robinson attended Monday’s meeting to report that the Goodwin’s dogs have been roaming the neighborhood at least twice after their owners signed paperwork acknowledging their dogs are vicious and are required be contained at all times. Speaking through tears midway through the meeting, Leard recalled how her dog was attacked and killed while trying to protect her young daughter in early November.

“It could have been so much worse,” Leard said about the attack.

“I called Ms. Lott and shared with her that we didn’t have an invitational meeting with the gentleman who owns the dogs,” Board President Cayce Washington explained before the ladies addressed the board. “Sandy still has a lot of concerns and we still have (Board Attorney) Shannon (Crow) working on some things for us. There are still some questions about the ordinance, too.”

Lott opened her remarks with gratitude for the work so far by supervisors and the sheriff’s department. Next she requested an update about a paperwork problem that hindered the sheriff’s department from prosecuting the owners of the dogs, an inquiry triggered from last week’s meeting.

Crow explained that in order to prosecute a person who violates the ordinance, the paperwork must include a signed affidavit.

“For some reason, the sheriff’s office did not have a form affidavit to criminally charge someone under this ordinance,” Crow explained.

Crow also noted that he had sent a sample affidavit to the sheriff last week, a form used by the City of Water Valley to prosecute someone who violates a city ordinance, as an example.

“To answer Ms. Lott’s question, the sheriff’s department didn’t have a tool to write a citation,” Washington said.

“Do they have that now?” Lott asked.

“I presume, I can’t speak for the sheriff,” Crow said.

“I think to answer your question, Sandy, these were some of the things that we wanted to discuss and make sure we have in place going forward. We had requested Shannon to go through some of these items last week,” Washington added.

“So you have formally updated whatever it is that you have with any changes?” Lott asked.

“We have not, we are here today to address that.” Washington said.

“To update the ordinance?” District 5 Supervisor Gaylon Gray asked.

“Not to update it, but to address these gaps – the affidavit,” Washington clarified.

“In my opinion it is a good ordinance, it just needs to be enforced,”  Gray noted.

“So what happened to the form that Phyllis (Goodwin) signed?” Lott asked.

“That would be the sheriff’s department,” Gray said.“What did she sign?”

“She signed an acknowledgment that she has 11 vicious dogs,” Lott explained.

“That is a form that is under the ordinance. According to the ordinance, when you make a complaint to the sheriff’s office that a dog is dangerous the ordinance gives the sheriff’s department three days to investigate that complaint. If the sheriff determines that the dog is dangerous, then the sheriff’s office is required to give the owner of that dog notice that their dog has been determined dangerous. That is what has happened,” Crow explained about the form signed by Goodwin.

But the problem, the lawyer continued, is that it takes another step to prosecute the matter in justice court.

“That form is just notice that the dog is dangerous and explains what the owner has to do,” Crow said. In accordance with the notice, the dog owner signs a form that they will  vaccinate the dog for rabies and  pay an annual registration fee to the county. Crow added that at that point, the ordinance also requires owner to keep the vicious dog in a proper enclosure.

“Then if the dog gets out, you are talking about a violation of this ordinance. The deputies could charge them and go to justice court to prosecute it criminally,” Crow continued.

Lott said she took a picture of the dogs out of the enclosure on Nov. 22, days after the owners had signed off on the paperwork acknowledging their dogs were vicious and were required to be in an enclosure.

“I called the sheriff’s department. (Sheriff) Jerimaine (Gooch) came out that night. By that time, Sam had put the dogs up,” Lott continued. “He had a conversation with Sam.”

Lott also told county officials that the dogs are not digging out of the enclosure, refuting the claim made a week earlier by Sam Goodwin who stated that the dogs had escaped from the enclosure.

“Eleven dogs don’t dig out in a matter of minutes, the gate is opened and the dogs are let out,” Lott added.

“So he put them up and just turned them right back out?” Gray asked.

“Correct,” Lott said, adding the next day, Nov. 23, all 11 dogs were out again.

“I took a picture of them, I called the sheriff’s department again,” Lott continued.

She also said the deputy had to blow the horn several times to get the dogs out of the middle of the road when he responded to her complaint on Nov. 23.

“What is it going to take. I told him (deputy) that I want him to go up there and arrest (Sam) him. He is in violation of the ordinance. At what point does he become responsible, that is what I want to know? If we don’t hold the dog owners that are irresponsible responsible for these acts, it is going to continue,” Lott stressed. “The lives of my grandchildren, my mother and my animals are important to me. And they would be to you if this was happening to you. I don’t know what else to say. I have begged, I was here three or four months ago. Cayce, you told me ‘Sandy, be patient with me. We are going to fix this, we realize you have a problem.’”

“Yes ma’am” Cayce said, acknowledging the earlier request from Lott to help remedy the problem.

“What is the county going to do because at this point, as far as I am concerned, everybody from A to Z is responsible. Because everybody from A to Z is aware of it and are doing nothing about it,” Lott continued. “I have gone to the sheriff’s department numerous times, I have come to you guys. I am involving every single, solitary soul I can. But at the end of the day I have to protect my family, my animals and my property.”

Lott also referenced a comment by Sam Goodwin during the Nov. 29 supervisor meeting when he questioned if his dogs would have to remain inside a fence, effectively a life sentence, for the remainder of their lives after they were defined as vicious.

“What about the dog that was killed that day protecting my granddaughter. That dog got life. What about my dogs that I had to put up a $4,000 fence for, who can’t ever be allowed outside a fence again on my property because of Sam’s dogs,” Lott said.

Input From Supervisors

“We followed through the ordinance for the ‘first offense’. But she goes home and the dogs are right back in her yard,” Washington said in acknowledgment of Lott’s concerns about repeated violations of the ordinance.

“That is when the ball was dropped, right there. Because he should have been charged with a second offense – not less than 15 days in jail, not more than 30 days. A fine of not less than $200, no more than $500. And removal of the dogs from the jurisdiction of Yalobusha County,” Gray replied.

Crow countered that it is not that simple.

“If you get a DUI today and bond out. And you get a DUI tomorrow, you are going to be charged with two first-offense DUIs. Because you can not get a second offense until you are convicted of the first,” Crow said.

“I got you, so it has got to go through justice court,” Gray said.

“The second offense can’t come until there is a first,” Crow reiterated. “That is the justice system of the United States.”

“The wheels turn slow,” Gray said.

“Guys I went to the sheriff’s department first. I came to you guys four months later. I know the judicial system moves slow, but not at a snail’s pace. It is time,” Lott countered.

“We already know that the dogs mauled an animal. We know per Sam’s statements last week that he has dogs that he can’t even catch. Whether he is letting them out or they are digging out, these ladies still can’t walk their child or grandchild in the yard for fear of getting mauled because the dogs are running loose,” Washington said.

Shelter and Dog Catcher Details

Following up from last week’s meeting, Washington reported that the City of Water Valley will allow the county to use their dog shelter. The city-owned structure has not been used in recent years after the city contracted with Second Chance Animal Alliance to house dogs impounded in the municipality.

“The other part of the equation, who is going to do it?” Washington asked about the task of physically capturing  dogs that are deemed vicious in accordance with the ordinance and are not restrained. “Whoever is going to do it needs to have the proper tools. I would say a dog box and a noose. I want to find out what y’alls thoughts are on that. Do we want to continue to allow the deputies to do that. Or do we want to advertise for someone to do it?” Washington continued.

“We can contract with someone as needed,” Gray said. “But it falls under the sheriff,” Gray said.

“We can change that in the ordinance,” Harris said about utilizing a dog catcher not employed by the sheriff’s department.

“If we catch those dogs out there on (County Road) 224, we probably aren’t going to need an officer for a long time. A lot of times people take care of their own problems,” Gray noted.

Short Term Solution

As a short-term solution, District 3 Supervisor Kenny Harmon volunteered to catch the vicious dogs on County Road 224 if they are reported running at-large again.

But Harmon’s offer triggered additional questions about how long the dogs would remain impounded. The question surfaced because five of the Goodwin’s dogs had been impounded in November and later released after an enclosure was constructed.

“If a dangerous dog is out, I think that the dog should be apprehended and then talk with the judge,” Crow recommended.

“Impound the dog and then talk with the judge,” Washington agreed as concerns were voiced about making sure the steps are done in accordance with the law.

“Why don’t we back him (Harmon) up on going out and getting those dogs. Then we put those dogs in the pound and figure out what the judge says before we release them. I say that we don’t release them anymore,” Harris recommended.

“We took an oath to protect the health and welfare of our county and that is what you are doing if you get those dogs off the street,” Gray agreed.

“And if we need to, we will have an emergency meeting if those dogs are impounded. But those dogs don’t leave that pound again until we talk to a judge,” Harris said.

The conversation then circled back to the affidavit as Lott questioned if the necessary paperwork is available to ensure that ordinance violators can be prosecuted in justice court going forward.

“For some reason or another, and I am not saying it is my fault, their fault, Lance’s (former sheriff Lance Humphreys) fault, Mark’s (former sheriff Mark D. Fulco) fault or Jerimaine’s fault, the sheriff’s department did not an affidavit to charge someone with this ordinance until last week when I sent it to them,” Crow answered. “I can’t answer for something at the sheriff’s office and they (supervisors can’t either,” the lawyer added about ensuring the affidavit is ready to be utilized.

“Who is going to follow up with the sheriff’s office to make sure that Jerimaine has this form and that it is valid from this point going forward?” Lott asked.

“We are getting into law enforcement here guys,” Crow cautioned in response.

“We are the legislative branch. Shannon has emailed it to them, they are supposed to have it now,” Gray added.

Supervisors then clarified that the dog catcher will work as a contract employee and will be paid per call. A unanimous vote followed to advertise for applicants for the position.