Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2026 - HEX Decision - Potentially Dangerous Dog -- Lynge Dangerous Dog Appeal p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Appellant: Mariah Lynge Dangerous Dog Appeal City of Renton Case No. 2025- 00009184 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION. INTRODUCTION Mariah Lynge appeals a dangerous dog declaration issued by the Renton Police Department for her Siberian Husky named Koby. The declaration is sustained. The Renton Police Department correctly designated Koby as a dangerous dog for killing a goat on October 23, 2025. ORAL TESTIMONY Ms. Lynge did not appear at her appeal hearing. Alex Tuttle, on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office, requested that Koby’s Dangerous Dog Declaration be sustained based upon the exhibits identified in the City’s Index of the Record. EXHIBITS All ten exhibits identified in the City’s Index of Record were admitted during the February 3, 2026 hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Appellant. The Appellant is Mariah Lynge, 16835 113th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055. 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a virtual hearing on the appeal on February 3, 2026. Ms. Lynge was emailed at the time of the hearing that she needed to be present. She had also noted in a January 16, 2026 email that the February 3, 2026 date worked for her. Ms. Lynge did not appear at the hearing. Substantive: Dangerous Dog Appeal p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. Attack Incident. On October 23, 2025 at approximately 8 am Sarchil R. Amin observed Koby with his mouth around the neck of a dead goat. Mr. Amin resided at the location of the incident, 11115 SE 168th St. Mr. Amin leashed Koby, placed him in an empty accessory building and called the Renton Police Department. Renton Police Officer C. Arnold responded to the call. Upon arrival at Mr. Amin’s residence at 11:43 am on the day of the incident, Officer Arnold observed the dead goat. He took photographs and noted that he observed bite marks around the goat’s neck. He also noted that the goat was recently deceased since it had excrement partially evacuating its bowels. Officer Arnold believed that if Koby had grabbed onto the goat after it had died that the excrement would have been shaken loose from the goat. Officer Arnold’s incident visit was recorded on his bodycam footage. That video footage, Ex. 7, shows Officer Arnold taking custody of Koby. Koby has a white face. The video shows no blood on his face. Koby cooperated with Officer Arnold and showed a friendly temperament. However, the pictures of the goat also do not show any significant amount of blood at the injury on the neck. The goat’s neck is also white. See Ex. 2-6. Ms. Lynge acknowledged that Koby was her dog when Officer Arnold called her to state that he had placed Koby in the Renton Kennels. She testified at the police department hearing on Koby’s declaration that she had checked Koby’s teeth, gums and breath and found nothing to suggest that Koby had bitten into a goat. 5. Prior Incident. Kossar Amin1 testified at the police department hearing that less than a year prior to the October 23, 2025 incident he had witnessed Koby biting into another goat at the Amin residence. Mr. Amin testified that he saw Koby “eating the inside of the goat from the back end.” That goat was dead when Mr. Amin got to it. Mr. Amin took custody of Koby. Mr. Amin called the Renton Police Department and the Department returned Koby to Ms. Lynge. 6. Koby Killed the Goat. As identified in Conclusion of Law No. 2 below, the City must prove its case by a preponderance of evidence (more probable than not). In this case it is clear from the evidence that Koby was biting into a dead goat on two separate occasions. The only questionable material fact is whether Koby killed the goat in the October 23, 2025 incident. It is conceivable that Koby for both incidents could have arrived at the scene after another animal or some other cause killed the goats. Ms. Lynge testified at the police hearing that in the three years prior Koby had only escaped from Ms. Lynge’s residents five times in the three years that she’s owned him. That means that if Koby didn’t kill the goats, half of the times he’s escaped from his residence he just happened to find a dead goat to bite into at the Amin residence. That is of course highly implausible. The preponderance of evidence establishes that Koby killed the goat on October 23, 2025. 1 It is difficult to tell from the police hearing transcript who was speaking. The testimony could have been from Rahim Amin instead of Kossar Amin. Dangerous Dog Appeal p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7. Koby was Not Provoked. Koby was not provoked into killing the goat. As shown in the photographs of the goat, the goat is significantly smaller than Koby. See Ex. 2- 6. The goat had no means to make Koby feel he was in danger. Although not addressed in this state, courts from other states have explicitly ruled that a dog’s reaction to provocation must be proportionate to avoid liability. Stroop v Day, 271 Mont. 314, 319 (1995); Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 244 Mich. App. 263, 273-275 (2001); Kirkham v. Will, 311 Ill. App. 3d 787, 792 (2000). Proportionality serves as a reasonable limitation to the provocation defense. Clearly dogs cannot be excused for killing other animals simply because they were barked or bleated at. The goat of this appeal is not found to have any means to reasonably provoke Koby to merit death. Koby is not found to have been provoked. 8. Dangerous Dog Declaration. Renton Police Commander issued a declaration declaring Koby a dangerous dog under the RMC 6.6.4 dangerous dog declaration for killing a goat on October 23, 2025. The declaration was issued on November 20 2025 after Commander Morris held a hearing on the potential declaration on November 11, 2025. Ms. Lynge and the owners of the goat allegedly killed by Koby were allowed to testify at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 6-6-9B5 grants the hearing examiner jurisdiction to hear appeals of potentially dangerous dog appeals. 2. Burden of Proof. The City must prove that the declaration under appeal was properly issued by a preponderance of evidence. See, RMC 6-6-9B3; Mansour v. King Cnty., 131 Wash. App. 255, 264, 128 P.3d 1241 (2006)(dogs in dangerous dog appeals held to be due process protected property interest that places burden of proof on City preponderance of evidence). Substantive: 3. Review Criteria. RMC 6-6-9B3 provides that a dog shall be declared potentially dangerous if more probably than not the dog qualifies as a dangerous dog. RMC 6-6- 4E defines a dangerous dog as follows: DANGEROUS DOG: Any dog that: … (b) kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner’s property, 4. Koby Qualifies as a Dangerous Dog. Koby qualifies as a dangerous dog under the definition quoted above because he killed a goat without provocation on October 23, 2025 as determined in Findings of Fact No. 6 and 7. Dangerous Dog Appeal p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECISION The appeal is denied. The potentially dangerous dog declaration issued by the City of Renton against Canelo on October 20, 2025 is affirmed. Dated this 11th day of March 2026. Renton Hearing Examiner