Judge Mark Clarke, of U.S. District Court, in Medford, issued an opinion Monday recommending a ruling in the county’s favor on the grounds officials acted within the law during the seizure.
Plaintiffs Mike Rawson (aka Michael Lee Rawson, Michael Rawson) and Roxanna Fragassi (aka Roxana Maria Fragassi, Roxanna Maria Fragassi) filed separate suits in August of last year seeking $500,000 each for what they claimed was the unlawful seizure of their pit bull, Buster, on Jan. 6, 2015.
A neighbor had complained the day before that Buster entered his property and growled and charged at him. The victim identified Buster as the animal in question through a picture of the dog on file with animal control.
Rawson and Fragassi claimed Buster could not have been the offending dog and said the animal had been with them at the time of the incident.
They also said Buster could not be seized due to his status as a service animal, though the plaintiffs admitted to registering Buster as a service dog through a commercial website after he was seized.
| Service dog status disputed In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim Fragassi has suffered due to lack of access to her service animal, with court documents indicating Buster helped Fragassi with stability and balance issues, as well as with opening doors. “The injury that this has caused me and my family is far-reaching and costly, not just monetarily but the stress causes my condition to worsen,” said Fragassi in her complaint. “My dog had me up and moving and doing again.” During a previous interview July 29 regarding his department’s policies on service animals, Nielsen said a dog’s ability to assist a disabled person is irrelevant to a dangerous dog investigation, saying his officers focus on the allegations against the dog and not its potential ADA status. “The fact that it is a service animal would not matter,” said Nielsen of enforcing local and state ordinances, adding it is his experience a trained service animal would not typically be the subject of a dangerous dog complaint. Fragassi and Rawson contend authorities do not see Buster as a legitimate service animal, and have cited in their complaints personal conversations with animal control officers allegedly referring to Buster as a “so-called assistance dog.” When interviewed Tuesday, Rawson said Buster is a service dog because he “decided to be a service dog” by helping Fragassi with her mobility, adding they officially certified the pit bull through the for-profit National Service Animal Registry after his seizure, hoping to bolster their defense against the county. |
Clarke said the only matter at issue was whether or not Assistant Animal Control Officer Gale McMahon had lawful grounds to seize Buster and said, based on evidence submitted by both parties, McMahon did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights.
“Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because defendant McMahon had probable cause to believe that Buster was a dangerous dog,” said Clarke. “Therefore the seizure was lawful.”
“Whether or not Buster was actually guilty of those allegations does not change the fact that defendant McMahon could have reasonably believed there was probable cause,” Clarke continued.
Clarke went on to describe how Buster had “a long history of complaints” including “two previous convictions as a potentially dangerous dog.” After the second conviction, Rawson, as the registered owner of Buster, was warned Buster would be impounded and potentially euthanized upon a third conviction, said Clarke.
Third decision
This is the third time a judge has sided with Klamath County in the plaintiff’s challenges regarding Buster’s seizure.
Shortly after the dog was impounded, Rawson and Fragassi fought the decision in Klamath County Circuit Court, but Judge Dan Bunch ruled June 30, 2015, McMahon had probable cause to impound Buster and did so lawfully.
Fragassi also filed a petition Sept. 8, 2015, against the Klamath County Board of Commissioners and asked the court to force commissioners to investigate McMahon for wrongdoing. Judge Roxanne Osborne ruled April 8 Fragassi did not have grounds to file the request and said such an investigation is under the county’s discretion.
No other civil matters are pending regarding the seizure of Buster.
The dog was released from impound last September after the dismissal of charges against Rawson of maintaining a dangerous dog and reckless endangering. Prosecutors said the victim was unavailable for trial and they intended to re-file charges.
However Rawson and Fragassi SAY they gave the pit bull away "to a friend", according to court records, but animal control has been unable to locate the dog.
Imagine that! They hid the dog. Why doesn't the judge hold them in a jail cell for contempt until they admit where they're hiding it?
Service Dog Certification -- Spotting Fake Certification/Registration/ID
BE WARNED: when you see a fake certification, it is a STRONG indication that the dog is not a legitimate service dog. People with legitimate service dogs tend to be familiar with laws and know that certification is not required so long as the dog meets the legal definition. Those who purchase fake certification do so because they, or those they encounter, doubt their dog's real status and it is easier to purchase a fake document than to actually get their dog properly trained and evaluated by an expert.
Examples of certification/registration/ID for a fee schemes:
SARA (Service Animal Registry of America)
USARplus (United Service Animal Registry)
Goldstar German Shepherds
SDA (Service Dogs America)
Registered Service Dog
SDCA (Service Dog Certification of America, aka Certify My Dog)
NSAR (National Service Animal Registry)
American Service Dogs
Service Dog ID
Certified Service Dog
National Association of Service Dogs
Service Dog Tags, aka emotionalsupportanimals.org
Free My Paws
CRTASA (Canadian Registry of Therapy Animals and Service Animals)
USSDR (United States Service Dog Registry) - registration is free, but they also sell official looking certificates and ID
emosdogtags
registermyserviceanimal
Official Service Dog Registry (don't let the name fool you-- there's nothing "official" about them, plus they are copyright thieves and stole copyrighted material from this very site)
Service Dog Kits aka servicedogkits (this site appears to be owned by the same people who own the so-called "official" registry above because I guess one scam site just isn't enough. They stole the same material from us as their "official" cohorts.)
Note: Not a single service listed above tests the dogs they certify, register, or ID. They do nothing to verify the dog's training or the owner's disability. All that is required is that the purchaser fill out a form with the information for the certificate and where to mail it, and include payment ranging from $35 to over $200 depending on the package being purchased.
(Herald and News - Aug 26, 2016)
Earlier:
