The Board of Health met 02/12/2025 and took up an appeal of a dangerous animal declaration for a black lab mix named Chewy who in an incident on 12/31/2024 attacked a child causing facial damage that required stitches to close. Police Humane Officer Matthew Fillebrown determined the attack to be unprovoked, and therefore, declared Chewy to be a dangerous animal subject to restrictions laid out in Appleton’s Municipal Code Section 3-132 which included requirements regarding insurance, neutering, registration, leashing, confinement, and signage.
Chewy’s owner, Steven Jenkins, appealed the decision and maintained that the attack was not unprovoked but was rather prompted by the actions of his 5 ½-year-old son, who suffered the attack after he hit the dog on the nose. During interviews with the police and in his written appeal he indicated that his son has been rough with Chewy in the past. In fact, the officer who initially investigated the attack noted in his report that the owner told him his son “will frequently bother Chewie to the point where the Chewie will nip back […] but in a defensive/reactive manner.”
The Board eventually voted to uphold the Dangerous Animal Declaration but removed two of the requirements set out in the Municipal Code, determining that Chewy did not need to be securely confined in a pen or kennel while indoors or in the yard and the owner did not need to display signs warning people that a dangerous animal was on the property.
Normally, I would have a transcript of the discussion available for download. In this case, the public portion of the meeting was over 2 hours long, and, while I have listened to it, I have not had the time to prepare a transcript. The video can, however, be viewed on the City of Appleton’s meeting page associated with this particular Board of Health meeting.
Additionally, all of the documents associated with the investigation and appeal can be downloaded below:
On 12/31/2024 Mr. Jenkin’s 5 ½ year old son was attacked by Chewy, the family dog. The responding officer, Community Service Officer Benjamin Yang, identified “approximately 7 total laceration wounds on his face. Three near the right eye (two above and one below left side of right eye), three scratches above the left eye, and one near the top left of his forehead.” CSO Yang believed Chewy bit the boy near his right eye and scratched him on the left side of his face.
The bite itself was not witnessed by anyone other than the 5-year-old boy himself. The boy, the boy’s older brother, and Chewy were in the older brother’s bedroom. The older brother was playing video games, and the lights were off.
CSO Yang spoke to the older brother over the phone on 12/31/2024 at which time, per the incident report, the older brother “stated he didn’t hear or see anything until after the bite occurred because the room lights were off.” The older brother indicated he thought maybe his brother and Chewy were playing, and after discussing the incident with Mr. Jenkins CSO Yang confirmed there was a high possibility that the boy had provoked Chewy.
Per Officer Fillebrown’s report after reviewing CSO Yang’s report and body camera footage, the older brother “said something to the effect of ‘I didn’t see the whole thing, but I saw [my brother] fall back and that’s all I saw.’” When asked if he had heard any sounds leading up to the attack, the older brother said no. CSO Yang asked him if he believed his brother had touched Chewy in a way that would lead him to bite him and the older brother said no.
During CSO Yang’s initial investigation, he also spoke with Mr. Jenkins who told him that his 5 ½ year old son has a history of hitting Chewy but that Chewy does a good job not reacting to these interactions. He said that his son had slugged Chewy in the past and that Chewy would run away until his son cornered him. Mr. Jenkins also told CSO Yang that his older son believed that during the incident on 12/31 his younger son had probably done something Chewy.
Officer Fillebrown talked with Mr. Jenkins over the phone on 01/03/2025. Per Officer Fillebrown, during that phone call, Mr. Jenkins again reiterated that his older son had told him that he thought his younger son had punched Chewy in the nose. Mr. Jenkins said that they had worked with their younger son to stop harassing Chewy and that in the past Chewy had run away.
On 01/24/2025 Officer Mitchell Martinez, a school resource officer, followed up at school with the older brother. During that interview, the older brother reiterated that he, his younger brother, and Chewy had been in his dark room. His brother had been talking to him but he had his headphones on so could not exactly hear what he was saying. He said that he saw his younger brother and the dog right in front of each other and, after that “kind of” saw his younger brother hit Chewy. Then his younger brother “fell back and ran to his mom.” He said his younger brother had pizza in his hand and was “probably” making fun of Chewy because he likes to do that, but regarding the boy making fun of the dog the older brother also said, “I don’t know if I actually saw it.” Ultimately, when Officer Martinez walked the older brother through the series of events, the older brother said that he did not see his brother raise the pizza up or tease Chewy and he did not see his brother punch the dog, but he said, “I think I saw him teasing him with the pizza.” Officer Martinez ended up confirming with the older brother that he saw his younger brother holding pizza and then the next thing he saw with his own two eyes was his younger brother fall back, hold his face, and run to his mom. Ultimately, he confirmed that he saw his brother fall backwards with the pizza but he did not see what caused the bite to happen.
Officer Martinez also tried to talk to the 5 ½ year old boy himself but he was not ready to open up about the situation.
Officer Fillebrown ended up determining that this was an unprovoked attack. Mr. Jenkins objected to this and felt that Officer Fillebrown had inserted himself into the investigation inappropriately by labelling the attack an unprovoked attack and overriding CSO Yang who was more inclined to think the attack had been provoked.
Officer Fillebrown explained to the Board of Health that the CSOs are the ones who respond to an incident, then in his capacity as the Humane Officer, he will review their reports, watch the body camera footage, look at any pictures that are associated with an incident, and then make a determination as to whether an attack was provoked or unprovoked.
In this particular case, although CSO Yang had concluded that the attack had been provoked, Officer Fillebrown’s training and experience as the lead Humane Officer led him to conclude differently. Whether an attack is provoked or unprovoked, they look for a cause that would have prompted the bite or attack. In this case he found it noteworthy that no sound was ever mentioned. Nobody heard the dog whimper, growl, or bark. There were no pre-attack signs. Additionally, nobody saw any acts of taunting or teasing. Nobody saw the boy hit the dog, nor did the boy say he hit the dog. In fact, the older brother specifically said he didn’t see anything. He saw his brother fall back but he did not see any acts of taunting or teasing or provocation prior to that.
Additionally, although interviews had provided information about past behavior and conjectures had been made about what had happened, there was no actual evidence or indication that what was being conjectured [i.e. that the boy had taunted or hit Chewy] had actually occurred.
If there had been evidence of provocation, that would have influenced Officer Fillebrown’s determination because if the attack was provoked the animal would not be able to be declared a dangerous animal. He did note that the provocation would need to rise to a level that justified the wounds the boy received because Chewy was a family dog and the boy had a history of not behaving as he ought to with Chewy so the boy’s actions were not an unknown stimulus. Additionally, Chewy typically ran away, so any act of provocation would need to rise to a level that would warrant the type of wounds that resulted from the attack. Judging by the pictures of the injuries he believed Chewy had not simply nipped the boy but did a full-on aggressive bite, though it was hard to tell if it was one bite or two.
Beyond that, at this point, there was no evidence of any provocation at all, merely speculation.
Mr. Jenkins attended the meeting and presented his case. He said that they had had Chewy for the last four years since his son who was attacked was a toddler. He spoke very highly of Chewy’s attitude and behavior and how safe he was around his children if he was not provoked. He said that the son who was bitten was the youngest of 4 boys and was very rambunctious with intrusive thoughts about the dog both prior to the attack and after the attack. After the attack, Mr. Jenkins personally witnessed an incident in which he was lying on a bed between his son and Chewy and his son reach over, grabbed Chewy’s ear, and rammed his finger into the dog’s ear.
Mr. Jenkins said that after the attack, they had kept Chewy and his son absolutely separated, and before the attack they had done everything they could to teach their son to treat Chewy with respect. They had never thought that Chewy would lash out or do anything to hurt him. Prior to the attack, they had witnessed Chewy run away from provocation or growl as a way to signal he wanted something to stop. Additionally, there was an incident Mr. Jenkins personally witnessed where his son hit Chewy and then Chewy nipped at his son to get him to stop.
He told the board that his older son had told him that prior to the attack he had seen his younger brother holding pizza and done something.
Mr. Jenkins believed the attack was provoked and he wanted the dangerous animal declaration overturned because they thought rehoming Chewy was probably the best option but a dangerous animal declaration would make that difficult.
He said that Chewy’s previous owner was interested in taking him back, but that man is in the military, lives in an RV, is often away for training, and is constantly moving so it would not be possible for him to meet the rules associated with having a dangerous animal.
The dynamics between Chewy and Mr. Jenkins’ youngest son was a cause of concern to at least some of the board members. Alderperson Vaya Jones (District 10) asked if there was a way to rescind the dangerous animal declaration while also placing stipulations on the animal, and she was told there was not.
The board had three options (1) to overturn the dangerous animal declaration, (2) uphold the dangerous animal declaration, or (3) uphold the dangerous animal declaration but remove some of requirements laid out in the Municipal Code for a dangerous animal.
The Board of Health deliberated on the matter in closed session. When they returned from closed session, they presented their determination.
They decided the uphold the dangerous animal declaration against Chewy. Chairperson Cathy Spears indicated they did this because there was no evidence that the attack had been a provoked attacked or that the provocation justified lunging at and biting a child. In that case, they had no proof that such an attack could not happen against another member of the family or someone else in the community.
Mayor Woodford noted that in the case of an appeal the burden was on the person making the appeal to clearly demonstrate why the declaration was erroneous. While the testimony that had been given was helpful in providing more context, it did not provide enough information for the board to override Officer Fillebrown’s determination that Chewy was a dangerous animal. He stressed that this determination was not statement about the dog or about the care the family was providing, and he stated, “I do believe that everyone’s acting in good faith and trying to trying to work together to move forward.”
Although the board did uphold the dangerous animal declaration, they decided to remove two of the requirements laid out in the Municipal Code for the proper harboring of dangerous animals.
The code requires that when not leashed and muzzled dangerous animals shall be securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel located on the premises. Additionally, the code requires that the owner or caretaker of a dangerous animal shall display in prominent places near all entrances to the premises signs warning that there is a dangerous animal on the property.
They did leave in place the requirements for Chewy to be registered with the city, leashed and muzzled when required, and neutered and that the owners obtain liability insurance in an amount not less than $1 million for any personal injuries inflicted by Chewy.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1267783&GUID=1DC4FCE7-2620-4BFB-9CE5-4C57FAA90886
Be the first to reply