John Taft, Investigative Reporter

Oregon Observer

Strobezone, http://strobezone.homestead.com/

P .O. 172 Murphy, OR 97533

541 479-0645

May 2, 2001

 

 

 

 

Dear Commissioners:

I am requesting a full investigation of the alleged beating of a police dog, referred to by the name of Pico, in the Josephine County Jail, on or about April 5 th 2001. I would appreciate it if you would forward this letter to the appropriate department.

The following information is available:

  1. A police dog or dogs were taken down into the jail for training exercises, this Lt. Gordon Williams told me.
  2. The name of the reported dog handler is available upon request.
  3. The dog was reportedly abused or beaten in a jail cell for failing to follow a command.
  4. The dog was reportedly prodded with a stick or club, kicked, and hit with a hand or fist.
  5. There was reportedly blood in the cell. A spray bottle and rag were allegedly given to an inmate to clean up the blood spill. This inmate is said to be allergic to dogs.Later a mop and bucket were reportedly used in the cell for cleaning.
  6. Dennis Roller, Editor of the Daily Courier, told me Dave Daniel told him the dog in question had broken a tooth. This appears to be the reason for the blood in the cell.
  7. I asked Lt Williams if the dog had been taken to a vet for a check up for the alleged injury. Mr. Williams didn’t return my call. I asked Commissioner Haugen the same question. He was able to get the answer from Williams that the dog had not been taken to a veterinarian.

8. I contacted a former professional dog trainer and writer for Dog World and asked him whether a bleeding dog should have gone to a veterinarian. He replied, "Absolutely."

Trained police dogs are valuable animals costing several thousand dollars. It would be logical that they received the best of care. We know there was blood in the cell. This wasn’t denied. If the dog was beaten or abused, there would have been visible injures, on the dog. Visible injuries could be a possible reason not to have taken the dog to the vet. The vet would have been under a moral or ethical decision to report the alleged abuse to animal control. This would make the alleged incident public. The question is, why wasn’t a valuable police dog taken to the vet?

It appears there is enough information available that an animal control investigation should be launched. If the facts are verified then appropriate legal action should be taken. It’s alleged there were a number of witnesses to this dog incident, both inmates, law enforcement officers, and possibly others. Their names and the organization they represent should be obtained and they should be asked what they saw. If the allegations are verified it would be interesting to note that apparently no law enforcement officer present filed a complaint, charging questionable handling of the dog or animal abuse, a possible criminal charge.

The inmate in the cell where the blood was cleaned up should be interviewed. Other inmates there at the time should be questioned. The interviewers should keep in mind that inmates are often threatened with loss of commissary privileges, or isolation if they say anything publicly that would embarrass the jailers.

A vet should be asked if an injured tooth or other injury that allows blood to flow would pose a risk to the dog for bacterial infection. Would it be a normal precautionary procedure to take the dog to a vet under the stated conditions?

Sincerely,

 

John Taft