Hearing Examiner Decision Scraps Case No. 2009-0337 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
In the matter of an appeal concerning "Boss", a male )
Pit Bull terrier breed dog; to determine whether such )
dog is "dangerous" under Section 7.30.035 of the ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
) AND DECISION
Appellant/Owner: Nicholas Blake )
SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 )
This matter coming on for hearing before Michael C. Dempsey, Hearing Examiner for the
City of Spokane Valley, for a "dangerous" dog appeal hearing held in the above file on July 28,
2011, under Section 7.30.040 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); and the Hearing
Examiner considering the testimony and documents submitted by the Spokane County Regional
Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS), and appellant Nicholas Blake; and finding good cause
therefore, based on a preponderance of the evidence, hereby makes the following Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural Background
1. On July 1, 2009, SCRAPS declared "Boss", a male, neutered, red-and-white colored, Pit
Bull terrier breed dog; owned and kept by Nicholas Blake; to be a "potentially dangerous dog"
under SVMC 7.30.040; in SCRAPS Case No. 2009-0337. See photos of"Boss" in record.
2. The potentially dangerous dog determination was based on "Boss" running out into the
street on Sundown Drive on July 1, 2009, from the residence of Nicholas Blake; and twice
charging at a jogger passing by along the opposite side of Sundown Drive.
3. The potentially dangerous declaration required Nicholas Blake to either erect new or
additional fencing to keep the dog within Blake's property; or keep the dog indoors at all times,
except when on a leash adequate to control the dog and under the actual physical control of a
competent person at least 15 years of age.
4. On July 1, 2009, a copy of the potentially dangerous dog declaration was mailed to
Nicholas Blake by regular mail, at his residence address located at 11222 E. Sundown, Spokane
Valley, WA. See certificate of service dated 7-1-09. Blake did not request an administrative
review of the declaration, which rendered the potentially dangerous dog declaration final. See
SVMC 7.30.040(C)(2)
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 1
5. On December 8, 2010, SCRAPS again declared "Boss" to be a "potentially dangerous
dog" declaration. This was based on an incident that occurred on December 16, 2010; when
"Boss" jumped the chain link fence in the backyard of the Blake property, came into the front
yard of the adjoining property to the west owned by Donald Perry, and barked and snarled at
Perry while Perry was on the front step of his residence. "Boss" then ran over to the back fence
of the Blake property,jumped over the fence, and returned to the backyard of the property. See
Affidavit submitted by Officer Ashley Brown on 12-21-10, and testimony of Donald Perry
6. A copy of the 2nd potentially dangerous dog declaration was mailed to Nicholas Blake on
December 8, 2010, by regular mail. The declaration required Blake to keep "Boss" indoors at all
times, except when on a leash adequate to control the dog and under the actual physical control
of a competent person at least 15 years of age. See certificate of service dated 12-18-10.
7. Nicholas Blake did not timely request an administrative review of the 2nd declaration of
potentially dangerous dog issued by SCRAPS. SVMC 7.30.040(C)(2), together with SVMC
7.30.040(A) required the request to be filed with SCRAPS within 15 days of the date the
declaration was mailed by regular mail on December 16, 2010, plus an additional three (3) days
added for service by mail, i.e. by no later than January 3, 2011.
8. The failure of Nicholas Blake to timely request an administrative review of the 2nd
declaration of potentially dangerous dog rendered such declaration final, and precluded any
appeal of the declaration by Blake. See SVMC 7.30.040(C)(3).
9. On January 21, 2011, Nicholas Blake submitted a request for an administrative review of
the 2nd potentially dangerous dog declaration. On January 24, 2011, SCRAPS properly found the
request to be untimely. See potentially dangerous dog administrative review status dated 1-24-
11.
10. On June 21, 2011, SCRAPS issued a preliminary determination that "Boss" was a
"dangerous dog", under the definition of"dangerous dog" set forth in Section 5.04.020(8) of the
Spokane County Code (SCC), as incorporated by reference in SVMC 7.30.010(A) and SVMC
7.30.035(A). The preliminary determination was based on an altercation that occurred on June
19, 2011, between "Boss" and two (2) children and their dogs; and the previous potentially
dangerous dog declaration(s) regarding "Boss" issued by SCRAPS.
11. On June 21, 2011, the preliminary dangerous dog declaration was personally delivered to
the Blake residence. The preliminary determination notified Nicholas Blake of an administrative
review meeting to be held on the declaration on June 27, 2011. See SVMC 7.30.035(A).
12. On June 27, 2011, Nancy Hill, the Director of SCRAPS, held an administrative review
meeting with Nicholas Blake regarding the dangerous dog declaration; which meeting was timely
held under SVMC 7.30.035.
13. On June 28, 2011, Director Hill issued a final determination (order) upholding the
dangerous dog declaration; and mailed a copy of the order to Blake on the same day, by regular
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 2
mail. See final determination (order) dated 6-28-11, and p. 4 of report prepared by SCRAPS in
Case No. 2011-0316 for July 21, 2011 appeal hearing ("Case Report).
14. On July 14, 2011, Nancy Hill personally served a copy of the final dangerous dog
determination (order) on Nicholas Blake, because it had not been mailed to Blake by certified
mail as required by SVMC 7.30.035(C)(3).
15. On July 14, 2011, Nicholas Blake timely appealed the final dangerous dog determination
(order) to the Hearing Examiner.
16. On July 15, 2011, SCRAPS provided timely written notice of an appeal hearing to be held
on July 21, 2011 to Nicholas Blake; by regular mail. On July 21, 2011, the Hearing Examiner
continued the appeal hearing on the record to July 28, 2011; due to the unavailability of Grant
Person, a key witness for SCRAPS.
17. On July 28, 2011, the Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the appeal. The
following persons testified at the hearing:
Nancy Hill, Director Officer Francisca Rapier
SCRAPS SCRAPS
2521 N. Flora 2521 N. Flora
Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Spokane, WA 99216
Nicholas and Brooke Blake Christine Blake
11222 E. Sundown Drive E. 11222 Sundown Drive
Spokane, WA 99260 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Grant Person Nichole Springer(Shaine)
11219 E. Sundown Drive 19011 E .Marietta Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Otis Orchards, WA 99027
Chris Huck Donald Perry and Peggy Anderson
10716 E. 46th Avenue 11219 E. Sundown Drive
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Spokane Valley, WA 99206
18. Christine Blake is the mother of Nicholas Blake. Nicole Springer is the sister of Nicholas
Blake. Chris Huck is a friend of Nicholas Blake.
19. Grant Person lives directly across Sundown Drive from the Blake residence, to the north
and northwest. Donald Perry and Peggy Anderson reside directly west of the Blake residence,
along the south side of Sundown Drive.
20. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of, and includes in the record by reference, Chapter
7.30 (Animal Regulations), Chapter 18.20 (Hearing Examiner), and Appendix B (Hearing
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 3
Examiner Scheduling Rules and Rules of Conduct) of the SVMC; and Chapter 5.04 of the
Spokane County Code (as amended by County Resolution No. 2010-1026).
21. The record includes the SCRAPS case report, and attachments, in Case No. 2011-0316;
and the other reports and documents submitted by SCRAPS pertaining to the previous potentially
dangerous dog declarations regarding "Boss", and other incidents involving "Boss" reported to
and investigated by SCRAPS. A copy of such documents was provided to Nicholas Blake and
the Hearing Examiner before the July 21, 2011 continuance hearing.
22. The record includes the electronic recordings of the July 21, 2011 continuance hearing, and
the July 28, 2011 appeal hearing; and the sign-in sheets completed by the persons attending such
proceedings.
23. The following exhibits were admitted at the appeal hearing, and are included in the record:
Exhibit 1: Photo of Blake property taken by Nicholas Blake on July 27, 2011; from
edge of Sundown Drive next to driveway of residence of Grant Person.
Exhibit 2: Photos of"Boss"with Blake family members and cat.
Exhibit 3: Diagram of views of scene at Blake property from Person property.
24. Exhibits 1 and 2 were submitted by Nicholas Blake. Exhibit 3 was submitted by SCRAPS.
25. SVMC 7.30.010 adopts by reference the definitions and other provisions set forth in the
current version of SCC Chapter 5.04 for dangerous dog determinations, and potentially
dangerous dog determinations; except the individual appeal processes described for such
determinations, which are set forth in detail in SVMC Chapter 7.30.
26. The last relevant amendments to SCC Chapter 5.04 were made on December 15, 2009,
pursuant to County Ordinance No. 09-1146. Minor amendments were made to SCC Chapter
5.04 in 2010, regarding the fees charged by SCRAPS. SVMC Chapter 7.30 was last amended in
2008, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 08-001.
27. Nicholas Blake contended at the hearing that the "potentially dangerous dog"
determination(s) previously issued by SCRAPS were invalid, because they were only served by
regular mail, and not certified mail. However, SVMC 7.30.040(A) requires such determinations
to be provided to the dog owner by either regular mail or personal delivery.
Relevant Code Provisions
28. SCC 5.04.020 of the Spokane County Code (SCC) defines "dangerous dog" as follows:
"Dangerous dog" means any dog that: (a) inflicts severe injury or multiple bites
on a human being without provocation on public or private property, (b) inflicts
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 4
severe injury, multiple bites, or kills an animal without provocation while the dog
is off the owner's or keeper's property, or cLhas previously been found to be
potentially dangerous, the owner of keeper having received notice of such and the
dog again aggressively bites, attacks. or endangers the safety of humans or
animals. If two or more dogs jointly engage in any conduct described in this
subsection, thereby rendering proof of the individual dog that inflicted any
particular injury difficult to ascertain, then regardless of the degree of
participation by the individual dog(s), all such dogs shall be deemed dangerous
dogs. A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was
sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a willful trespass or other
tort upon the premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was
tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to
commit a crime.
[Underlining added]
29. SCC 5.04.020 of the Spokane County Code (SCC defines "potentially dangerous dog" as
follows:
"Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked: (a) inflicts
bites on a human or animal either on public or private property, or (b) chases or
approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public grounds in a
menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack or (c) any dog with a known
propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or
otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or animals.
[Underlining added]
30. SCC Chapter 5.04 does not define the term "bites" or"attacks". Merriam Webster's Online
Dictionary defines "bite", in relevant part as, as: "la: to seize especially with teeth or jaws so as
to enter, grip or wound... b: to wound, pierce, or sting especially with a fang or a proboscis...".
The same source defines "attack", in relevant part as: "1: to set upon or work against
forcefully... 3: to begin to affect or act on injuriously <plants attacked by aphids...".
Facts regarding June 19,2011 Incident
31. On Sunday, June 19, 2011, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Alyssa Hilfiker, age 10, and her
sister Meagan Hilfiker, age 7, were walking their dogs "Buddy" and "Baby", respectively, on
their leashes down Sundown Drive; in the vicinity of the Blake residence. The Hilfiker residence
is situated two (2) houses west of the Blake residence, along the south side of Sundown Drive.
32. "Buddy" is a neutered, buff-colored, male cocker spaniel; weighing approximately 20
pounds. "Baby", mistakenly referenced as "Tiny" in the SCRAPS case report, is a smaller terrier
mix; weighing about five (5) pounds. "Boss" is a medium-sized dog, appearing to weigh 40-50
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 5
pounds. See photos of"Buddy", and Meagan and Alyssa Hilfiker, in record; testimony of Nancy
Hill; and written"affidavit of probable cause"prepared by Grant Person on 6-19-11.
33. As Alyssa and Meagan Hilfiker were walking their dogs along Sundown Drive, "Baby"
noticed two (2) cats lying in the driveway of the Blake residence, near the partially opened door
of the 2-car garage to the Blake residence.
34. "Baby" led Meagan Hilfiker up the driveway approximately 10 feet, while on its leash,
toward the cats. Alyssa Hilfiker and "Buddy" remained in the street. At this time, "Boss" and
the Blake's female pit bull terrier came to a second story window, located above the roof of the
garage of the Blake residence, and started to bark at the girls and their dogs.
35. "Boss" then jumped out of the window and onto the driveway, located approximately 10
feet below; and charged directly at "Buddy", which dog had remained in the street with Alyssa
Hilfiker on its leash. "Boss" immediately began to fight with "Buddy" in the street, barking and
growling. These events startled and frightened Alyssa Hilfiker and Meagan Hilfiker, who began
screaming.
36. Grant Person saw the entire incident unfold from his property, located directly north and
northwest of the Blake property. Person was initially positioned just outside the east corner of
the open door that encloses his garage, where the driveway begins to widen out northeast of the
garage door. When Person saw "Boss" charge and began to attack "Buddy", he ran out to the
curb at the edge of his property, directly across the street from the dog fight, and began to loudly
yell and clap at"Boss"to try and scare him away
37. During the attack, "Boss" snapped, barked and snapped at Buddy; and grabbed the muzzle
of"Buddy" with its teeth. After a few seconds, "Boss" let go of"Buddy", apparently in response
to the yelling and clapping by Grant Person; and ran back toward the east side of the Blake
residence. During the attack, Alyssa Hilfiker was trying to pull "Buddy" away from "Boss", on
the dog's leash.
38. As "Boss" was running toward the side of the house, Christine Blake, the mother of
Nicholas Blake, opened the garage door of the Blake residence the rest of the way, came outside
and began to shout at and scold "Boss"; was able to get "Boss" into the Blake garage and
residence; and appeared to say"sorry" or similar words to those present before closing the garage
door and entering the home.
39. After the incident, Grant Person walked the Alyssa and Megan Hilfiker home, along with
their dogs; and talked to the father of the girls about the incident. Approximately 30 minutes
later, Person went to the Blake residence, and rang the doorbell and knocked on the door; but was
unable to get a response. Person then proceeded to write a statement regarding what he had
observed. See "affidavit of probable cause" prepared by Grant Person on 6-19-11; testimony of
Grant Person, Exhibit 3 (diagram of scene drawn by Person); and oral statements regarding
incident made by Alyssa and Meagan Hilfiker to Officer Rapier on 6-21-11, as summarized in
Office Rapier's memo dated 6-21-11 and certified on 6-23-11.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 6
40. Christine Blake was the only person home at the Blake residence at the time of the incident,
and was in her room located on the main floor of the residence at the time. From the window of
her room, located several feet west of the back of the garage of the residence, Blake sequentially
observed the Hilfiker girls out in the street with their dogs on leashes, "Baby" lead Meagan up
the driveway toward the Blake's cats, "Baby" scare the cats away, "Boss"jump off the roof and
onto the driveway, and`Boss"run toward the street. See Exhibit 1.
41. Upon seeing "Boss"jump onto the driveway and run toward the street, Christine Blake ran
through the Blake residence into the garage, opened the garage door all the way, and saw"Boss"
running away toward the side of the house. Blake testified that she did not see any part of the
dog fight between "Boss" and "Baby", did not hear any dogs barking by the time she got outside,
and did not see any apparent injuries to the Hilfiker girls or their dogs from the incident; but
related that the girls appeared startled by what happened. See testimony of Christine Blake.
42. Teri Hilfiker, the mother of the Hilfiker girls, reported the incident to SCRAPS on Monday,
June 20, 2011; but was told that an actual witness to the incident needed to contact SCRAPS in
order to commence an investigation. On the morning of June 21, 2011, Grant Person faxed a
copy of the statement he had prepared regarding the incident to SCRAPS. SCRAPS Officer
Francine Rapier reviewed the statement; reviewed the computer records at SCRAPS regarding
the previous potentially dangerous dog declarations involving "Boss", and other incidents
involving "Boss" that had come to SCRAPS attention after such declarations; and opened a
"dangerous dog" investigation.
43. On June 21, 2011, after initiating the dangerous dog investigation, Officer Rapier went to
the Hilfiker residence and obtained oral statements from Meagan and Alyssa Hilfiker regarding
the incident, photographed the girls, inspected both Hilfiker dogs, and took photos of and
examined"Buddy". Rapier did not find any bites or other marks on"Buddy" from the incident.
44. After leaving the Hilfiker residence, Officer Rapier went to the Blake residence and made
contact with Christine Blake and Nichole Springer. Blake advised Rapier that she was home at
the time of the incident; but by the time she was became aware of the commotion outside and
gone outside the garage, "Boss" was running around in the yard. Blake also advised that she had
not witnessed any of the incidents between the girls and their dogs.
45. After taking the statement from Christine Blake, Officer Rapier filled out the preliminary
declaration of dangerous dog/certification of service, gave it to Christine and asked Christine to
have Nicholas Blake contact her as soon as possible. Rapier then impounded `Boss" and
transported the dog to the County animal shelter; scanned a microchip on "Boss", which
identified the dog as belonging to Nicholas Blake; and photographed the dog. Nicholas Blake
arrived at the animal shelter a short time later, and made contact with Officer Rapier. "Boss" did
not suffer any bites or marks during the dog fight. See 4-page memo from Office Rapier dated 6-
21-11, and testimony of Officer Rapier.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 7
46. At the hearing, Nicholas Blake submitted a photo (Exhibit 1) of the Blake residence that he
had taken the night before the hearing, from the edge of the east portion of the driveway for the
Person residence, where the driveway meets the street. Based on the photo, Blake contended that
Grant Person could not have witnessed "Boss"jumping out the second floor window as stated by
Person in his testimony and written statement, due to the oblique angle he was watching from
and the tree located in the side yard of the Blake residence west of the garage. See Exhibit 1, and
testimony of Nicholas Blake.
47. Grant Person submitted a detailed diagram (Exhibit 3) of the scene that he prepared at the
hearing. The diagram shows that Person had a clear line of sight from the east side of the back of
driveway, where the driveway extends farther to the east than where it meets the street; allowing
him to observe the second floor window of the Blake residence, and the entire incident that had
taken place in the driveway of the Blake residence and adjoining street. Person supported the
accuracy of the diagram, and his written statement, with detailed, consistent and credible
testimony at the hearing.
48. The record contains no evidence to support the viewing point from which Nicholas Blake
took the photo marked as Exhibit 1, as indicated on Exhibit 3 by Grant Person.
49. Nicholas Blake provided credible evidence of the good character of"Boss"while the dog is
around him and family members, including the dog's behavior toward other persons and animals
in such setting. Blake described "Boss" as being "protective" of his family and pets, rather than
being overly "aggressive" as described by SCRAPS. See testimony of Nicholas Blake, Christine
Blake, Nicholle Springer and Chris Huck; photos in Exhibit 2; and administrative review
meeting report dated 6-28-11.
50. SCRAPS submitted credible evidence from neighbors of the Blakes, in rebuttal of the good
character evidence submitted by Nicholas Blake regarding "Boss". Such evidence demonstrates
through a number of past incidents that "Boss" will go off his property and threaten and act
aggressively toward other persons and animals, without provocation, when Nicholas Blake is not
home or present.
51. The rebuttal evidence submitted by SCRAPS included direct testimony by Donald Perry
and Peggy Anderson, who reside directly west of the Blakes; and by Grant Person, who resides
across the street from the Blakes. This included direct testimony by Donald Perry of the
December 8, 2010 incident; in which "Boss" threatened Perry in his front yard, and which led to
the second potentially dangerous dog declaration by SCRAPS. Such testimony indicated that
there have been fewer such incidents involving "Boss" in 2011, since the second dangerous dog
declaration became final; which can be attributed to the condition imposed by such declaration
that prohibits "Boss" from being at large in the backyard of the Blake residence.
52. Nicholas Blake contended at the hearing that "Boss" should not have been deemed
dangerous; because Meagan Hilfiker and "Baby" trespassed onto the Blake property and
disturbed the Blake's cats, which provoked "Boss" to protect the cats by confronting "Buddy" in
the street.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 8
53. The definition of "dangerous dog" in SCC 5.04.020(8) provides that a dog shall not be
deemed "dangerous" if the threat, injury or damage referenced in such definition was sustained
by a person who, at the time, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises
occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog..." .
54. The trespass by 7-year old Meagen Hilfiker, and her 5-pound terrier mix dog "Baby", on
the Blake property appears far more casual than "willful"; and the physical threat presented by
"Baby", restrained by a leash, to the Blake cats appears slight. This conduct did not provoke or
justify the frightening overreaction by "Boss" in jumping from the roof onto the driveway,
charging out into the street, aggressively attacking "Buddy", biting "Buddy" by grabbing the
dog's muzzle with its teeth; and not letting go of"Buddy" until scared off by Grant Person, who
was fortunately nearby. "Buddy" was being lawfully walked on a leash on a public street at the
time of the incident. The unwarranted attack on "Buddy" endangered the personal (physical)
safety of Alyssa Hilfiker, who was holding "Buddy" on a leash at the time and trying to stop the
attack.
55. SCRAPS Director Nancy Hill at the hearing characterized the second potentially dangerous
dog declaration issued by SCRAPS on December 18, 2010 as a process to "adjust"the conditions
of the first potentially dangerous dog declaration issued on July 1, 2009; apparently based on the
assumption that a second declaration of"potentially dangerous" dog for the same dog must be
processed as a "dangerous dog" declaration under the definition of "dangerous" dog in SCC
5.04.020(8)..
56. SVMC Chapter 7.30 does not provide a separate process for adjusting the conditions of a
"potentially dangerous" declaration, based on subsequent behavior by the dog. Such chapter
does not preclude SCRAPS from again declaring the dog "potentially dangerous", based on
subsequent behavior; and establishing different conditions than the previous declaration. This is
the process that was followed by SCRAPS for the second potentially dangerous dog declaration
issued regarding "Boss", and was appropriate.
57. SCRAPS could have proceeded with a "dangerous" dog declaration based on the
December 16, 2010 incident involving "Boss" and the first"potentially dangerous dog"
declaration; but elected not to do so.
58. Alyssa and Meagan Hilfiker were present at the appeal hearing. SCRAPS elected not to
call such persons as witnesses due to their young ages; and because the entire incident was
witnessed by Grant Person, an adult who testified for SCRAPS.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. On July 1, 2009, SCRAPS duly found and declared "Boss", to be "potentially dangerous"
under SVMC 7.30.040; and gave Nicholas Blake,the owner or keeper of the dog, due notice of
such declaration.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 9
2. On December 18, 2010, SCRAPS again duly found and declared "Boss"to be "potentially
dangerous" under SVMC 7.30.040, imposing more stringent conditions on the keeping of the dog
than the first declaration of"potentially dangerous" dog; and gave Nicholas Blake, the owner or
keeper of the dog, due notice of such declaration.
3. On June 19, 2011, "Boss" again aggressively bit, attacked, or endangered the safety of
animals or humans; including"Buddy" and Alyssa Hilfiker.
4. Alyssa Hilfiker was not committing a willful trespass on the Blake property at the time her
personal safety was threatened by"Boss" in the public right of way of Sundown Drive.
5. Alyssa and Meagan Hilfiker, and their dogs "Buddy" and "Baby", did not provoke the
attack and bite by"Boss" on"Buddy", or provoke the threat to the personal safety of Alyssa
Hilfiker by"Boss".
6. "Boss" meets the definition of"dangerous dog" under SCC 5.04.020(c), as applicable
under SVMC 7.30.035. The administrative determination made by SCRAPS that the dog is
"dangerous" should be accepted without modification.
III. DECISION
1. Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the determination of
SCRAPS declaring"Boss"to be a"dangerous dog" is hereby upheld; and "Boss" is hereby
declared a"dangerous dog"under SCC 5.04.020(c) and SVMC 7.30.035.
2. Nicholas Blake, the owner of"Boss", and any future owner in the State of Washington,
should be required to comply with all the provisions of Section 7.30.045 of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC).
3. SCRAPS should notify any other city or county jurisdiction in the United States that the
dog has been deemed "dangerous" by the City of Spokane Valley, if the dog is relocated to such
jurisdiction for any reason by the current or future owner.
4. Any Finding of Fact hereinabove stated that is deemed a Conclusion of Law is hereby
adopted as the same, and any Conclusion of Law that is deemed a Finding of Fact is hereby
adopted as the same.
DATED this 2"d day of August, 2011
SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
Mic ael C. Dempsey
WSBA#8235
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 10
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Section 7.30.035 of the Spokane County Municipal Code, this decision may be
appealed to Spokane County Superior Court pursuant to RCW Chapter 7.16 RCW, within twenty
(20) days of the date this decision was received.
On August 2, 2011, a copy of this decision was mailed to Nicholas Blake, and to the SCRAPS
Director/designee.
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal period
with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026 West
Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington, 99260-0245, (509) 477-7490. The file may be
inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday- Friday of each week, except holidays,
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision SCRAPS Case No. 2011-0316 Page 11