From State v. Richards, decided yesterday by the Washington Court of Appeals (Chief Judge Rebecca Glasgow, joined by Judges Bradley Maxa & Erik Price):
Jennifer Richards' dog, Thor, twice bit another dog unprovoked. As a result, Wahkiakum County determined that Thor was a dangerous dog under chapter 16.08 of the Revised Code of Wahkiakum County (RCWC). One evening, Richards left Thor alone and unsecured on her property.
{[A] deputy sheriff responded to a report of a dangerous dog "running loose." The deputy saw Thor unsecured on Richards' property while Richards was away getting medication her daughter urgently needed that evening. The deputy called Richards, and she asked if the deputy "could attempt to secure Thor in her residence." The deputy tried unsuccessfully to calm Thor, who had been barking continuously. Thor then lunged at the deputy's waist, "mouth open" and "snapping his jaws." After Thor ran behind Richards' home, the deputy called for backup and watched Thor from afar until Richards returned. The deputy did not impound Thor, instead leaving him in Richards' care as authorized under the county code.}
The county charged Richards with violating RCWC 16.08.050(F), an ordinance that makes it unlawful for a dangerous dog to be outside a proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash or physically restrained by a responsible person. Neither state statute nor the county code authorizes destruction of the dog without an opportunity to cure a violation like this one.
After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the district court found Richards guilty and imposed the maximum jail time of 364 days. However, the district court told Richards that it would suspend the sentence if Richards were to turn Thor over to animal control the next day. {Although the district court did not explicitly say Thor would be destroyed upon surrender, it appears that the judge, attorneys, and Richards all understood that Thor would be destroyed.}
Richards appealed her conviction and sentence to the superior court, and the superior court affirmed. The superior court granted a stay pending appeal.
The court affirmed the conviction, but "reverse[d] the sentence and remand[ed] for resentencing":
