• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Dog Bite During Unlawful Entry

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

amd64a

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

Since I last posted, I got a much better job and was able to keep paying my mortgage without the ex's help. She came in November to collect the rest of her things and has not been back to the house since. Since then, I adopted a Doberman 3 years old for a companion with my other Doberman.

2 weeks ago, I left for work, and left the dogs out as I usually do. What I did NOT know, was that my ex left some expensive work things in the basement tucked away that she wanted back.

She sent her I guess now boyfriend - who is in the Army in MD - to the house to get them. She "gave" him permission to enter and get the things. HOWEVER, the keycode access plate on the door will sometimes refuse to operate in extreme cold, and must be tried alot of times. She KNOWS this too.

The boyfriend could not get the keycode to work, called her, and she ASSUMED I had changed the code to prevent her access. She told him to kick in the door. He broke the door down, entered and went into the kitchen.

As soon as he entered, the Doberman I adopted just STOOD in his way into the kitchen, and the man tried to scare him away by kicking out. The Doberman then attacked him and bit his forearm, crushing his two arm bones and severing the radial artery.

He called 911 on his cell phone, and the Police and Paramedics arrived and took him to the Hospital. I was notified of the incident and told to come to the Police station and/or animal control officer where my Doberman was being held for a case review.

Since the ex moved out, I installed three wireless cameras that transmit to a hard drive, that are activated by shattering glass or sounds above 100 decibels. I retrieved the footage on a DVD, showed it to the police, and it was clear this man threatened the dog and the bite was justified. They didn't even have a single problem muzzling him and taking him to the local shelter. They released my dog back to me without penalty.

Now, the ex has filed a special petition with the Court to have me removed from the house for keeping a "dangerous dog" on the property. No such motion or paperwork was filed by the local Police, Animal Control, or Municipal Court for criminal charges.

However, I am told the Family Court Judge CAN declare a dog "dangerous", separate and apart from normal procedures and rules the Police, animal control, or other Municipal Courts do. I was also advised I would NOT be able to use the video footage since it also recorded AUDIO. 30 seconds BEFORE to 5 minutes after the loud noise triggers the sensor are archived. You can CLEARLY hear this man talking to my ex on the phone before the kickdown because the microphone sensor is on the same wall right be the outside door. I am told this makes the video possibly unable to be used validly in a family court.

Essentially, I am asking if a Family Court judge can really disregard the judgement of the police and animal control, and disallow video footage that shows the attack was clearly justified and have the dog removed and destroyed, as well as force me to vacate the house?
 


stealth2

Under the Radar Member
If I were in your shoes, I would speaking to my attorney, pronto. And if I didn't have one? I'd be getting one.
 

amd64a

Junior Member
I do have a Divorce lawyer, and he is the one who gave me this advice.

BUT he seems to be about HALF right when it comes to how things play out. He advised me that she could force the sale of the house under ANY circumstances, however it turned out that she could ONLY if I missed a mortgage payment OR I did something that was INTENDED to devalue the house purposefully.

His retainer is now almost used up, and I fully intend to switch lawyers to a family friend who will charge me hardly anything.

My other issue is that this man returned to Maryland the next week, but contracted a serious infection after the surgery, and was hospitalized first on base, and then sent to the county Hospital in MD. MD has "one-strike" zero tolerance laws for bites, and I am told that since the infection "injury" happened in MD as a direct result of the bite, the Courts there also have the authority to order the dog destroyed.

I don't know if another court declares the dog dangerous if that will prompt the family judge to then order me out of the house.

But as far as the Police, animal control, and the Municipal court (which has jurisdiction to handle dog bites) are concerned, NOTHING wrong happened.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
BUT he seems to be about HALF right when it comes to how things play out. He advised me that she could force the sale of the house under ANY circumstances, however it turned out that she could ONLY if I missed a mortgage payment OR I did something that was INTENDED to devalue the house purposefully.
Actually - you're wrong on this one. IF it's part of the property settlement and you don't have the cash to buy her out? A court could certainly order the house sold for the purposes of settlement.

But I have to admit - I am not big on "protection"-type dogs.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
wow, what a wild situation.

Is there a court order giving either party temporary sole possession of the home?
 

Artemis_ofthe_Hunt

Senior Member
Actually - you're wrong on this one. IF it's part of the property settlement and you don't have the cash to buy her out? A court could certainly order the house sold for the purposes of settlement.

But I have to admit - I am not big on "protection"-type dogs.
I've trained and owned several. I've found that someone coming into the house usually just backs out slowly, watching the animal to make sure that they know where the dog is. I have not had any issues with ANY of the dogs I've had. Why aren't you big on "protection"- type dogs? :confused:
 

majomom1

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania

Since I last posted, I got a much better job and was able to keep paying my mortgage without the ex's help. She came in November to collect the rest of her things and has not been back to the house since. Since then, I adopted a Doberman 3 years old for a companion with my other Doberman.

2 weeks ago, I left for work, and left the dogs out as I usually do. What I did NOT know, was that my ex left some expensive work things in the basement tucked away that she wanted back.

She sent her I guess now boyfriend - who is in the Army in MD - to the house to get them. She "gave" him permission to enter and get the things. HOWEVER, the keycode access plate on the door will sometimes refuse to operate in extreme cold, and must be tried alot of times. She KNOWS this too.

The boyfriend could not get the keycode to work, called her, and she ASSUMED I had changed the code to prevent her access. She told him to kick in the door. He broke the door down, entered and went into the kitchen.

As soon as he entered, the Doberman I adopted just STOOD in his way into the kitchen, and the man tried to scare him away by kicking out. The Doberman then attacked him and bit his forearm, crushing his two arm bones and severing the radial artery.

He called 911 on his cell phone, and the Police and Paramedics arrived and took him to the Hospital. I was notified of the incident and told to come to the Police station and/or animal control officer where my Doberman was being held for a case review.

Since the ex moved out, I installed three wireless cameras that transmit to a hard drive, that are activated by shattering glass or sounds above 100 decibels. I retrieved the footage on a DVD, showed it to the police, and it was clear this man threatened the dog and the bite was justified. They didn't even have a single problem muzzling him and taking him to the local shelter. They released my dog back to me without penalty.

Now, the ex has filed a special petition with the Court to have me removed from the house for keeping a "dangerous dog" on the property. No such motion or paperwork was filed by the local Police, Animal Control, or Municipal Court for criminal charges.

However, I am told the Family Court Judge CAN declare a dog "dangerous", separate and apart from normal procedures and rules the Police, animal control, or other Municipal Courts do. I was also advised I would NOT be able to use the video footage since it also recorded AUDIO. 30 seconds BEFORE to 5 minutes after the loud noise triggers the sensor are archived. You can CLEARLY hear this man talking to my ex on the phone before the kickdown because the microphone sensor is on the same wall right be the outside door. I am told this makes the video possibly unable to be used validly in a family court.

Essentially, I am asking if a Family Court judge can really disregard the judgement of the police and animal control, and disallow video footage that shows the attack was clearly justified and have the dog removed and destroyed, as well as force me to vacate the house?
I would ask the attorney if the tape could be admitted and played, with the audio muted... it's at least worth asking, IMO.

If you don't trust your attorney, you need to change. Why did you not hire your "friend" to begin with?
 
Last edited:

majomom1

Senior Member
Nothing posted points to a criminal charge against the soldier...sounds like he had legal permission to enter the dwelling.

If the OP is trying to cut this guy some slack it may end up hurting himself ... a criminal complaint is advisable.


The 12 states which definitely require all parties to a conversation to consent before it can be recorded are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (In California Law, there is an exception – you can Record an Audio Conversation with the consent of only one party if certain criminal activity (kidnapping, extortion, bribery or a violent felony) is involved. source: Audio Recording Laws In The U.S.

So if you ask the court to admit the video but not audio , you will admit to the violation & may be charged yourself. Your attny may have given you good advice to keep quite about the recording.
Interesting. I didn't look at it from that viewpoint... Do other laws apply when it is used with home security? If there is an alarm on the home, then it would stand to reason that could include video/audio... ???

I also think it might be shaky ground to say he had "permission". Depending on the status of the divorce etc... The ex may have rights to the property as an owner, but in this situation does she have the right to tell someone to kick in the door to enter?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
§ 5703. Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications


Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:

(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
(2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
(3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
the only thing I could find that might make it legal is:

speaking in public is often considered to be waiving ones claim of privilage BUT since he knew nobody was around, that may not apply. The other thought would be that the law states "intentional" interception. If what recorded was not intended for that purpose but merely to allow a sound activation of the recorder, it might provide some defense BUT you do not need anything such as a recorder, especially one that would record a conversation, to activate an alarm that is triggered by sound.

and I'm still waiting to hear if the OP has an order for temp sole possession of the marital home. If he does, the guy is a burglar and should be subject to prosecution. The wife could not give him permission to enter the house as she had no such right herself.


oh, to fix the recording thing; copy the recording to another device or medium and remove the audio portion in the process. Then do not tell anybody that it recorded audio as well.I would retain the original with the audio but keep it private.
 
Last edited:

LdiJ

Senior Member
the only thing I could find that might make it legal is:

speaking in public is often considered to be waiving ones claim of privilage BUT since he knew nobody was around, that may not apply. The other thought would be that the law states "intentional" interception. If what recorded was not intended for that purpose but merely to allow a sound activation of the recorder, it might provide some defense BUT you do not need anything such as a recorder, especially one that would record a conversation, to activate an alarm that is triggered by sound.

and I'm still waiting to hear if the OP has an order for temp sole possession of the marital home. If he does, the guy is a burglar and should be subject to prosecution. The wife could not give him permission to enter the house as she had no such right herself.


oh, to fix the recording thing; copy the recording to another device or medium and remove the audio portion in the process. Then do not tell anybody that it recorded audio as well.I would retain the original with the audio but keep it private.
I think that the whole situation is seriously problematic. I also think, that from his posting history, that its unlikely that a court has awarded him exclusive use of the marital home. That was the opposite of what he was after a few months ago.

The soldier had permission from an owner of the home to enter the premises, and I am assuming that there was no sign or warning that a dangerous dog was present within the home. The guy's injuries are pretty serious. I can understand why the police and animal control made the decision not to go after the dog, but I certainly can see the potential for a civil suit...particularly if the bite ends up causing any permanent damage.

I would not keep an animal that had caused that kind of damage to another human being. I would not risk the potential liability to future visitors to my home, or to innocent passers by should the animal accidentally escape my home or yard. What if your wife had entered the home using the code? How badly could she have been injured?
 
Last edited:

Artemis_ofthe_Hunt

Senior Member
I think that the whole situation is seriously problematic. I also think, that from his posting history, that its unlikely that a court has awarded him exclusive use of the marital home. That was the opposite of what he was after a few months ago.

The soldier had permission from an owner of the home to enter the premises, and I am assuming that there was no sign or warning that a dangerous dog was present within the home. The guy's injuries are pretty serious. I can understand why the police and animal control made the decision not to go after the dog, but I certainly can see the potential for a civil suit...particularly if the bite ends up causing any permanent damage.

I would not keep an animal that had caused that kind of damage to another human being. I would not risk the potential liability to future visitors to my home, or to innocent passers by should the animal accidentally escape my home or yard. What if your wife had entered the home using the code? How badly could she have been injured?
Not to hijack, here BUT... The dog, per the OP (apparently he does have video to back this up), only attacked AFTER the man kicked at him. Its a response a lot of animals will have. For instance, when a Rottweiler is involved in a situation, unlike many breeds, they actually will be the agressor towards the other agressor. NOT towards the animal being attacked.

I do not believe that this dog, BASED UPON THE FACTS GIVEN HERE, is a liability toward anyone who is just in the home. AGAIN, BASED UPON THE FACTS GIVEN HERE. Soldier entered home, dog did not know soldier, soldier acted in an agressive manner toward dog. Dog defended himself and home. I don't see anything wrong with the situation AS STATED.... BTW, cap'd those statements because IF someone were to take what I said out of context... you see where I'm going.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
I think that the whole situation is seriously problematic. I also think, that from his posting history, that its unlikely that a court has awarded him exclusive use of the marital home. That was the opposite of what he was after a few months ago.

The soldier had permission from an owner of the home to enter the premises, and I am assuming that there was no sign or warning that a dangerous dog was present within the home. The guy's injuries are pretty serious. I can understand why the police and animal control made the decision not to go after the dog, but I certainly can see the potential for a civil suit...particularly if the bite ends up causing any permanent damage.

I would not keep an animal that had caused that kind of damage to another human being. I would not risk the potential liability to future visitors to my home, or to innocent passers by should the animal accidentally escape my home or yard. What if your wife had entered the home using the code? How badly could she have been injured?
A civil suit that stupid wifey and her soldier b/f will LOSE.

Wifey KNEW there was at least one doberman dog in the house.

Maybe a CALL to the husband would have been the better solution.

Could have been worse, the idiot soldier could have kicked down the wrong door and took a bullet instead of a dog bite when he went into his kung-fu stance.

Bet those two morons don't pull that one again anytime soon.
 

Artemis_ofthe_Hunt

Senior Member
A civil suit that stupid wifey and her soldier b/f will LOSE.

Wifey KNEW there was at least one doberman dog in the house.

Maybe a CALL to the husband would have been the better solution.

Could have been worse, the idiot soldier could have kicked down the wrong door and took a bullet instead of a dog bite when he went into his kung-fu stance.

Bet those two morons don't pull that one again anytime soon.
I'm taking this one down and recording it for posterities sake... I don't know that you and I have EVER agreed on anything. On this one though.... completely agree. Wife set B/F up for failure on this one... EPIC fail. ;)
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
A civil suit that stupid wifey and her soldier b/f will LOSE.

Wifey KNEW there was at least one doberman dog in the house.

Maybe a CALL to the husband would have been the better solution.

Could have been worse, the idiot soldier could have kicked down the wrong door and took a bullet instead of a dog bite when he went into his kung-fu stance.

Bet those two morons don't pull that one again anytime soon.
I agree about 95%. If you make your first sentence 'SHOULD lose', then I'd agree 100%. But there are some stupid juries out there, so I wouldn't discount the possibility of them winning.

OP needs an attorney. Fast.

Just don't like them. Not afraid of them, know all the stats on dog bites/maulings, etc. Still don't like 'em. Don't like "bully" breeds, either. Or yappy little dogs. Consider it personal preference.
I agree on both counts. I've never liked little yappy dogs and don't like big "defense" dogs. I prefer collies, labs, setters, etc - dogs who are fiercely loyal and would die to protect their family, but who are not aggressive.

The only exception would be German Shepherds. Properly raised and trained, they're good family dogs and not overly aggressive. Of course, there are a lot of badly trained ones, so you have to be careful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top