Supreme Court reverses conviction of man sentenced for owning dangerous pit bulls
The South Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the conviction of a man who was sentenced in 2021 for owning dangerous animals, finding that state law didn't afford him due process.
Christopher Alexander was sentenced after his two pit bulls confronted a neighbor in 2020. The incident occurred on March 4, 2020 in Chester, South Dakota .
Prior to the confrontation with the pit bulls, Alexander's Rottweiler had confronted the neighbor, Michael Baartman, in December 2019. After that initial run-in, a Lake County deputy advised Alexander to keep his dogs contained. Baartman also said he was told by law enforcement to carry a firearm and shoot the dogs if they were aggressive toward him.
During the March 4 incident with the pit bulls, Baartman pointed a firearm at the dogs but did not shoot because Alexander's girlfriend and two children were in the yard. After the girlfriend called the dogs, they ran back to her. Alexander was not home at the time.
More: Gov. Kristi Noem threatens lawsuit against feds over transgender inclusive school lunch policy
A video of the encounter captured by a neighbor's camera showed the interaction between Baartman and the dogs lasted only a few seconds.
When Alexander learned of the incident, he complained to law enforcement about Baartman pulling a firearm on the dogs. He threatened to kill Baartman if the situation was not resolved.
That prompted several Lake County deputies to arrive at Alexander's home. The two pit bulls were impounded and taken to a pound in Madison. A deputy testified that the dogs growled and barked. When they arrived at the pound they were removed from the deputy's car using a lasso tool. The dogs eventually settled down, according to the court's opinion, which was authored by Justice Janine Kern.
Alexander was ticketed for failing to restrain a dangerous animal and charged with having a "potentially dangerous animal."
After pleading not guilty, a trial was held in December 2020. Judge Patrick Pardy, who presided over the case, expressed doubt about the constitutionality of the statutes under which Alexander was charged. During the trial, Pardy declared that the two statutes under which Alexander was charged "may be two of the worst written statutes I’ve ever read, but they are presumed to be constitutional. So that’s where I’m starting.”
“It actually makes the law enforcement officer — it’s the only statute I know that does this —that makes the law enforcement officer the finder of fact. Not the court, not a jury,” Pardy noted.
More: Amendment C is unrelated to marijuana. Here’s why legal cannabis proponents are attacking it.
Pardy reluctantly found Alexander guilty under the law the way it was written, noting that the video of the encounter didn't offer enough evidence to determine if the dogs were dangerous.
In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed there wasn't enough evidence. The court also relied on a previous ruling which found that due process was not afforded when a court relied solely on a law enforcement officer's determination that an animal was dangerous and not a neutral fact finder.
"In this case," Kern wrote, "the circuit court did not make this required finding and instead expressed that it considered itself bound by the officer’s determination of dangerousness because the language of the statute appears to require nothing further."
Kern was joined by Justices Patricia DeVaney and Scott Myren. Chief Justice Steven Jensen and Justice Mark Salter concurred, noting the dogs had not previously been found to have been dangerous by a board or humane officer prior to Alexander being ticked for having a dangerous animal.
"What makes the conviction unsustainable is the absence of an earlier determination that the dogs were dangerous animals," Salter wrote.
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: South Dakota Supreme Court reverses pit bull conviction
