Animal Control and Education Commission Special Meeting – June 17, 2026

The Evansville Animal Control and Education Commission held a special hearing on June 17, 2026, to determine whether a dog named Envy, owned by Brandy Jones, should be declared dangerous following two biting/charging incidents on May 28, 2026. The commission heard testimony from complainants, the owner, and witnesses, deliberated publicly, and voted on the dangerous animal determination and associated restrictions.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Complainant Michelle Martin: Testified that on May 28, 2026, while walking on the sidewalk on South Alvord Boulevard (outside the owner's property), a dog ran from the driveway and bit her leg. She reported the dog charged at others, including a mailman and another runner, while she waited for animal control. She stated she was not on the owner's property and did not agitate the dog. The bite required antibiotics and will leave a small scar.
• Complainant Jamie Emig (E-M-I-G): Testified that on the same day, while jogging on the opposite side of the street (east side, against traffic), she saw the dog charging across the street toward her. She avoided being bitten but was terrified. She noted the dog was already loose and later saw it return to the house through a side entrance. She expressed concern for children and other pedestrians on the family-friendly running/walking street.
• Respondent Brandy Jones: Stated she was asleep at the time (works nights at Toyota) and did not witness the incident. She claimed her 12-year-old son told her about the complaint. She asserted the dog returned through the driveway side door. She said the dog is normally friendly, has never bitten before, and is protective of her four puppies. She presented receipts for fence extenders, security cameras, and no-dig guards. She noted the dog was quarantined at home for 10 days per animal control and is now at the shelter awaiting the decision.
• Witness Danny Hernandez (1321 MacArthur Drive): Testified that he has known the dog for two years; she has never been aggressive even around children and loud gatherings.
• Witness Carmen Sutton (4115 Jupiter Drive): Testified she has been around the dog for years and never saw aggression; the dog is affectionate.
• Witness (unidentified male): Testified he has played with the dog for over a year; the dog is mellow and never attempted to bite, though she is protective of puppies.

Discussion Items

• The hearing was moderated by Assistant City Attorney Andrew Voykin, who outlined the legal definition of a dangerous animal, the preponderance of evidence standard, and possible restrictions.
• The commission reviewed two complaints against the same dog owned by Brandy Jones at 959 South Alvord Boulevard.
• Complainants argued the dog charged and bit one person and charged another, causing fear and injury. They emphasized the dog was off the owner's property and not provoked.
• The owner argued she does not know what triggered the incident, that the dog is normally gentle, and that she is taking steps to prevent future escapes (fence extenders, cameras, padlocks). She stated the animal control officer told her a different version of events (that the dog jumped the fence while the jogger was running along the fence line), which the complainants disputed.
• Animal Control Officer McDaniel reported no prior history with the dog; the dog has shown no aggression at the shelter.
• Commission members discussed whether the incident constituted a dangerous animal under the ordinance, noting the dog left its property and caused injury. They agreed the injury did not meet the “serious bodily injury” standard.

Key Outcomes

1. Probable Cause Vote: The commission voted unanimously to find probable cause for the dangerous dog hearing (motion by Linda, second by Tammy; all ayes).
2. Dangerous Animal Determination: The commission voted to declare Envy a dangerous dog (motion by Linda, second by Tammy; all ayes, no nays).
3. Serious Bodily Injury Determination: The commission voted that no serious bodily injury occurred (motion by Linda, second by Tammy; all ayes, no nays).
4. Restrictions Imposed: The commission approved the following restrictions (motion by Linda, second by Tammy; all ayes):
   • When outdoors and unattended, the animal must be kept within a locked fenced area from which it cannot escape.
   • When outdoors and attended, the animal must be kept within a fenced area from which it cannot escape.
   • When off the owner’s property, the animal must be on a leash no longer than six feet and under the control of a person 18 years or older.
   • Placement of warning signs at the front and back perimeters of the property (current signs deemed acceptable).
   • The animal must be spayed at owner’s expense (owner agreed; release permitted prior to spay to schedule appointment).
   • The animal must be permanently identified by microchip or tattoo.
   • If any restrictions are not complied with, the owner may face a fine of up to $2,500.
   • If a further incident occurs, the commission may impose additional restrictions, including humane destruction if serious bodily injury results.
5. Appeal Rights: Both parties may appeal the decision within 10 days (by June 27, 2026) to Vanderburgh Superior or Circuit Court.
6. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned (motion by Linda, second by Tammy; all ayes).