Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner: Bennett Potentially Dangerous Dog Appeal - June 4, 2026

City Council & Commissions — Thursday, June 4, 2026

BodySpokane Valley, Washington

SessionCity Council & Commissions

DateThursday, June 4, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:28:35

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:08

We're on record.

0:21

All right.

0:22

Good morning, everybody.

0:23

I'm going to call this meeting back to order again.

0:25

This is the June 4, 2026 hearing of the City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner.

0:31

We had a few items, uh, land use issues at 9 a.m.

0:36

today.

0:36

And after a recess, we're getting back on the record with an 11 a.m.

0:43

agenda with one item.

0:45

It is the appeal of Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services case number 87025.

0:59

I'll refer to that agency as Scraps going forward.

1:04

We're here today because of a potentially dangerous dog declaration that was issued by Scraps on May 7, 2026.

1:12

That uh declaration was appealed by Rachel Bennett on May 14 of 2026.

1:21

The potentially dangerous dog declaration was the result of an administrative review hearing on April 21st, 2026, following an initial uh dangerous dog declaration that was issued on April 16, 2026.

1:36

So we've already been through the administrative review process that led to the potentially dangerous dog declaration May 7, which superseded the previous document and prompted the appeal before us today.

1:52

So do we have uh appellant Rachel Bennett here today?

1:57

All right, ma'am, would you like to come forward and take a seat in front of that microphone?

2:10

Thank you.

2:12

Um so my name is Jay Eye Stone.

2:15

I've been appointed by the Spokane Valley City Council to render decisions in certain issues as authorized by the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.

2:23

The hearing examiner holds public hearings to receive evidence on the merits of various issues, and I consider the evidence presented in the hearing and uh filed written evidence to formulate a decision.

2:37

The hearing process is governed by certain rules.

2:40

We are gonna follow uh an ordered procedure today, but I'll try to conduct the hearing in a fairly relaxed manner so that everybody is comfortable uh presenting testimony and um offering their evidence in you know the the smoothest and most comfortable way possible.

3:01

Um the procedure, let's see, that we're gonna follow today.

3:07

Um well um let me back up Spokane Valley Municipal Code appendix B chapter three, section I provides an order of administrative appeal hearings, um, which I think does not uh very well fit the Scraps appeal process because in today's hearing, Scraps does carry the burden of proof uh to demonstrate that the date potentially dangerous dog declaration should be upheld.

3:40

Um, as such, rather than having the appellant uh present their case first, we will uh start with Scraps presenting evidence to support their declaration, and then that'll be followed by an opportunity for the appellant to present evidence.

4:00

Um the appellant is also free to cross-examine witnesses, object to evidence as it's presented by scraps, uh, as well as of course to present her own witnesses and evidence.

4:12

Umce Scraps carries the burden of proof, I will give uh Scraps an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony or evidence after the appellants uh case is closed, and then I will give an opportunity for some closing arguments after all evidence is heard.

4:33

The Spokane Valley Municipal Code requires that I issue a decision within 15 days of the close of evidence in this hearing.

4:42

Uh the evidentiary record will be closed at the end of today's hearing unless there's a motion for a continuance and we reschedule this for any reason.

4:51

Um issued, it will be final unless it is appealed.

5:00

After my decision is issued, it will be final unless it is appealed.

5:04

Um according to the provisions of chapter 716 of the revised code of Washington within 20 days.

5:13

And so with that, uh, I'm going to turn again to you, Miss Bennett.

5:17

Are you going to be representing yourself today, or will you be represented by an agent or a representative?

5:27

Okay.

5:27

And can I just ask in what capacity you have somebody accompanying you there at the table?

5:34

Okay.

5:35

All right.

5:37

May I ask your name, ma'am?

5:39

One more time.

5:42

Would you spell your last can you spell your last name for me?

5:47

Sorry.

5:49

Okay.

5:51

All right.

5:54

And um let's see.

6:04

So again, um, as I mentioned, the potentially dangerous dog declaration was issued by Scraps on May 7, 2026.

6:13

The issues um May 7, sorry.

6:20

May 7, 2026.

6:22

Um Ms.

6:25

Bose, unless you're gonna be uh, I guess Miss Bennett's representative, I'll ask you not to interject during the hearing unless you're called as a witness.

6:38

So there is not uh open field for public comments in this type of hearing.

6:43

Scraps can call witnesses and Miss Bennett can call witnesses, but there's no public comment period.

6:49

Um so the issues uh before us today are all described within the potentially dangerous dog declaration.

6:56

Um that also summarizes the facts on which it was based and the potential consequences for the dog and its owner are listed within that packet as well.

7:08

So I'll just remind everybody that um anything beyond the potential consequences and the issues described in the potentially dog declaration are irrelevant to today's hearing.

7:21

So hopefully we can keep testimony and evidence focused on those issues.

7:26

So with that, I guess I will ask who do we have on behalf of scraps today?

7:33

Uh Chris Chris Miller, field operations manager and designee for these proceedings.

7:41

All right.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Animal Welfare█████████████████████████████████████████████50%

Procedural███████████████████████25%

Pending Litigation███████████████████21%

Public Records████4%

Summary of Proceedings

Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner: Bennett Potentially Dangerous Dog Appeal - June 4, 2026

The Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner convened at 11:00 A.M. on June 4, 2026, at Spokane Valley City Hall to hear an administrative appeal by Rachel Bennett. The appeal challenged a potentially dangerous dog declaration issued by Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) on May 7, 2026, under case #87025. The declaration arose from an April 11, 2026, dog-on-dog incident at Hometown Studios, 12803 E. Sprague Avenue, in which SCRAPS determined Bennett's dog, Sinja, caused injury to another guest's dog, Hamlet. The hearing was conducted by Hearing Examiner Jay Eye Stone, with SCRAPS bearing the burden of proof. After hearing testimony, admitting exhibits, and receiving closing arguments, the examiner took the matter under advisement and scheduled a decision within 15 calendar days.

Procedural Background

Bennett filed her appeal on May 14, 2026.
SCRAPS initially issued a dangerous dog declaration on April 16, 2026, but after an administrative review meeting on April 21, 2026, SCRAPS modified the designation to potentially dangerous dog on May 7, 2026.
The examiner noted that the Spokane Valley Municipal Code requires a decision within 15 days of the close of evidence, with any appeal to superior court within 20 days.

SCRAPS Evidence and Witness Testimony

Officer Caitlin Allen testified that she investigated the incident. She stated Bennett initially said Hamlet had provoked Sinja the night before by barking through a window, and that no citation or infraction was issued to either party.
Deedra Fitzpatrick, Hamlet's owner, testified that she entered the hallway with Hamlet on a short retractable leash and that Sinja, about 30 to 40 feet away, ran toward them and attacked Hamlet. She said the dog knocked her to the ground, bit her hand, and that Hamlet suffered four tooth marks and 18 external sutures, with doctors saying one inch closer would have punctured his lung. Fitzpatrick also said Hamlet has ongoing throat damage and her dog was later evaluated for surgery related to stress and possible abdominal issues.
Sean Kelly, Fitzpatrick's boyfriend, testified remotely that he saw Sinja, unrestrained and not on a leash, run out of a room and charge Hamlet, knocking Fitzpatrick down. He said the hotel manager initially promised to pay the veterinary bills but later said Rachel would not pay.
SCRAPS Field Operations Manager Christopher Miller testified that Bennett's dog was not physically restrained at the time and that the administrative review led him to lower the declaration to potentially dangerous. He argued that, even under Bennett's version of events, Sinja running at large and causing injury was disproportionate to any provocation by Hamlet.

Appellant Arguments and Cross-Examination

Bennett was represented by Ms. Bose, who argued that the case should be dismissed because Bennett was not charged with any violation or citation; that SCRAPS cited incorrect code sections, including referencing repealed or inapplicable provisions; that Officer Allen lacked formal training and was not a commissioned officer; and that the administrative procedure was flawed.
Ms. Bose asserted that the potentially dangerous dog declaration could lead to euthanasia or unaffordable conditions, and argued that SCRAPS had not followed the correct legal process.
Bennett was present and occasionally expressed concern about the consequences of the declaration.

Evidentiary Rulings and Motions

The examiner admitted as Exhibit 1 the 144-page SCRAPS case file, which had been provided to Bennett before the hearing. He also admitted Exhibit 2 (six photographs provided by Bennett), Exhibit 3 (Bennett's 32-second video), and Exhibits 4 through 8 (SCRAPS surveillance videos).
Ms. Bose made an appearance of fairness objection to admitting the large file as a single exhibit and to the way evidence was presented. The objection was noted, but the exhibits were admitted.
Ms. Bose moved to dismiss the case twice, arguing no charges were filed and the process was defective. Both motions were denied.
The hearing examiner stated he would not strictly apply the rules of evidence, but would give evidence the weight he deemed appropriate.

Key Outcomes

The evidentiary record was closed at the end of the hearing.
No final decision was issued from the bench. The hearing examiner took the case under advisement and must issue a written decision within 15 calendar days.
Any appeal of the final decision must be filed within 20 days of its issuance.
The dog's status remained unchanged pending the written decision.

Meeting Transcript

We're on record. All right. Good morning, everybody. I'm going to call this meeting back to order again. This is the June 4, 2026 hearing of the City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner. We had a few items, uh, land use issues at 9 a.m. today. And after a recess, we're getting back on the record with an 11 a.m. agenda with one item. It is the appeal of Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services case number 87025. I'll refer to that agency as Scraps going forward. We're here today because of a potentially dangerous dog declaration that was issued by Scraps on May 7, 2026. That uh declaration was appealed by Rachel Bennett on May 14 of 2026. The potentially dangerous dog declaration was the result of an administrative review hearing on April 21st, 2026, following an initial uh dangerous dog declaration that was issued on April 16, 2026. So we've already been through the administrative review process that led to the potentially dangerous dog declaration May 7, which superseded the previous document and prompted the appeal before us today. So do we have uh appellant Rachel Bennett here today? All right, ma'am, would you like to come forward and take a seat in front of that microphone? Thank you. Um so my name is Jay Eye Stone. I've been appointed by the Spokane Valley City Council to render decisions in certain issues as authorized by the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The hearing examiner holds public hearings to receive evidence on the merits of various issues, and I consider the evidence presented in the hearing and uh filed written evidence to formulate a decision. The hearing process is governed by certain rules. We are gonna follow uh an ordered procedure today, but I'll try to conduct the hearing in a fairly relaxed manner so that everybody is comfortable uh presenting testimony and um offering their evidence in you know the the smoothest and most comfortable way possible. Um the procedure, let's see, that we're gonna follow today. Um well um let me back up Spokane Valley Municipal Code appendix B chapter three, section I provides an order of administrative appeal hearings, um, which I think does not uh very well fit the Scraps appeal process because in today's hearing, Scraps does carry the burden of proof uh to demonstrate that the date potentially dangerous dog declaration should be upheld. Um, as such, rather than having the appellant uh present their case first, we will uh start with Scraps presenting evidence to support their declaration, and then that'll be followed by an opportunity for the appellant to present evidence. Um the appellant is also free to cross-examine witnesses, object to evidence as it's presented by scraps, uh, as well as of course to present her own witnesses and evidence. Umce Scraps carries the burden of proof, I will give uh Scraps an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony or evidence after the appellants uh case is closed, and then I will give an opportunity for some closing arguments after all evidence is heard. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code requires that I issue a decision within 15 days of the close of evidence in this hearing. Uh the evidentiary record will be closed at the end of today's hearing unless there's a motion for a continuance and we reschedule this for any reason. Um issued, it will be final unless it is appealed. After my decision is issued, it will be final unless it is appealed. Um according to the provisions of chapter 716 of the revised code of Washington within 20 days. And so with that, uh, I'm going to turn again to you, Miss Bennett. Are you going to be representing yourself today, or will you be represented by an agent or a representative? Okay. And can I just ask in what capacity you have somebody accompanying you there at the table? Okay. All right. May I ask your name, ma'am? One more time. Would you spell your last can you spell your last name for me? Sorry. Okay. All right. And um let's see. So again, um, as I mentioned, the potentially dangerous dog declaration was issued by Scraps on May 7, 2026. The issues um May 7, sorry. May 7, 2026. Um Ms.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com