San Antonio Animal Control Testimony During Punishment Phase of Fatal Dog Attack Trial

Two animal control officers gave testimony during the punishment phase.

Lawsuit Against City
San Antonio, TX - On February 24, 2023, Ramon Najera, 81, was brutally killed by two pit bulls. The dogs’ owners, Christian Moreno and Abilene Schnieder, were later sentenced to 18 and 15 years respectively. The three-day punishment phase of this trial was captured on video. Due to this rarity, we examined the testimony of Najera's wife, a responding police officer, prosecution's closing arguments, and the sentencing. Our last in this series examines the testimony of two animal control officers.

You will see evidence of the crime scene aftermath in the videos we discuss. You will see images of the exterior and interior of the defendants' home taken by ACS Lieutenant Bethany Snowden. You will learn from Snowden details about the three previous bites, the dogs involved in each, and the procedures San Antonio Animal Care Services (ACS) follows after a dog bite. You will see defense poke holes in these procedures, which may shed light on strategies being used in the civil lawsuit.

Civil Lawsuit Excerpt

"Shockingly, this wasn't the only incident involving the dogs. Prior to the February 24, 2023, attack, the dogs were involved in at least three other attacks on people, with two of the three resulting in bite wounds. On August 20, 2020, three years prior to the fatal mauling, the City confirmed in writing that it received affidavits from concerned citizens alleging that the dogs were dangerous and that they engaged in threatening physical behavior to humans. The City should have taken action in response to this complaint about the dangerous dogs and stopped any additional events from happening right then and there. But the City did nothing." - Najera et al v. City of San Antonio et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Part I: Crime Scene Aftermath

A San Antonio ACS officer who responded to the scene testifies (11 minutes). The officer shows photographs of the crime scene aftermath. The video starts when he begins [2:04:20]

At [2:04:20], a male ACS officer who responded to the scene on Depla Street on February 24, 2023 identifies the photographs he took of the attack site. An axe used by responding firefighters to fight off the pit bulls is seen lying on a leaf covered lawn soaked in pools of blood. Other images include the defendants' front gate ajar, blood on the sidewalk, a tear in the gate's fencing, the two blood-covered dogs involved, "King" and "Snow" secured together in a kennel, and the old scar wounds on King.

At [2:10:14], a third pit bull, "Legend," is shown being led away from the scene by Moreno with multiple first responder vehicles in the background. Legend also has old scar wounds. A reference of Legend being involved in the fatal attack is "hearsay" and not entered into the court record. Legend was not seen in the video of the fatal attack filmed by a witness, only King and Snow were. Defense tries to contest the ACS officer's ability to identify the scar wounds, a task he does "daily" in the field.

The officer's testimony ends at 2:15:15, which is several hours before Lt. Bethany Snowden testifies, who is our primary interest in this post. What has been established thus far is that King and Snow were involved in the fatal attack. This is important because not all three bites leading up to the fatal attack involved King and Snow. The defendants also owned Legend and Queen; the ladder dog was involved in an earlier bite. No one dog was involved in all three previous bites before the fatal attack.

"There were a multitude of bites associated with this address and multiple dogs associated in different events," ACS Director Shannon Sims said.1

This fact comes into play about ACS policy when Snowden testifies. Generally, if one dog had been involved in three previous bites, that would have triggered bite investigators to seek out a Dangerous Dog affidavit from victims and witnesses. Such an investigation and the declaration of even one of the defendants' pit bulls deemed "dangerous" might have prevented the fatal attack. As it stands, owners of "multiple" aggressive dogs that bite on separate occasions can more easily flout the law.

This is an ancient dog bite problem that lawmakers refuse to address. When a dog owner has multiple bites "collectively" attributed to him or her over a designated time period from one or more dogs, especially if the bites occurred while the dog was at large, the owners and their dogs should be treated with more scrutiny. Instead, owners of multiple biting dogs -- like the defendants -- that bite on separate occasions are afforded more "uncounted" bites prior to a "dangerous" designation.2

Part II: Lt. Bethany Snowden

ACS Lieutenant Bethany Snowden testifies about the previous bites and shows disturbing photographs of the defendants' home (30 minutes). The video starts when she begins [5:25:38]

Now we address the testimony of Snowden, who is identified in the civil lawsuit. During the hearing, Snowden testified that ACS was understaffed. There were "4 bite investigators" and 40 field officers for the "whole city of San Antonio" from 2020 to 2023. If Bexar County is included, that's a population of just over 2 million. Snowden testified that there are "260 calls per day," but this relates to all animal calls, not just dogs. At 5:28:45, Snowden goes through the process of handling a bite call.

Once a bite is proven to have occurred, under state law, the dog must be placed into a 10-day quarantine. "On the 11th day we release the animal" to its owner, Snowden said. If the owner does not reclaim, the dog becomes the property of San Antonio. When the prosecutor asked if the owner can voluntarily surrender his dog at that time, and not retrieve it, she replied, "Yes." And that can also be done "at any time," she added. Thus, establishing the defendants could have chosen that route.

Three Previous Bites

• The first bite incident occurred on September 11, 2021. David Avilia, 29-years old, was the victim, and the bite was determined to be "mild" on the ACS bite scale. The biting dog was "Queen," but Snow was also present. ACS impounded Queen for the bite quarantine. Defendant Moreno reclaimed Queen 11 days later, after paying $266 in fees.
• The second bite incident occurred 17 days later, on September 28, 2021. Fernando Esparza, 59-years old, was the victim, and the bite was determined to be "mild" on the ACS bite scale. The biting dog was Snow. ACS impounded Snow for the bite quarantine. Defendant Moreno reclaimed Snow 11 days later, after paying $306 in fees.
• The third bite incident occurred on January 12, 2023, one month before Ramon Najera was killed. Reynaldo Vega was the victim. The bite was determined to be "moderate" on the ACS bite scale. ACS impounded the dogs involved, King and Snow, for the bite quarantine. Schnieder reclaimed both dogs 11 days later, after paying $427 in fees.
• On February 24, 2023, King and Snow brutally killed 81-year old Ramon Najera, critically injured his wife, Janie Najera, and bit and injured two other people at the scene. Making this the "second" unsecured/off-property bite for King and the "third" unsecured/off-property bite for Snow between September 2021 and February 2023.

Exterior, Interior Photos

Snowden was then asked about the images she took of the exterior and interior of the defendants' home. Snowden did not go to the scene until that evening when it was dark. Defense objected to the interior photos of the home being entered into evidence. Prosecution argued that how the couple kept the inside of their home "could be a contributing factor to the behavior of the dogs, the care of the dogs." The judge overruled the objections. All of the photographs were allowed into evidence.

At 5:38:26, the prosecutor shows the photographs to the court, beginning with images of the dilapidated, jerry-rigged backyard fence. A dog harness and a cable tether line, not attached to anything, lay on the ground. Prosecution now establishes that while all of the pictures were taken (both outside and inside) there was no working electricity on the property. Snowden took the photographs while using a flashlight. There had been no working electricity on the property for two months.

At 5:40:13, the prosecutor shows a series of interior home photographs. Debris, urine, and feces litter the flooring. The hallway is particularly disturbing, as it is saturated in debris (clothing, junk, trash) at least a foot high, along with feces. Recall the defendants had four children living in the home up until the fatal mauling. Snowden observed four puppies inside the home during her examination. Snowden testified the puppies were secured inside the home. Prosecution then passed the witness to defense.

Defense Questions Snowden

At 5:44:45, defense questions Snowden, shedding light on strategies that may be used in the civil lawsuit filed against the city. The defense concentrates on the "third bite" that occurred a month before the fatal mauling, arguing, generally, that the injury should have been designated "severe" instead of "moderate," which would have triggered ACS bite investigators to seek out a Dangerous Dog affidavit from victims and witnesses, leading to the dogs' euthanasia prior to the fatal attack.

Defense then probes Snowden about the Dangerous Dog affidavit system. (1) Snowden defaults to the position that the "affidavit has to be prepared by a witness or a victim," (2) Snowden defaults to the position that dogs impounded for a bite quarantine "have to be returned [to their owners] because dogs are property," and (3) Snowden defaults to the position that "we cannot begin an investigation until an affidavit is received." Herein lies the rub, as if ACS has no authority to act on their own.

At 5:48:15, the "bite per dog" charade chimes in that no rational person could comprehend. "The determination has been made that these dogs have been biting people for the span of three years?" defense asks. "Three different incidents, at least during that time?" defense asks. "For three different dogs," Snowden counters. The dogs were quarantined each time. "So, my question is," asks defense, "at what point does ACS become concerned about beginning the process of obtaining an affidavit?"

Snowden repeats her default positions. Recall that the judge, prior to issuing her sentencing, said, "I find the testimony I heard from the city of San Antonio very difficult to believe," referring to testimony about a "missing affidavit." Defense then summed up Snowden by saying, "So, I take from your answer that you are passive in this process, that nothing is done in your office. If somebody brings the affidavit, fine. If they don't, you just hold onto them for 10 days and try to return the dogs?"

When ACS is "Active"

Snowden then explains, "We are active when every serious bite that comes through the door." She testified that none of the three previous bites were "serious." It was irrelevant to ACS that the dogs involved belonged to the same owners and each time attacked while being at large. Further, Snowden said that a bite investigator would have been contacted if one of the dogs had been involved in a third bite. At that time, Snow had been involved in only two bites, thus ACS never pursued an affidavit.

At 5:50:40, defense asks, "So, you needed to see another two bites with each one of these dogs before the need to get the affidavit kicked in?" Snowden does not answer this directly (to do so would show how absurd the policy is). In a ruffled reply, she states: "If we believe the animals are a public safety issue, we will reach out to witnesses and victims to try to fill out [an affidavit]." The information that "every victim receives, also notifies them of a dangerous dog affidavit," Snowden testified.

When defense asked Snowden, "So these dogs were not dangerous to the public at this point, after these three bites? They were not a threat to public safety?" She replies, "They were not a threat to public safety. They are property." (Yet, the "property" of dogs is of an "imperfect nature," according to U.S. law, which is why they are subject to police power.) Defense next asks about the affidavit itself. It's 4 pages in length and takes roughly 30 minutes to an hour to fill out, Snowden testified.

City Attorney Andy Segovia, whose role is to provide "the interpretation and guidance" of ACS policies, is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit.3

Defense then asks for the definition of a "severe" bite, which would have triggered ACS to seek out an investigation. "Severe bites are deep lacerations, deep puncture wounds, multiple injuries, that somebody sustained," Snowden testified. If a severe bite is a "first bite" that would activate ACS to seek an investigation, she said. Schnieder's attorney then questioned Snowden on whether there was any proof in ACS records that previous victims had been given the Dangerous Dog affidavit notices.

At [5:54:47], Schnieder's attorney expands upon this. Regarding how David Avilia, the first victim, received the notice, "I have documentation in the file that he received it, but in regards to what form I can't tell you," Snowden said. Additional notices were sent by email from the shelter software, Chameleon. Defense could not understand this given that Avilia and other victims and witnesses of the previous bites had reached out to ACS multiple times but were still unaware of the affidavit option.

Snowden in the Civil Lawsuit

Now we return to the civil lawsuit, which alleges that a year before the three bites scrutinized during the criminal trial, there were affidavits. "On August 20, 2020, three years prior to the fatal mauling, the City confirmed in writing that it received affidavits from concerned citizens alleging that the dogs were dangerous and that they engaged in threatening physical behavior to humans," states the Complaint. It's unclear which of the multiple dogs owned by the defendants caused the affidavit complaints.

"On February 24, 2023, Ms. Najera, and her husband, Ramon Najera, Jr., were violently attacked by dangerous dogs previously identified by city authorities as a significant threat to public safety...

Shockingly, this wasn't the only incident involving the dogs. Prior to the February 24, 2023, attack, the dogs were involved in at least three other attacks on people, with two of the three resulting in bite wounds. On August 20, 2020, three years prior to the fatal mauling, the City confirmed in writing that it received affidavits from concerned citizens alleging that the dogs were dangerous and that they engaged in threatening physical behavior to humans. The City should have taken action in response to this complaint about the dangerous dogs...

"There is also no doubt that the dogs in question were dangerous. In addition to the clear evidence of dangerousness demonstrated above, as part of a criminal proceeding against the dogs’ owners, Animal Control Officer Bethany Snowden testified that the dogs were dangerous and that they had bitten someone in September 2021 and again in January 2023. Snowden explained in her sworn testimony that a dog is defined as “dangerous” if, while free of restrain, a person feels the dog could cause injury to them. She further conceded that that there were “flaws within the system of ACS”— it is these flaws that resulted in Plaintiffs’ injuries...

The City wrongfully denied the existence of prior complaints of the dogs’ vicious history and failed to take appropriate action, and wrongfully undertook inappropriate action, in violation of the Najera’s constitutional rights. The City also failed to follow existing policy, and created its own unconstitutional policy, in order to avoid expending resources to handle dangerous dogs."

Summary & Discussion

What you have seen in these videos is rarely seen in the public. Many courtrooms do not allow cameras either. The testimony and photographs are sobering. It offers a different perspective than "reading a news article." Leading up to the fatal attack, there had been many complaints about the defendants. In addition to 13 complaints that ACS traced to their home from 2020 to February 2023, police traced over 100 calls for disturbances to their residence from March 2021 to February 2023.

Prior to sentencing the defendants, the judge reminded the courtroom, "The city of San Antonio is not on trial here. They will have their day in court, and their lawsuit to contend with." The testimony provided by Snowden during the punishment phase provides insight into the themes that flow through the civil lawsuit filed against the city. The Complaint also alleges that the city did receive affidavits from concerned citizens about the defendants' dogs in 2020 but failed to take appropriate actions.

The "bite per dog" defense is an unknown factor. Which dogs did those affidavits refer to, Queen, Legend, King or Snow? The couple moved into the Depla Street home in 2020 and bred the dogs, so there could have been others. Further, does the "bite per dog" matter, given that state law does not require a "bite" for a victim or witness to file an affidavit. The dog can display "unprovoked acts" that "cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person."

(2) "Dangerous dog" means a dog that:

(A) makes an unprovoked attack on a person that causes bodily injury and occurs in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own; or

(B) commits unprovoked acts in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person. - Texas statue, Sec. 822.041

The bite injury of the first victim, 29-year old David Avilia, was determined to be "mild" on the ACS bite scale, but he was shaken to his core. It takes him nearly two minutes to gain his composure to recount the attack to the court. His 5-year old daughter was playing in his front yard at the time. Avilia describes the pit bulls doing a "pinching maneuver." One dog positioned to the left and right coroners of him (pinching him in), poised to attack. This aggressive act meets the definition of section B.

Now that the criminal trial is over, the civil lawsuit attorneys will peel back the layers of what the city failed to do. From alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses to Failure to Train and Supervise; Failure to Protect; Wrongful Death and Survival Claim; and how the State Created Danger, "including the failure to act appropriately after receiving affidavits, the failure to obtain affidavits, and the failure to properly classify the dogs as dangerous."

Janie Najera testifies during the punishment phase of the San Antonio fatal pit bull attack trial.

Related articles:
09/20/24: Prosecution Closing Arguments In Fatal Dog Attack Trial; Judge Issues Sentences
09/19/24: San Antonio Police Officer Testifies In Punishment Phase of Fatal Dog Attack Trial
09/18/24: Janie Najera, the Wife of Victim, Testifies In Punishment Phase of Fatal Dog Attack Trial