The dangerous dog hearing of Max, a high prey drive husky with animal and child aggression.

Statement of Decision
San Francisco, CA - On May 22, 2024, about a month before a San Francisco man had to scale a tall fence to escape two vicious pit bulls, another high-profile attack occurred in the city. "Max" the husky had been sitting under a table at an outdoor pizzeria with its owners, when he suddenly bolted and hunted down a child walking nearby with his nanny. After the male owner regained control of Max, he sat back down at the pizzeria and "finished his beer." Surveillance cameras captured the attack.

No attempt was made by the owners to provide their contact information to the boy's nanny. The couple said they were unable to because they did not speak English and because "everything happened fast." KABC-TV interviewed the child's mother, who had desperately tried to find the owners to obtain the dog's vaccination status so her son could avoid the rabies shots. At that time, SFPD's Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit was investigating, and a hearing was set to be calendared.

Before the Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing was scheduled, KABCT-TV uncovered a previous attack by Max that was also captured on video. A year prior to the May 2024 attack near the pizzeria, Max attacked "Ajaxx," a smaller, 10-year old dog, unprovoked in the lobby of their building. Ajaxx's owner, Jomai DeHaven, filed a dog bite report afterward, but nothing ever came of it. DeHaven did not know he needed to file a Vicious and Dangerous Dog Complaint in order to open an investigation.

The hearing was held on August 6. DeHaven testified first, followed by the child's mother, Clair Wang, and his father. The parents were able to obtain multiple surveillance videos, which we overlaid on the hearing video. Both owners of Max, through an interpreter, testified next. Due to the nature of both unprovoked attacks by Max -- first to a senior dog, then a toddler -- we had a strong interest in learning how the hearing officer would rule in this case: muzzle restrictions or euthanasia?

Statement of Decision

The 11-page Statement of Decision by the independent hearing officer, Janelle Caywood, was issued on August 22. "All testimony and documentary evidence were carefully considered and incorporated," states the decision. We knew the prognosis for Max was poor, a two-time biter by the age of three and was neutered at the age of one. With unprovoked animal and child aggression, rehoming/rescue was off the table too. Max was declared Vicious and Dangerous and ordered to be humanely euthanized.

"Based on the testimony at the hearing, the documents, photographs, videos, and the above Findings, the dog Max meets the vicious and dangerous criteria ... The harrowing videos of the two attacks depicted in the videos in Exhibit 7 speak for themselves ... Max chased down, attacked, and bit a toddler in the right arm, yanking the child to the ground. Thereafter, the dog circled the child and nanny for 20 seconds, in a menacing manner, before the owners finally got control of the dog ... the boy and his nanny did not provoke, strike, tease, or antagonize Max. They simply walked along the sidewalk a considerable distance away from the dog and did nothing to justify this dog hunting down the toddler like prey, biting the boy, and swinging the boy to the ground. Even if the child had made noises as Mejia contended (which the undersigned did not find credible) a toddler’s sounds from a considerable distance away does not constitute provocation to justify hunting down the child and attacking him." - Statement of Decision, August 22, 2024

Caywood also wrote about the husky breed's "innate strong prey drive," which already requires careful management, the unlikelihood of rehabilitating Max through training due to his prey drive for children and dog aggression, and that his lack of bite inhibition was an indicator he would bite again. Given these elements combined, in addition to the fact that dog "owner compliance is never perfect," Caywood had little choice. There was only one sensible outcome in the matter of Max.

"Unfortunately, there is only sensible outcome in this matter: Max must be humanely euthanized to protect the community. Vulnerable children are most at risk for dog bites, so it is of paramount importance that the City and County of San Francisco take swift action when a dog has a propensity to hunt children as Max demonstrated on May 22, 2024. Huskies have an innate strong prey drive and require careful management as it is. But Max’s prognosis is poor and likely cannot be rehabilitated with training given his innate prey drive for children and dog aggression. Max lacks bite inhibition as evidenced by the fact that the child’s wound is so deep. A lack of bite inhibition demonstrates that the dog is likely bite again at the same depth or deeper which poses a grave threat to the children in the community. The dog’s behavior is not amenable to the remedies in Section 42.3(c)(ii) and the standard vicious and dangerous dog restrictions are inadequate to protect public safety. Muzzle and a short-leash mandates are not enough to protect the public from this dog because owner compliance is never perfect. Also, even if Max were ordered to wear a muzzle in public, Max could still attack a person in a private home or facility when lawfully not wearing a muzzle or when eating or drinking. Notably, Max has already been neutered and continues to bite at a dangerous level. This dog is unsafe to exist in the community and must be put down." - Statement of Decision, August 22, 2024

Discussion

The owners of Max had the dog neutered in late 2022.1 At that time, the dog was also vaccinated and microchipped. Max was wearing a leash in the videos but was not always under its control. Thus, the couple had some knowledge of responsible dog ownership and the city's laws. They had no knowledge of the husky breed, unprovoked aggression, or bite inhibition. Nor did they realize that failing to provide their contact information forced a 3-year old to undergo eight painful rabies shots.

"Her child suffered a deep bite wound, as well as additional teeth wounds, that was more horrible than she imagined and required five (5) stiches. Blood was everywhere and flesh was stuck to his clothes. Because they did not have rabies vaccine information, her child had to get eight (8) rabies vaccination shots, including shots directly into the bite wound, which were very painful." - Statement of Decision, August 22, 2024

After Max attacked Ajaxx, he was eligible for a Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing. Unfortunately, DeHaven had not known how to pursue that process. By the August hearing, Max had inflicted another vicious attack. After "hunting down the toddler like prey," Max menacingly circled the boy and his nanny. It took the owners two minutes to regain control of their dog. It was only after two attacks, and being ordered by SFPD, the owners recognized Max could never be unmuzzled in public again.

What occurred to this child is non-repeatable. There could be no "strike three" for Max. His owners being unable to comprehend the magnitude of Max's dog aggression and child aggression is irrelevant. The owners also do not have a yard, enclosed or otherwise. Meaning that every time Max had to relieve himself he would need to be leashed and muzzled -- a zero mistake dog. Sadly, what Mejia told the hearing officer, "Please don't take him, I will train him," is adolescent wishful thinking.

As Caywood pointed out, a muzzle restriction when in public, would not make Max safe indoors. He could attack a child in a private home while "lawfully not wearing a muzzle or when eating or drinking." Mejia stated they had no children in their home. But that could change, not to mention a child or infant visiting. Few entities beyond our readership understand the danger some huskies -- with or without these propensities -- pose to infants. The dog "Max" is set to be euthanized on September 3.

The Declined Witness

The child's mother and father were not present during the attack, only the nanny witnessed the attack. The nanny declined to be a witness, did not provide a written statement, and did not attend the hearing. Given the video evidence presented at the hearing, perhaps she thought she was not needed? Unfortunately, that left her statements to Wang as hearsay. "Wang's testimony regarding" the nanny's "statements were not considered for truth because they are hearsay," states the decision.

What if there had been no video, or the video only captured part of the attack on the child? That would have meant that the only witnesses providing testimony about the "events of the attack" were the owners of Max. Recall that Mejia stated on the record the child was making noises that provoked Max. "The baby was yelling or making noise, so the dog got up and ran. They didn't think that it was going to be so easy for the dog to come out from under the table," stated the translator for Mejia.

Even with video, key witnesses appearing and providing testimony is critical. Failing to appear can impact the hearing officer's final decision. Cornell Law states: "Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court."

Video Timestamps

We designated the following chapters in our video of the hearing to help readers navigate the chapters. At the 28:45 mark, you can watch all videos related to the attack on the child and what followed uninterrupted. Due to the translator, the testimony by Max's owners moves more slowly, but the questions Caywood asks are weighty, and you can see how she begins to formulate her opinion. Finally, there are some "wobblies" in the hearing video when switching angles; sorry about that!

00:00 Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing begins
07:59 Child's nanny declined to be a witness or provide written testimony
08:53 Witness DeHaven, the owner of Ajaxx, testifies
15:54 Video, Max attacking Ajaxx in the lobby
18:13 Witness Wang, the mother of child, testifies by phone
28:45 Videos (all) of attack near pizzeria and afterward
37:22 Witness Bekerman, the father of child, testifies by phone
41:35 Witness Mejia, female owner of Max
1:23:42 Witness Gomez, male owner of Max
1:40:30 Brief rebuttals of child's parents and DeHaven
1:43:39 Injury photos of Ajaxx shown
1:44:31 Rebuttals of Max's owners.
1:46:45 Recommendations from SFPD and Animal Control
1:53:00 Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing closes

From left: Ajaxx owner DeHaven, Max owner Mejia, and hearing officer Janelle Caywood.

Max at the pizzeria, the injured toddler, and Max walking away afterward with owner Gomez.

Related articles:
06/13/24: San Francisco Man Scales Tall Fence to Escape Violent Pit Bulls Captured on Video
10/29/23: Ring Camera Video of Pit Bull Attacking Pomeranian in San Francisco Used in Hearing
02/26/22: Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing After Alleged 'Service' Pit Bull Attacks Security...