Ex-Marine Alleges Discrimination by Lakewood Animal Warden

[Lori Allen _]

Today on Cleveland.com, I read an article by Eric Heisig regarding a lawsuit brought against the City of Lakewood by an Afghanistan and Iraq war veteran. The lawsuit alleges that Lakewood Animal Warden Jack Crawford continued to harass Patrick Boyd, (the veteran), even after Judge Carroll dismissed charges brought against Boyd last year. The charges were filed against him because his service dog happened to be a pit bull. Mr. Boyd needs his dog for problems stemming from post-traumatic stress disorder.

First off, a big thank you to Mr. Boyd for serving our country and fighting for us to keep our freedom.

As I walk or drive around Lakewood, I notice early trash set-outs, litter, etc. There also appears to be a major increase in crime in Lakewood. This includes, but is not limited to shoplifting, robbery, rape, grand theft auto, drug activity, domestic violence, and even assaults on our police officers. Why then does the city seem to have extra time on their hands to allegedly harass Mr. Boyd?

Once again, it appears that our mayor is asleep at the wheel. Shame on you, Mr. Summers for allowing this kind of treatment against someone that fought for your freedom. I feel you need to get your priorities straight, or better yet, I feel you should do all of Lakewood a favor and withdraw your candidacy for mayor.

[Michael Deneen]

This nonsense dates back to the ill-advised pitbull ban that was implemented in the late 2000s.

Just like with the hospital situation, the chickens are coming home to roost (metaphorically if not literally, but that's a whole other issue).

[Lori Allen _]

I just saw the report on 19 Action News. It appears that the City of Lakewood is being sued for $225,000. Please read the court report that is attached to the Cleveland.com article. I was appalled that according to the court documents, Mr. Boyd states that Lt. Eschweiler of the Lakewood Police Department told him "you have no right to have your dog in my city".

It appears that the mayor's attitude of this being HIS city has become a poor example for some (but not all) of the city employees. Perhaps the mayor needs to concentrate more at what's going on at city hall and in our city instead of destroying our hospital by making what appears to be back-door deals with his friends at the Cleveland Clinic.

Again, I salute Mr. Boyd and I hope he wins his case. At least then I could see that some of Lakewood's tax dollars are spent on a worthy cause.

[Peter Grossetti]

LCO 506.14 POLICE DOGS; SERVICE DOGS.

The terms “dangerous animal” and “vicious animal,” as used in this chapter, do not include police dogs that have been trained and may be used to assist law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties. Pit bull dogs and canary dogs do not include service animals as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

(Ord. 35-11. Passed 10-17-2011.)

Leave the man and the dog alone! And THANK YOU for your service to Our Nation, Mr Boyd.

[todd vainisi]

Wait, wait, wait...

Again, I salute Mr. Boyd and I hope he wins his case. At least then I could see that some of Lakewood's tax dollars are spent on a worthy cause.

No offense, but I sure as hell hope he doesn't. Giving some guy 225k because he takes a lot of flak over his choice of service dog sure doesn't seem like a good use of my tax dollars to me.

[todd vainisi]

Here is the link for anyone who wants to read it:
http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/ ... cart_river

The facts of the case are not as favorable as the OP makes it sound. Yes, the pit bull is his service dog, but this is not a service dog in the traditional sense, and I doubt this circumstance was thought of when the pit bull ordinance was written. The dog is helping him overcome PTSD by being a good companion, it's not helping him to safely cross the street or keeping him safe in the traditional sense.

Also, he is bringing the dog to the dog park. I realize that visiting the dog park might be therapeutic for his PTSD, and therefore the dog is providing service. The dog park has a lot of different rules that are there for everyone's benefit and safety. And then there is the city laws about pit bulls. Whether we agree or disagree on the pit bull regulations - the law is the law. I don't agree that he is adhering to the "spirit of the law" on this one.

Regarding rules that are inconvenient/prohibitive for some of us: should I find a reason to sue Lakewood because I can't bring my little daughter inside? Imagine what kinds of other rules changes would have to be made to the park to accommodate allowing small children in there.

Finally, this dude isn't even a resident of our city. That's why Lt. Eschweiler used the phrase "my city." Because it is specifically NOT Mr. Boyd's city.

Is the dog park funded 100% by Lakewood tax dollars or do the Metroparks throw down for it as well? Maybe we should make a regulation that limits it's use to residents of Lakewood in response to the law suit? How does he expect to come out on top in this other than by costing us (the residents of Lakewood) a boatload of money?

I guess I'd prefer that Mr. Boyd find somewhere else to enjoy his service companion where it won't cost the residents and property owners of Lakewood $225k.

By the way, I 100% respect and appreciate his service to our country and the toll it took on his life and wish him the very best with his recovery.

[todd vainisi]

As I walk or drive around Lakewood, I notice early trash set-outs, litter, etc. There also appears to be a major increase in crime in Lakewood. This includes, but is not limited to shoplifting, robbery, rape, grand theft auto, drug activity, domestic violence, and even assaults on our police officers. Why then does the city seem to have extra time on their hands to allegedly harass Mr. Boyd?

Also, why would you think that dog warden would be issuing tickets for putting out the garbage too early? Or, Lori, are you suggesting we should have no dog warden and instead hire another street cop? Imagine how much time the local police would spend on complaints about people's dogs if we didn't have city employees specifically trained and empowered to handle those specific situations.

Or, are you just saying the dog warden should not do his job or selectively enforce the rules? Maybe not issue any warnings that day if he sees litter on the way to work?

Lastly, the article states that Judge Carroll reprimanded Mr. Boyd for his part in the situation:

Carroll wrote that while Boyd followed the city's laws, he did so in a manner that created stress for everyone present. "Rather than try to attempt to explain to the animal warden about his situation, while the animal warden was dealing with multiple situations at once, the defendant took an aggressive approach, using multiple obscenities towards the animal warden," Carroll wrote, adding that Boyd was not charged with disorderly conduct and that he "is limited to the charges filed by the prosecutor."

I always find that city officials and police cooperate with me much better after I've cursed them out.

[Lori Allen _]

Mr. Vainisi,

I am saddened that you would speak about a war vet in such a manner. I come from a family of both past and present law enforcement officers. It does not matter what city a person lives in or even whether or not they are a war vet, NOBODY should be, from what it appears, verbally abused by any officer of the law. It also gives our city a bad name. We have a really great police force who do not deserve to be grouped in with these other two individuals. Have you ever been in the service and fought on the front line? Do you know any vet personally, as I do, with permanent body or brain damage? Do you realize that these men and women do not receive enough medical or financial support from our government after they return home after they have put there lives on the line for us?

I suggest that you educate yourself on PTSD. Secondly, we have a VA Hospital right here in Cleveland that can always use volunteers. Why don't you make a visit there and talk to our vets who have PTSD. I believe that once you see the bodily injuries that our veterans have suffered, that it would be difficult for you to return.

[todd vainisi]

I just knew you would use this as an opportunity to question my patriotism and suggest that I don't respect our servicemen. That's why I immediately mentioned how much I respect his service and the personal cost to him.

According to the article, it wasn't the dog warden doing the verbal abusing, it was Mr. Boyd.

You don't hold the monopoly on sympathy and empathy for veterans, Lori. Frankly, Mr. Boyd's past service does not grant him immunity from our laws. He was already shown leniancy by Judge Carroll, who suggested he may have found him guilty of disorderly conduct if the prosecution had brought those charges against him.

Also I have policemen and veterans in my family as well.

[Gary Rice]

As a retired special education teacher, I can tell you that there is wide acceptance of service dogs both at the state and federal level.

Not giving any legal advice here. That's for the attorneys, but here's a link to Ohio's service dog guidelines and as you'll see, they are pretty straightforward and generally allow a trained working service dog to go just about anywhere, anytime, with VERY rare exceptions...

http://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/service-animals

Back to the banjo...

[todd vainisi]

It's a sticky wicket. I'm all for service dogs going where ever they need to be. But that's on leash. I gather this new PTSD therapy service dog is a fairly new concept. Calling it a service dog probably has had a lot to do with funding their training and other monetary matters. You'll see that there are mentions of leashes when appropriate in those guidelines. The PTSD service dogs even come with a leash when they are awarded to vets.

I think that this definition will cause a lot of tricky situations, as it just doesn't seem to meet the definition of the service dog we all grew up knowing about (which is commonly a dog that helps a blind person get around town and other things).

It also doesn't change the fact that the dog warden most likely believes he was doing his job. It doesn't make it harassment, imo. And it sure doesn't seem like something that should cost Lakewood tax payers $225,000.

Again, this is not about whether the man has suffered for his country, whether there should be pit bulls allowed in the city or dog park, or whether the pit bull service dogs should be afforded an exception. It's about whether a dog warden doing his job, as he understands it, should cost the city $225k.

Maybe he could sue Fairview Park for failing to provide him with a place to do therapy with his animal instead?

[Missy Limkemann]

Todd V....according to the ADA ...PTSD service dogs are a REAL thing. (trust me in my business I know all about dogs....)
http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

I had a service dog for my autistic son (sadly she passed away and we are in training with a new dog).

[todd vainisi]

Missy, no doubt about it - I've not disputed whether PTSD service dogs are a real thing. Just whether using our dog park with the pit bull off-leash is part of the service it performs for him.

From the ADA article you linked:

Examples of such work or tasks include...calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack. ...Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.

Also, this:

Under the ADA, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices.

So, taking his dog for some fun time at the Lakewood dog park does not seem to qualify as the dog performing its service to him. Therefore, it would seem, our leash laws about the dog park apply and he is not exempt from them.

Here is this document describing the services a PTSD service dog performs (and they specifically mention that some are not defensible in a court of law as an ADA service), none of these seem to be to "create emotional happiness by enjoying the park together". Perhaps I am not clear on what service Mr Boyd feels the dog was performing. In any case:
http://www.iaadp.org/psd_tasks.html

Again, my issue is not with our veterans, pit bulls, or PTSD service dogs. The issue is whether he was in compliance with the rules of the park and/or the ADA Service Dog rules and whether giving him a 225k settlement is a good use of our tax dollars (as Lori suggested).