East Bethel council upholds 'potentially dangerous' finding, orders muzzles and enclosure requirements for two dogs

At its Sept. 22, 2025 regular meeting, the East Bethel City Council held a public hearing on a July 29 dog attack and voted to sustain the sheriff's office determination that two dogs be designated "potentially dangerous," imposing requirements on the owners. The council acted after hearing testimony from the dog owner and reviewing the sheriff's report. The city's attorney explained the hearing's scope under state and local law and the council voted to impose conditions that the owner maintain a proper enclosure, muzzle the dogs while outside, and keep rabies vaccinations current. The case stems from an incident on July 29, 2025, reported to the Anoka County Sheriff's Office. The sheriff's report said two dogs left their owner's property and that a neighbor considered the dogs "potentially problematic," citing an unprovoked attack. The owner, Adam Mingelsmeier of 19584 Third Street NE, told the council he has kept the animals for several years, that his yard is surrounded by a six‑foot fence, and that he offered to pay the injured dog's veterinary bills. "I wouldn't want anybody to go through this," Mingelsmeier said while noting he has purchased an enclosed kennel and that his dogs are up to date on rabies vaccinations. Mingelsmeier disputed that his animals were off the property at the time of the incident and said he paid an at‑large citation to avoid the time and expense of contesting it. His wife, Crystal Natalie, told the council she had asked whether the complainant had video; the deputy had indicated there was video evidence, but the couple said they were not shown it at the hearing. City Attorney Luk told the council that East Bethel code allows the council to impose conditions consistent with Minnesota law and that the public hearing is required because of constitutional protections for owners when the city seeks to impose restrictions. Luk said the city can dismiss the finding, sustain it as "potentially dangerous," or upgrade it to "dangerous" if facts warrant such an escalation. During council discussion, members cited prior contact between the animals and neighbors, the presence of children at the neighboring property and statements from the neighbor that the dogs have dug under fences in the past. One councilmember urged conditions intended to protect children, proposing muzzling when the dogs are outside. The motion as amended required the owner to: provide and maintain a proper enclosure for the animals; muzzle the dogs whenever they are outside the primary enclosure; and show proof that rabies vaccinations remain current. The council voted to adopt the amended motion; the chair called the motion passed. The council's direction is administrative: if the owner complies with the conditions, the registration certificate can be issued under the city code. The ordinance the council cited requires owners of designated animals to obtain and maintain a certificate of registration, post warning signs on the premises, and carry liability insurance for personal injuries caused by a designated animal. If the owner later fails to comply or the animals are involved in another incident, the code authorizes additional penalties, registration fees and possible seizure. The council closed the hearing after the vote and thanked the parties for participating. The record shows the council chose an approach that keeps the animals under ownership while imposing specified safeguards intended to reduce risk to neighbors and children.