Washington County panel hears appeal of ‘vicious dog’ finding for Winston

The Washington County Public Safety Committee on an appeal hearing on an animal-control determination heard testimony from delivery drivers, three deputies and the dogowner and considered exhibits but made no public decision before adjourning for deliberations.

The hearing reviewed a May 19, 2025 Washington County Sheriff determination that Crystal Zernowner's dog Winston is a "vicious dog" under Washington County Code —2-13 and Wisconsin Statutes chapter 68 and to decide whether to affirm, reverse or modify that determination.

Why it matters: the committee must apply the countycode definition for a vicious dog (including repeated chasing, snapping or unprovoked attacks) and may order remedies in the interest of public safety; a written decision will be issued within 20 days of the hearing or after any submitted briefs.

Testimony and evidence

Three delivery driversand multiple deputies described three separate incidents involving Winston in 2022, 2024 and 2025 in which delivery workers said the dog approached and bit or nipped them; deputies reported visible puncture wounds and bleeding in those incidents and submitted photographs and a package with a bite mark as exhibits.

One delivery driver told the committee, "I was bit in both legs," and said he used a package as a shield; the package was later admitted as an exhibit. Deputies testified that two prior incidents involving bites had been reported at the property and that medical records and an Aurora HealthCare fax indicating an unprovoked bite were entered as evidence.

The sheriff's representative, Assistant County Attorney Drew Hallmark, argued during closing that the testimony and exhibits showed Winston met two definitions of a vicious dog in the county code: "repeatedly chasing and acting aggressively and ultimately biting three people on three different occasions" and attacking "without provocation." Hallmark said the remedies requested by the sheriff were limited to confinement, muzzling off property and insurance requirements and noted that the sheriff did not seek euthanasia.

Owner's case

Owner Crystal Zern and her husband, Jason Zern, testified that Winston is a rescue dog who has lived at the address for years and that they had no history of bites toward neighbors, children or other visitors. Zern said the household had posted delivery instructions in online accounts, purchased a parcel dropbox and installed an underground containment system; she also told the committee she had paid a $6,200 deposit for a six-foot fence to further limit Winston's access to delivery drivers.

Zern contended two of the three incidents were "uncharacteristic" and said drivers disregarded account notes and in one case swung a clipboard or package near Winston, which she said provoked the dog. In closing she said, "I don't believe I have a vicious dog. He is the sweetest thing." The committee sustained an objection and excluded several character letters from consideration because they had not been entered into the record.

Deliberation and next steps

After receiving testimony and admitting multiple exhibits, the committee voted to move into closed session for deliberations. No public vote on the sheriff's determination was recorded in the hearing transcript; the committee's written decision is expected to be provided to the parties within 20 days or after any filed briefs.

What was not decided

The committee did not announce an affirmation, reversal or modification at the hearing. Any formal requirement (muzzle, confinement, insurance or other remedies) would be specified in the committee's forthcoming written decision if the determination is upheld or modified.

Evidence and exhibits noted during the hearing included bite-mark photos, a package with a bite puncture, an Aurora HealthCare fax and the owner's submitted packet that contained delivery-box photos, an aerial property map and a mitigation-efforts summary.