Brookings residents press council to change animal-control rules after fatal dog attack; police explain legal limits

Several Brookings residents told the City Council on June 24 that existing city animal-control rules left their neighborhood exposed after two American bulldogs fatally attacked a leashed dog on June 2, and asked the council to change the code so the animals could be removed sooner.

"The tenants at 102 Ninth Street have 3 very aggressive, vicious dogs," said Sue Gillespie, a Brookings resident. "On June 2, there was a young lady with a small dog ... the dogs were loose and attacked them. The dog was killed, and the young lady was injured."

Gillespie told the council that the dogs were removed by police and animal-control staff after the attack but were returned to the owners after the legally required holding periods. "I would just really like to see the council give very, very serious and urgent consideration to changing the code and changing the law so that the dogs could legally be removed from the premises and not be allowed," she said.

Brooklyn Tomaszewski, who identified herself as a community member and a friend of the injured woman, urged stronger enforcement and expressed concern about neighborhood safety. "It's very concerning ... that the dogs are returned to these owners," she said, citing reports that the animals had a history of violent behavior.

Police Chief Mike Drake told the council the department treated the incident as both an administrative animal-control matter and a criminal investigation. "About 7PM on Monday, 06/02/2025, the police department was alerted that a dog had been killed at the intersection of Ninth Street South," he said. Drake said officers and community service staff seized the two American bulldogs and transported them to the city pound. He described two parallel processes: an administrative determination under the city animal ordinance and a criminal referral to the state's attorney.

Drake said the department declared the animals "vicious and biting" by written declaration signed by a community service officer and a sworn police officer and that the owners were served with the declaration and a 30-day administrative holding period. He said a separate 14-day holding period applied because the dogs were not current on rabies vaccinations. "Once those 6 criteria were met ... and when they were beyond the 14 days for the rabies vaccination, we had no more legal holding or standing for those dogs and had no other alternative but to return the dogs to their owners prescribed by law, which we did," Drake said. He added that his office referred seven charges against the owners — six under city ordinance and one under South Dakota codified law — to the state's attorney and magistrate court.

Drake outlined the items owners had to show before the city would return animals declared vicious: proof of rabies vaccination and licensing, proof the animals were altered, muzzles and leashes for outside control, escape-proof kennels if left unattended on the property, and documentation kept on file with the department. He said the city enforces time limits spelled out in state and local law and cautioned that extending administrative holds beyond those limits can raise legal and constitutional issues. "If those animals are euthanized too prematurely, it can put the city and the community in liability," he said.

Council members asked whether the department had prior reports about the animals and whether the city could change the timeline for returns. Drake said his records showed no prior complaints about these particular animals recorded with the police or community service unit. On the timeline question, Drake recommended consulting the city attorney because extending holds can shift a procedure from protective to punitive and risk legal challenge.

The council did not take formal action during public comment. Chief Drake encouraged residents to report concerns by calling 911 for emergencies or the nonemergency police number at (605) 692-2113 for animal-control complaints; he also encouraged residents to contact him directly with enforcement questions.

Residents said they wanted the council to consider changes to the animal ordinance so vicious animals would not be returned to owners when the department had documented violent behavior.

Ending: The council received the comments for the public record and heard a staff explanation of the limits imposed by city ordinance and state law; any change to the return timeline would require ordinance revision and legal review by the city attorney.