Incidents in Fair Oaks subdivision are impetus for new proposal
Mebane’s city council is expected to resume discussion Monday night on a potential new dog ordinance, aimed at providing more teeth for the city’s enforcement against homeowners whose dogs may pose a threat to other dogs or residents.
Police chief Mitch McKinney spent about an hour at the council’s August 5 meeting, outlining the proposal and its origins.
The impetus for the ordinance was described as being two incidents – one last November 6, and another on June 21 – involving the same dog owner in the Fair Oaks subdivision.
Criminal charges were filed in both cases, according to the chief, although he acknowledged that the November cases had been dropped.
[The Alamance News could find no public court record associated with either charge in the e-Courts electronic, online court files system, implemented earlier this year. However, the police chief provided copies of the police department’s citations in both instances.]
It appears from the records provided by the police chief, that the dismissal was part of a plea agreement with the defendant.
Both cases involved Randall Dwayne Gerringer, 801 Stuart Court, Mebane. The November 2023 case involved a case of a dog-on-dog attack by two [of Gerringer’s] dogs, McKinney told the council at its August meeting. Both dogs were identified as “dangerous dogs,” under the city’s existing ordinance, and they were seized, chief McKinney told the council and sent to South Carolina for rehabilitation.
The original August court date to handle the June charges has now been continued until October.
Fair Oaks resident speaks of concerns
The city got a petition from 35 residents of the Fair Oaks community in December, raising concerns about what the residents said was a “lack of response by the city” to dog attacks over the prior 18 months.
One resident, Terry Fleitz, raised concerns about the city’s lack of response during public comments at the August 5 meeting.
He described the dogs as “pit bulls” and said they had attacked neighbors, walking both small and large dogs; cyclists; runners; and families with small children.” Fleitz said he had been the one attacked in the June 21 incident. [While he did not list the dog-owner’s name, the police charges indicate that the owner was again Randall Gerringer, although with a new, different pit bull.]
The situation has become so serious, he told the council, that residents “do not feel safe in our neighborhood or on our sidewalks after 2 years of attacks! Children play inside; walkers no longer walk.”
Fleitz said the dog attacks originate from three homes in the Fair Oaks neighborhood.
The dog-on-dog attack last November resulted in the “mauling” of the attacked dog. The video of the attack is “as brutal as anything you will ever see,” Fleitz told the council.
Fleitz included in his comments a recommendation for a leash length requirement “of no more than 10 feet, preferably 6 feet,” he told the council. Fleitz said that one of the pit bull owners walks his dog with a “25 foot leash, next to children and families on our sidewalks.”
Fleitz said that when walking his own dog in the neighborhood, he now carries a “police baton for protection on our neighborhood sidewalks.”
Fleitz said that Fair Oaks residents like himself “continue to be fearful” and have to change their behavior “while the pit bull owners have not changed their behavior.”
Fleitz also recommended that the city establish a “warning program” when there is an attack in a neighborhood, so that residents will be on alert about the presence of a “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous” dog.
[Story continues below special subscription offer.]
FOR THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE OF MEBANE NEWS, SUBSCRIBE TO THE ALAMANCE NEWS.
New city proposal models state law
McKinney said that the city’s proposed new ordinance is “trying to mirror language of state statute” in order to stay on “good solid enforcement grounds” for enforcing its new ordinance.
McKinney stressed that the city wants to ensure “constitutional policing,” and protect the rights of both those assaulted by a dog, as well as the due process rights of the dog owner.
The chief said, for instance, that there is not satisfactory legal precedent for banning certain breeds of dogs, like pit bulls, as a number of residents have requested. No city in North Carolina has done so, he noted. In some other states, it has been attempted, but it is not clear whether it has been upheld.
The chief referred to wanting to have the district attorney’s office make a “therapeutic review” to determine whether a particular individual should be able to own, and be responsible for, an animal.
He alluded several times to the possibility that individuals with a “cognitive impairment” may not be successfully charged if there is not “criminal intent.” McKinney acknowledged that law enforcement is “walking a fine line” in seeking a medical evaluation on whether a resident can be successfully prosecuted for violations of the city’s dog ordinance.
McKinney said that the city should implement a review board to help evaluate the city’s handling of charges against dog owners, or the potential filing of charges against dog owner.
McKinney said that the state law defines a dangerous dog as one that “kills or inflicts severe injury on a person.”
The city will not automatically seize and put down a dog, McKinney said, noting that there may be instances when changes in the dog owner’s actions, or “management of the situation” could enable the dog to “safely remain with the owner.” The city has to take into account that the seizure of the property of a resident, even a dog, is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures.
McKinney said that not all dog-related incidents will result in criminal charges; in other cases, residents may need to file a civil lawsuit against a dog owner.
Generally, a dog owner whose dog is on a leash, even if the dog demonstrates aggressiveness, is in compliance with the city’s ordinance and will not be charged, McKinney said. However, if the dog actually bites someone, then there could be criminal charges, as well as potential civil liability.
Councilman Tim Bradley asked about whether an “online incident reporting system” would be necessary, but McKinney said the city is not recommending such a system. He acknowledged that some residents in the Fair Oaks community had wanted such a reporting system, but that is not being recommended.
Council member Katie Burkholder asked whether the city could establish a maximum leash length and still be in compliance with state law. She suggested nine feet as a maximum.
The city’s attorney, Lawson Brown, said leash lengths are generally deemed acceptable as long as they are considered to be “reasonable.” Interim city manager Preston Mitchell said the city may need to check with Alamance and Orange County district attorneys on what they would consider a reasonable length.
Councilman Sean Ewing noted that the city has a six-foot leash requirement at the city’s Lake Michael, although no one could remember the origins of that specific requirement.
Councilman Tim Bradley ultimately included in his motion for consideration of the agreement that the city consult with other cities on leash length.
Mitchell noted that the city is interested in an enforceable ordinance that can lead to a conviction, not another case in which the charge is dismissed, as happened with the November incident from last year that was dismissed in March 2024.
McKinney said the city had studied carefully the city ordinances in Apex, Cary, Chapel Hill, Raleigh, Durham, and Charlotte for ideas on how to structure a revised city ordinance.
The council discussed whether to hold a public hearing at its September 9 meeting, which Bradley and councilman Jonathan White said they had no problem with. Bradley had made the motion to put the issue on the September 9 agenda.
But attorney Brown said state law did not require a public hearing.
Alamance News editor and publisher Tom Boney, Jr. suggested that while state law requires public hearings only in certain instances, such as rezonings, residents would be better apprised of the significant changes the city council was considering for its dog ordinance if a hearing was held.
Ultimately, the city has not advertised the agenda item as a public hearing.
