UPDATE: Shawnna Mitchell, owner of Charlie the Shih Tzu sued the pit bull owner in small claims court. The suit was dismissed.
Dr. Cliff Morris changed his mind and determined that that Jonathan Roe's pit bull, which killed a Shih Tzu in an off property, unprovoked attack meets the criteria for a dangerous dog designation and Saline county officials advised Roe that the dog had been declared dangerous. This means, among other things, that the dog cannot be off property without a muzzle.
This photo shows one of the owners walking the pit bull without a muzzle reportedly after it was deemed dangerous and must be wearing one.
The code enforcement officer told Mitchell that there have been problems with pit bulls in Eldorado for a while. The Eldorado mayor had said that he didn't agree with "Doc Morris'" first assessment which included calling substantial lacerations "scratches" to minimize what the pit bull had done. And many city leaders are frustrated with the Illinois state statutes and Doc Morris' stance on letting mauling pit bulls maul. (youtube video)
-----
Eldorado - Dr. Clifford Morris, the Saline County Animal Control Administrator has declared the pit bull that dug out of it's yard, charged over to a shih tzu and killed him is NOT vicious for a couple of idiotic reasons. The City Attorney, C. Marty Watson, and the county state's attorney Mike Henshaw agree with Dr. Morris that there is absolutely nothing they can do but wait for another pet to be killed or another person to be hurt, and the neighbors just have to suck it up and take their maulings like good little constituent voters.
Morris decided that he is not only a veterinarian and head of animal control, but he's also hearing officer and a judge and he can just circumvent the entire legal system. FYI Dr. Morris, when a dog breaks containment, charges over to another dog and kills him in a protracted mauling off property and unprovoked, THAT DESERVES A HEARING.
First, Morris says that the shih tzu wasn't on its property or on a leash either. SO WHAT, one has to ask? Did the shih tzu's unleashed state in any way contribute to the pit bull's attack? No. The pit bull dug under a fence and charged over to the small puppy and killed him. A leash could not have magically protected the shih tzu. If you want to be gross and disgusting, Dr. Morris, you can give the owners a ticket for their sweet dead puppy terribly mauled to death at the feet of their son, but merely breaking a leash law does not mean that it is open season for a pit bull to maul a small puppy to death. And it certainly does not alter the viciousness of the unprovoked, off property killing.
Second, the good Dr. Morris interpreted the frantic acts to save a little dog whose stomach was ripped open as an assault on the pit bull that justified the pit bull biting two people while off property and engaged in an unprovoked attack. This is nothing short of despicable. In what universe is protecting your small innocent dog from being ripped apart considered assault? Morris also feels that dogs can bite people as long as they don't break the skin or inflict what he calls "scratches."
Third, Dr. Morris refused to find the pit bull vicious under Eldorado's ordinance, which supported the designation even though the state animal control ordinance specifies that local governments may enact stricter laws.
What has been lost in most reporting is that the owner failed to vaccinate the pit bull and in a previous incident, this pit bull bit another neighbor:
The end result is that the vicious pit bull is allowed to stay in the neighborhood to attack more pets and people before anything is done about it. Dr. Morris, the future blood spilled is on your hands as well as the owner's because it is your JOB to use every resource at your disposal to protect people and innocent pets - and in that case, that includes the completely legal local ordinance that could have deemed this pit vicious. It is your JOB to interpret law in a light most favorable to the safety and sanctity of the human and innocent pet community, not to protect a vicious animal that WILL attack again, there is no doubt of that.
The little shih tzu's family says they are considering legal action against the city of Eldorado, I support them in that. I would also suggest that they read what transpired in Godfrey, Il. Pit bull attack victims were revictimized by bumbling, ineffectual, cowardly public officials there. It took the victim college student herself to get the pit bull that attacked her declared vicious and put down. She could do what grown men and women who were elected to run the town of Godfrey could not. And Charlie's owners can do the same thing under Illinois law:
(510 ILCS 5/15) (from Ch. 8, par. 365)
The Administrator, State's Attorney, Director or any citizen of the county in which the dog exists may file a complaint in the circuit court in the name of the People of the State of Illinois to deem a dog to be a vicious dog.
And this is why Dr. Clifford Morris, City Attorney C. Marty Watson, and county state's attorney Mike Henshaw are full of it. If they believe that pit is vicious - which it is - they can file a complaint with the circuit court and put it in a judge's hands to interpret the law correctly and using case precedents. Don't be like Godfrey officials; don't make the victims do your job for you.
And then, do the right thing and inact ordinances modeled after Lake county's new dog aggressive section of their vicious dog ordinance that has enabled to the Lake county health department to have the pit bull that killed a shih tzu in July put down.
A friend of ours in Denver was attacked this week by two dogs. Before I tell you what breed they were, can you guess? Our friend was jogging near his home in a park and the dogs tore into him with a vengeance, chewing up his face, arms and legs before he jumped into a lake to escape them.
While a witness called police, this strong healthy man was chewed up by two dogs … both of the same breed. He didn't have a good pocket gun with him to protect himself. Police finally showed up and both dogs are in quarantine. Colorado and Illinois officials have forced up on us laws that supposedly protect us from guns … even the legally-owned guns. Too bad my friend didn't have one. Both can be helpful and both can be deadly but let's stay on the dog topic for now.
In our area, we've had multiple dog attacks and it just so happens that most of the attacks are perpetrated by the same breed of dog. In Dispatch stories from March 26, May 13 and June 4 you can view samples. Even before I mention the breed I know that a few pulses are beating faster as certain dog owners and breeders are ready to defend this breed of dogs. And yes, you guessed right, it was a pair of pit bulls that attacked my friend.
A quote from The Dispatch story of June 11, details the mauling death of Ryan Maxwell, of Galesburg. "Maxwell had played with the dog before and the animal hadn't been aggressive." Two others attacked the dog owner and his toddler in their Florida home a few weeks ago. The list is long.
Over lunch the other day, a friend who owns and loves dogs was discussing the possibility that with proper training a pit bull would never hurt someone. Hold on. He said the problem isn't just the training, it's the breeding. Those dogs were bred to be powerful, aggressive animals with the strength to kill. That breeding is not in a dog owner's manual or at a dog training class, it's in their DNA. You might suppress it, but you'll never know when something unexpected might trigger what is already in that animal … the ability to hurt or kill. It's bred that way.
I know that Cesar Millan (the dog whisperer) strongly disagrees but it's hard to argue with the fact some breeds have deadly potential and others don't.
My boss made a few visits with me last year to homes in this area and he was viciously attacked by a dog in the driveway of a home, with the owner standing right there. If it weren't for some fancy dancing and kicking, that little Chihuahua might have ripped his fancy pants. But it wasn't capable of maiming him.
I was walking in my block on the sidewalk the other day and a large pit bull came running toward me. I'd seen him before and the owner was right there. As a matter of fact the owner shouted at the dog to stop. The dog did not obey. I stood motionless until it was clear I wasn't going to be chewed on. "Oh he just looks mean, he's never hurt anybody." Add the word "yet" and the story becomes complete. Hasn't hurt anyone yet.
My question is, why own a pit bull? Is it macho? Is it cool because gangster thugs have them? If you want home protection, how about a Great Pyrenees. There's a breed that loves people and you never read about them ripping up family members, yet their size and bark make them protective … not aggressive. It is arrogant to assume you are such a great trainer or owner that your pit bill would never attack a friend. It's in the breeding … still there despite your training. Karl Knudsen, of Rock Island, is a former radio announcer who is now in estate planning.
Zion - A Zion teen attacked by a dog received the largest settlement for a dog attack in Illinois history, according to Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, a personal injury firm.
The firm obtained a $1.125 million settlement July 29 on behalf of a 17-year-old Zion boy who was attacked by a dog while riding his bike. The settlement was approved by Judge Diane E. Winter in the circuit court of Lake County. Previously, the largest dog bite settlement reached in Illinois was $835,000, also in Lake county.
On June 29, 2011, then 15 year old Jordon Bankston, was riding his bike home with a group of friends, when a 120-pound Bullmastiff named Kong escaped from a fenced-in-yard in Zion. Kong attacked the 100 lb boy and mauled him for at least 10 minutes. Two adults could not pull the dog off until someone used a lit cigarette to burn the dog's nose. The boy spent a week in the hospital to be treated for traumatic puncture and laceration injuries to his legs, thigh, buttocks arms, shoulder and head which required surgery. The boy has lasting psychological trauma.
“This was an alarming incident that should not have happened,” said Patrick Salvi, a lawyer with the firm. “Dog owners need to be responsible for the animals they own." Kong has previously bitten another person and an animal and eight 911 calls were logged regarding Kong.
The owner, EDDIE DIAZ, was insured to $1.3 million by American Family Insurance. The attack was not reported online at the time it occurred.
In a side bar, the News Sun notes animal bite statistics for Lake county. Dogs bit roughly 1500 people and about 580 domestic animals were bitten by other domestic animals or wild animals.
New legislation passed this year allows county animal control to impound animals immediately after biting and holding them, at the owner's expense, until a dangerous/vicious dog hearing is held. This new law pertains only to unincorporated Lake county. Residents living in incorporated cities are not protected by this new ordinance and a dangerous dog can remain with the owner until a hearing.
Eldorado - A pit bull named Memphis dug under a fence to get to a shih tzu puppy and kill it in front of its 13 year old owner.
The boy and a woman who tried to stop the attack were bitten by the pit bull. The family is traumatized, especially Jonathon, the thirteen year old who witness the horrible killing.
The pit bull's owner wants the dog back. No one else in the neighborhood wants the pit bull to come back, but town official don't seem to know what the local and state ordinances empower them to do.
Local official believe that the pit bull can be deemed vicious according to local ordinances but not according to state laws. However, there is a provision in the law that specifically permits municipalities to enact more stringent ordinances than the Illinois law provides.
(510 ILCS 5/24) (from Ch. 8, par. 374) Sec. 24.
...nor shall anything in this Act be construed to, in any manner, limit the power of any municipality or other political subdivision to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other animals in such municipality or other political subdivision…
Taking this to the State's attorney is the right thing to do here if officials do not believe they can euthanized the dog under local ordinances. However, Saline county and counties across Illinois ought to go the route of Lake county Illinois and enact dangerous dog ordinances that allow local health departments make decisions about whether the dog can be removed and put down for the sake of public safety.
ACC-1201.2.4 Animal-aggressive Dog Dispositions:
In the provision of an animal-aggressive determination notification pursuant to Section ACC-1201.2.3 of this Chapter, the Administrator shall, based upon the evidence of the severity of the attack and/or previous history of other similar attack(s), determine the disposition of the dog, which may include any one or a combination of the following requirements:
A) Enforcement of any or all of the requirements of a dangerous dog determination pursuant to Section ACC-1201.1 of this Chapter;
B)Requiring that the dog be kept in an enclosure approved by the Health Officer, and only allowed out of the enclosure to obtain veterinary care, in case of emergency where the dog’s life is threatened, or to comply with an order of the court;
C)Humanely euthanizing the dog.
UPDATE: Chuck, JOHN E. BENDER's pit bull, may be euthanized under Lake county's new "animal aggressive" designation as part of their dangerous dog ordinance. That ordinance was put into place as a result of a 2012 pit bull attack on a small dog in Waukegan. The small dog survived and because the small dog's owner was a Lake county board member, a new ordinance was put into place. The director of population health services at the Lake County Health Dept. will decide Chuck's fate on August 5.
In her statement to police the lady walking our beloved pets stated, "That vicious animal was heading directly for me...his eyes were fixed on mine. That little brave dog stepped in front of me and I will always know in my heart that he saved my life by giving his to protect me." As Shibui's owner, on several occasions I witnessed him move to the side of his blind companion dog when another dog approached. He took his job as protector very seriously.. It's not the size of the dog...it's the heart of dog that makes him great. We miss our brave little Shibui more than words can express. Thank all who have taken the time to weep with us and share our grief. Aug. 23, 10:30 Mundelein Courthouse we will be in court to make sure the IDIOT Bender sister and brother are made to take responsibility for Shibui's death. Please come if you can and support the cause to BAN PIT BULLS, a dog that is bred to kill!!!!
RIP Shibui (left) Rocky
Wauconda - A dog sitter was walking two shih tzus, Shibui and Rocky, in a park when an unleashed pit bull attacked, ripped apart and killed Shibui.
The pit bull's owner, JOHN E. BENDER, ran out shirtless got the little dog out of the killer's maw, and kicked the pit in the butt to send it home, running after it.
BENDER was given a couple tickets. His mauler has attacked other animals, and thanks to Ledy VanKavage who drafted the current state legislation, attacking animals can be given back to their owners a couple times before anything is done, allowing special dogs like Shibui to be brutally killed traumatizing an entire family.
ShiBui's owner said that ShiBui was that special one-in-a-lifetime dog who was not only a wonderful pet, but a very important source of comfort and aid to their other dog, Rocky, who is blind. Rocky is lost now without his ShiBui.
Galesburg - Bosco, a brindle boxer, was attacked by a big, mean pit bull while on a walk with his owner, Ron Schofield. Bosco is the center of Schofield's life and when Bosco escaped his collar and ran for his life, Schofield was devastated.
Bosco came home injured Monday morning. When Schofield went to Prairieland Humane Society to report the incident and file a complaint, he was treated with a ticket for not having Bosco registered by Chris King.
Galesburg residents contend that the pit bull that attacked Bosco is known to be mean and that people have called in complaints about it. But just as with the pit bull that killed Ryan Maxwell, there seems to be no record of those calls and complaints at the Humane Society. No paper trail for the pit bull means no way to have it declared dangerous.
Once again, Chris King does not seem to understand that his job as an animal control officer is to protect people and pets from dangerous dogs, and seems to not care about people and pets that are attacked by pit bulls.
Instead of trying to get on board and recognize they need to re-evaluate their priorities, they simply cry "witch hunt" and suggest people are out to get them and, more importantly, take away a significant amount of their generous $250,000 a year contract with the city.
Let there be no confusion. The attack on young Ryan Maxwell is what Galesburg wants to protect its citizens from: Investigators said the dog attacked at the neck area, and they were unable to save the boy. Thomas read from the forensic autopsy that there were 49 marks on the boys body that did not include internal injuries. “Internally he had laceration of the carotid artery and jugular vein. Very little blood in the heart ... he had bled out.” Further, the report indicated there was a large gaping laceration of the larynx and fractures of the fifth and sixth vertebrae. The pit crushed the boy's neck and ripped out his throat. Police reported that when they arrived, the pit bull was licking up Ryan's blood as it poured out out of him.
These are not the injuries associated with typical dog attacks and Ryan was not the only child to suffer such devastating fatal injuries this year. No other kind of dog attacks like a pit bull or creates the amount of devastation to the body. Pit bull advocates say that any kind of dog can do this, but doctors who have to try to fix what pit bulls do disagree. Look to the end of this post to see what doctors say.
When communities endeavor to regulate dangerous dogs they must never lose sight of this - their first priority is to protect residents from the threat of a devastating attack like this. Can this be any more clear? Every other consideration takes a back seat to preventing these grotesque attacks and to relieving people of the threat that this could happen to them, their loved ones, or their pets.
When communities have a history of pit bull attacks as well as a general problem with dogs, the best solution is a combination of breed neutral ordinances to address all dog owners if a problem arises and specific regulation to prevent pit bull maulings and fatalities before they can happen. When pit bulls can cause a life altering or life ending attack the first time they attack, looking at ordinances that only protect after the first attack will have no effect and make no sense.
All four of the towns (Galesburg, Macomb, Bloomington, Peoria) currently looking at their animal control and dangerous dog ordinances were prompted to do so because of pit bull and bull breed attacks. But none of the cities are looking at pit bull regulation, and so have already failed to address the most serious problem head on.
Despite the statewide ban on BSL, cities can enact BSL under home rule authority. Of the four cities currently searching to keep people safe from dangerous dogs, all but Macomb have home rule authority, and Macomb can be granted home rule authority by putting the question to a referendum vote.
According to Kory Nelson, an attorney for the city of Denver, "'Home Rule' is the basic right of municipalities to decide matters of local concern for themselves, without the state telling them how to do it. Just like the battle over state rights, cities can fight BSL bans where such "home rule" rights exist. I know - I won a similar legal battle in Colorado. Historically, regulations over animals have been at the local level, and there is no need for state-wide uniformity. Rural or mountain towns have different needs than heavily populated urban centers."
All of the cities that have dismissed BSL as an option have cited the statewide ban on BSL when they announce that they have taken BSL off the table and this is just a cop out. According to a 2001 report out of NIU's Center for Governmental studies, "Illinois gives the broadest and most liberal authority to cities and counties of any state in the nation." Illinois' robust home rule authority allowed Morton Grove to become the first city in the nation to locally ban handguns. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the state and federal constitutionality of the ordinance. The courts have consistently upheld home rule authority unless there is a clear benefit to having uniformity across the state such as a uniform minimum drinking age and uniform municipal employee retirement programs.
Bloomington was prompted to strengthen their dangerous and vicious dog ordinances after a couple who were delivering phone books were mauled by a pit bull that burst out of a home as the couple approached. Connie Ijams was left with permanently life altering physical and psychological injuries.
Four months after the attack Connie Ijams reported still being in constant pain with serious nerve damage to her arms. She said, "I'm just always really nervous. I drop things. I shake. I have nightmares. I still cry. I'm in pain constantly…" The owner of the mauling pit bull gave the victims no aid at the scene and no financial aid in the aftermath.
The savagery of this attack and the long lasting, devastating consequences are what should have always been foremost in the city council's minds as they crafted ordinances to keep this from happening again. Because once an attack this severe has occurred, it is already too late for the victim.
However, the city council focused on regulation that does not take effect until after a first attack when, all too often, the first attack by a pit bull is fatal or life altering. What the council came up with in response would have done nothing to prevent the attack on the Ijams couple because the attacking pit bull had not been declared dangerous. Further, under these new ordinances, Connie Ijams would still be on the hook for a huge part of her physical and psychological medical care.
Everything Bloomington has enacted would have been moot in the Connie Ijams attack, because the pit bull's first attack was so horrifically vicious, it was put down. A pit bull ban or regulation that required insurance, microchipping, spay and neuter, fencing and muzzles in public are what could prevent another attack like the one sustained by Connie Ijams. While the the new regulations are a step in the right direction, zero change has been made to making it easier to get a dangerous, aggressive dog declared dangerous, which is what should have happened. And zero containment or control measures were included. Muzzles and strong fences are the things that would functionally save people from attack.
Sadly, Bloomington is on the verge of capitulating to a local dog rescue - whose demands should not be considered in this issue of human health and safety - to make it MORE DIFFICULT to have a dog declared dangerous or vicious. The rescue wants to have a "behaviorist" evaluate a dog as part of the determination of dangerousness or split hairs about provocation. The rescue is hoping to protect dangerous dog owners from having restrictions put on them. If a dog has indisputably menaced or attacked a pet or person there is no need for a self-appointed "behaviorist" to administer a temperament test. After all, if an animals' behavior is so difficult to read that it requires a behaviorist to interpret it, it does not belong in human communities in the first place.
In addition to published research that has documented that a significant number of shelter dogs that passed temperament tests often later show aggression in their adoptive home, earlier this year a pit bull that killed a child passed a temperament test administered after the deadly attack. And closer to home, just a few days ago a pit bull that had been given a battery of temperament tests later escaped containment and went to a neighboring property to attack the Welsh pony in northern Illinois.
Macomb was prompted to look at vicious dog laws after a rescue pit bull attacked one dog, killed another dog, and attacked two people in their own yard in three separate attacks. Macomb is finishing up its work on vicious dog laws and has the right idea if a breed ban is not an option.
'We're lowering the bar from the statutory level," she said. "We're not going to wait before imposing sanctions."'
This is an fine way to approach community safety in places where BSL is not possible, and is one of several innovative dangerous dog ordinances being implemented in Texas communities, where BSL is also banned.
This is what has to happen if a community won't or can't impose breed specific regulation. It will, without a doubt, catch up some unintended consequences such as the hero labrador that was declared dangerous because it may have accidentally bitten the little girl it successfully saved from a pit bull attack in San Antonio.
However, this Macomb ordinance will be rendered useless if animal advocates get their way and help write and enforce the dangerous dog laws. Again, they will attempt to find "experts" who will split hairs about provocation and perform meaningless temperament tests to tell neighbors that they only THINK they are being threatened by a dog, but the expert knows better.
A prime example of this extreme advocacy to the detriment of the community was recorded during the Galesburg public comment meetings about dangerous dog problems in Galesburg. Sue Baker's elderly golden retriever was attacked as she was being taken for a leashed walk by a pit bull that dug out of its fence and made a bee line to the dog for the express purpose of attacking her in a persistent attack that could not be stopped until a passerby came to their aid. The vicious and unrelenting nature of this attack that the Bakers feared would be fatal to Chloe cannot be dismissed. It puts people in jeopardy and destroys the quality of life of a community. Chris King of the Humane Society whose job it was to understand that and deem this dog dangerous wasn't able to understand that.
Chris King, the person charged with determining if a pit bull should be deemed dangerous, treated these citizens with juvenile contempt and disregard first at the dangerous dog hearing and then during a public meetings on the subject of the dangerous dog problem. This is the type of "expert" whose judgment dog ownership advocates want making decisions in Bloomington and Macomb. Chris King had no professional education and he obviously did not consider himself a protector of the community when he spoke:
Galesburg has made some great strides in addressing their stray, aggressive and dangerous dog issues, though they have not addressed pit bulls head on. Very importantly, they are going to assign animal control services to the police department and create one full time and one part time animal control officer. That will greatly solve the "conflict of interests" (to put it very diplomatically) the advisory committee found in the current system which has the humane society responsible for animal control responsibilities. They are focusing on making clear, enforceable and enforced dog control reporting procedures and ordinances with appropriate penalties. Lowering the maximum number of dogs and cats allowed, and mandatory spay and neuter for all pets will also be very effective for reducing problems with dogs.
There are other interesting ideas from progressive localities in Texas and Michigan Illinois communities might want to consider
Fort Worth's door-to-door sweep was impromptu, but localities in Michigan implemented "pet censuses." Last year, Genesee county MI did a census that brought in $128,000 which more than offset the cost of hiring part time census takers and will continue to bring in funds for animal control for years to come now that dog owners and dogs are in the system. Ottawa county, parts of Oakland county, and the city of Royal Oaks MI are doing dog censuses this year.
Fort Worth has also "lowered the bar" for recognizing an "aggressive" dog. "Aggressive" dogs -- animals that make repeated attempts to climb, dig or chew through fencing in order to attack or harass a person or a pet." Lowering the bar serves to prevent attacks, rather than waiting for them to happen before regulating the owner and dog.
Garland, Texas requires 6-foot fencing for pit bulls. Despite the ban on BSL, Garland TX requires higher fencing to provide "uniform enforcement" because pit bulls are recognized as being more muscular and able to escape standard required fencing. And San Antonio TX has created a special court for canine related crimes designed to be more favorable to dog bite victims.
Breed neutral and breed specific ordinances are not mutually exclusive and can in fact work in tandem to reduce dog bites, attacks, maimings and fatalities. While Illinois communities are facing several dog problems such as strays, unregistered dogs, and rampant breeding, in every Illinois town and city facing terrible attacks, the attacks that prompt new ordinances in Illinois are all or in large part pit bull attacks. But the only tool communities have available to them are breed neutral ordinances and communities are forced to effectively use a screwdriver to pound a nail. Cities all over Illinois are attempting to enact legislation that can prevent pit bull attacks and are hampered by being prohibited from using the right tool. The only way to stop these terrible attacks is to acknowledge the true nature of the problem, and once acknowledged, address it head on with pit bull regulation with penalties that force pit bull owners to be responsible. It is time to get it right and protect Illinois citizens and improve our quality of life.
Animal Farm Foundation is trying to reform pit bull
owners' reputations by posting photos of them that show
they have a job look HERE and HERE
Centreville - A man is suing the owner of Town & Country Towing, HARRY HALTER, after HALTER's pit bull escaped from the towing company property, ran into a neighboring convenience store parking lot and launched an unprovoked attack on a man there. The man is suing for more than $100,000.
HALTER, who is known as "DINK" and occasionally "DINKY" was also employed as an auxiliary police officer for the towns of Alorton and Fairmount City.
This is his arrest record:
Here's a civil suit he was involved in. Our client was stopped for allegedly violating the obstructed windshield statute. (She had a pine tree air freshener hanging from her rear-view mirror.) Our client was violently pulled from her vehicle and beaten so severely by three purported Alorton police officers that she suffered a seizure disorder that causes her to have multiple seizures per week. She was tased and kicked in the head, losing vision in her eye for one year. Our client continues to have pain radiate down her leg where she was tased. The officers are Robert Cummings, Harry "Dink" Halter and Bryant Falconer. Robert Cummings was the police chief who is now a federally convicted felon. Harry Dink Halter is currently facing felony charges in St. Clair County for forcing a woman to submit to a sex act while he was in a police cruiser. Bryant Falconer's whereabouts are unknown. The case is set for jury trial in March 2012. We were able to settle the case for $250,000. The case was filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court. 2012.
HALTER'S one recent felony conviction amid all those dismissed cases was for pulling a woman over when he was off duty and out of his jurisdiction and coercing the woman to engage in oral sex with him to avoid a criminal charge for driving on a suspended license. Court records indicate HALTER was drunk at the time.
The comments here seem to be from people who know HALTER well.
