East Jutland police have sent an Aarhus dog owner a bill of about 200,000 kroner for kennel and veterinary costs, even though DNA testing showed her three American bully dogs were legal.
According to DR, medical student Ayda Jameian had two puppies and a one year old male dog seized in the spring of last year. Officers suspected the animals were of a banned breed and wanted to check their genetic origin.
The dogs were returned in early February this year, ten months later, after a test established that they were legal. DR has seen documentation for the bill, which covers boarding and veterinary costs during the case. Jameian says the family received neither an apology nor compensation.
Her case is one of two complaints now filed with Sydøstjyllands Politi. A second dog owner has been billed 34,493 kroner for the care of dogs that were also cleared. The organization Bully Care Union, which provides legal help to owners of bully breeds, assisted both owners with their complaints.
Amaja Loncarevic, deputy chair of Bully Care Union and a law student, says police carried out flawed work and then passed the cost to a citizen. She argues the practice runs against basic legal security for dog owners.
The disputed DNA test
Loncarevic says police first offered a test at the University of Copenhagen, a partner in dog cases for many years. That cooperation was dropped in the autumn of last year, while the dogs were still seized. The producer behind the test stated it was not suited or approved for determining specific breeds in euthanasia cases.
Jyllands-Posten has described the test controversy in several articles. The owners refused that test, and after Sydøstjyllands Politi rejected an alternative, Loncarevic complained to Rigspolitiet. The national police then allowed an American testing system, which showed the dogs were not illegal.
Frederik Waage, professor of administrative law, points to the preparatory works of the dog law. They state that police discretion must take into account whether a dog is put down, or was boarded for a long period for reasons beyond the owner’s control. He says that when a dog turns out to be legal, the law’s intent clearly favors exempting the owner from the bill.
Waage believes the Folketing should clarify the rules so police cannot pass on the costs. He also notes that keeping non dangerous dogs at home during case processing would save public money.
Sydøstjyllands Politi told DR in a written reply that the dog law makes the owner responsible for documenting a dog’s legality. Later proof of a legal breed does not in itself mean police must cover boarding costs, the district wrote. It added that the complaint has prompted it to examine whether the charge is accurate given how the case unfolded.
Per Loncarevic, police have already deducted two months of boarding costs, having assessed that the case was unnecessarily prolonged. If the complaint over the 200,000 kroner bill is rejected, she says she will take the matter to Rigspolitiet.
