01/06/2026
I Testified About Two Dogs the Court Called Vicious, Here’s What I Wish More People Understood.
When “Vicious” Becomes a Legal Label: A Dog Trainer’s Day in Court
I’ve worked with dogs professionally for 26 years. I’ve handled three dual-purpose police K9s. I spent around ten years as an instructor with a police K9 vendor that trained and placed dogs across the United States. And about twelve years ago, I built my own training business, helping everyday pet owners and also working with higher-drive dogs in more advanced settings.
So when I say I’m no stranger to real aggression, I mean it.
I’ve handled dogs that had to be muzzled just to be around people. Police Dogs that would "climb the leash" at the slightest sign of conflict. Dogs that came unglued the moment they saw a stranger. Dogs that tried to climb a fence to get to another dog. Dogs that broke away from their handler and went straight into a fight with zero warning.
That’s what dangerous behavior looks like.
Websters defines "vicious" as dangerously aggressive, marked by violence or ferocity.
The definition of bite: to seize especially with teeth or jaws so as to enter grip, wound, to wound, pierce, or sting especially with a fang...
This case wasn’t that.
The back gate, the work truck, and two dogs that slipped out
Two female Belgian Malinois, sisters from separate litters, were at the center of a court case I recently testified in.
Here’s what happened, as it was presented in court:
The owners had hired a repair technician to come to their home. After the technician finished and left, the owners let the dogs out into the back yard. What they didn’t realize was that the repair tech had left the gate open.
That open gate created the perfect storm: the dogs slipped out and got loose.
After that incident, the owners were cited for failure to confine and for having vicious dogs. And the prosecutor was seeking the most extreme outcome, seize the dogs and euthanize them.
Not a fine. Not added restrictions. Not “fix the fencing and take a class.” Which I might add the owners had already done. To the tune of about a 20K investment in these things before ever making it to court.
The prosecutor wanted a death sentence.
Why I got involved.
After the escape incident, the owners reached out to me for training. I accepted both dogs for board-and-train:
Each dog stayed with me about 7 weeks independently. Then they spent about 3 weeks together. The dogs lived in my home, not just in a kennel run. And here’s what stood out to me: these were pet quality dogs.
They had: low food drive, low play drive, moderate-low energy, and a very nice “off switch” in the home, especially on their place cots
Because the escape itself was a concern, we focused heavily on real-world safety work: threshold training (doors, gates, boundaries), structured place cot work, recalls (including off-leash in controlled public settings), calm exposure to normal life: parks, people, other dogs, kids.
During their time with me, they were around: multiple other client dogs (large and small), my adult male Malinois (including Mink IYKYK), my two dachshunds, children in my home, visiting relatives, and kids at public parks.
And in all of that time, I observed no human aggression and no animal aggression. They weren’t working prospects, and honestly, their low drive would make reliable task training questionable, but what they were NOT was vicious.
The courtroom: what I saw and what I heard
An attorney for the owners contacted me and asked if I would testify for the owners regarding the dogs’ temperament and training. I agreed as soon as he told me the prosecutor was wanting the dogs killed.
I was not there when the dogs escaped. I wasn’t a fact witness to the incident. But I had spent a lot of time with the dogs, trained them, lived with them, and evaluated them through real-life exposure.
When I sat in the courtroom, I watched the prosecutor present the story. We were shown video from a neighbor’s security camera: the work truck leaves, and soon after, the dogs come out, running around together, moving quickly, and appearing more playful than predatory.
Then I listened to the key witness testimony.
A witness stated she was on her back porch when she heard dogs fighting and yelping. She ran around the corner and noticed her Labrador’s hair was wet around the neck. She believed that meant her dog had been "attacked". The word was used several times during testimony.
She also stated that in the garage, one of the Malinois came" toward her", as she was taking her dog inside and then "picked up a toy and ran off".
Most importantly: she was very clear that her dog had no injuries: no puncture wounds, no visible damage, no bleeding, nothing that would suggest a true bite with any pressure ore intent.
Her conclusion of “attack” was based on sound, chaos, and saliva.
When my testimony got cut short.
When the defense called me, my testimony was quickly objected to because I wasn’t a witness to the escape event. The judge dismissed me from the stand, with the possibility of calling me back after the verdict for any sentencing-related issues.
That’s not me complaining, that’s simply the reality of court procedure. If you’re in a case like this, you need to understand: a trainer can be valuable, but how they’re presented matters. Timing matters. Foundations matter. The attorney needs to build the lane for that testimony long before the hearing.
The ruling: guilty of failure to confine, and “vicious” on top of it.
The judge ruled the owners guilty of failure to confine.
Even if the technician left the gate open, the legal responsibility still falls on the owner to secure the dogs. I don’t love it, but I understood that part and expected it.
But the judge also ruled that the dogs were "vicious" based on testimony, finding that they had attacked and bitten the other dog, and that the witness testimony supported it.
That is the part that troubled me.
“A bite isn’t a bite” is not just semantics
Let me be careful here: dogs can absolutely be dangerous, and there are irresponsible owners who shouldn’t have certain dogs, or any dogs.
But in my experience, when a dog truly attacks with intent and makes meaningful contact, there is injury. There is damage consistent with teeth, pressure, puncture, tearing, bruising, or trauma, and in most cases continued intent.
Dogs can: play rough, mouth each other, chase, yelp and make noise, sound worse than it is.
That’s part of normal dog interaction, especially when arousal is high and owners are trying to separate them. And that is not just with big dogs. That just seems to be when people are the most scared of it.
I’ve seen real dog fights. I’ve seen rough play. And I’ve seen the difference. I didn't have to be present to hear the difference here.
A helpful comparison is kids: we can usually tell the difference between kids fighting and kids wrestling in the yard, even if it’s loud and chaotic. Dogs have the same spectrum of behavior.
What stood out to me in this case was bite inhibition and behavior inconsistent with committed aggression: a dog that is truly locked in on aggression typically doesn’t disengage to select a random toy it didn’t even know existed.
The bigger issue: once “vicious” is on paper, everything changes
Here’s the part most people don’t understand until they’re living it:
When a dog is formally labeled “vicious” (or “dangerous”) in a jurisdiction, it can trigger serious downstream consequences, sometimes far beyond the original incident:
Insurance problems: some companies cancel coverage or exclude the dog, and owners may struggle to find replacement coverage.
Housing restrictions: rentals, HOAs, and even some municipalities may impose restrictions, fines, or removal requirements.
Mandatory confinement rules: special enclosures, signage, muzzling, registration, higher licensing fees, requirements vary widely.
Low tolerance for future incidents: another escape, even without injury, can turn into seizure and euthanasia proceedings fast, and that basically what was told to the owners.
Euthanasia becomes a “solution” on the table: and in some cases, (by the prosecutor in this case), it’s pursued aggressively.
Whether you agree with every part of that system or not, it’s the landscape owners face.
The most important part of my testimony was to hopefully provide enough grounds for the judge to spare the life of these two dogs. Innocent dogs. In that we were successful.
Why these owners made the decision to rehome.
The owners decided to rehome both of these girls.
Not because the dogs are aggressive.
Not because they don’t love them.
Not because they’re “bad owners.”
They’re doing it because they love the dogs and don’t want to risk them being seized and euthanized if anything ever happens again like a dog running out the door, especially now that the dogs have been deemed “vicious” in the eyes of the court.
That’s a heartbreaking decision, and I don’t take it lightly. Is it what is best for the dogs lives. Certainly no, they are in a loving home, with owners who want them, but have decided that the risk of ex*****on is just to great. So in the interest of sparing the dogs from that they decided to find a suitable home.
What I wish would change.
I don’t pretend to have the perfect answer for the legal system. There are truly dangerous dogs out there, and public safety matters.
But I do believe we need better education and better standards around how “bite,” “attack,” and “vicious” determinations are made, especially at the animal control / welfare level where these cases often start.
At a minimum, decisions should weigh: injury evidence (or lack of it), veterinary documentation, bite pressure / puncture / bruising indicators, witness interpretation vs physical facts, behavior context and dog history, and professional evaluation when appropriate.
Words like “vicious” shouldn’t be applied casually. They carry real, permanent consequences for these animals, these pets, these family members.
If you ever end up in this type of case.
If you’re facing citations, dangerous-dog allegations, or anything that could put your dog at risk:
Get an attorney early. Have the attorney meet with your trainer ahead of time. Document everything: training logs, evaluations, vet records, photos, videos. Take containment seriously immediately: gates, locks, signage, redundancy.
Understand that court is not a training session: procedure matters, and evidence rules matter.
Labeling a dog as “vicious” is a serious thing. In this case, it felt like the prosecutor was pursuing a death sentence for what looked, to me, like the canine equivalent of disorderly conduct and trespass.
And that should concern anyone who cares about fairness, public safety, and animal welfare.
If you’re a dog owner dealing with escape behaviors, gate rushing, poor recall, or high-arousal chaos, those issues can be improved with the right structure and training plan.
If you need help building real-world reliability, threshold manners, place work, recall, and calm behavior around distractions, please reach out to a local trainer and address those issues early.
If you or someone you know is interested in adopting one or both of these Malinois, shoot me a message and I will put you in touch directly with their owners..
