LAS VEGAS, NEVADA— Earlier this month (February 2nd), a woman left her service dog, a poodle mix, tied near a ticketing counter at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, NV. The police allege that the dog’s owner, a yet-to-be-named woman, “abandoned” the dog to catch her flight. 

Curiously, the available footage of the exchange that happened at the ticketing counter is missing -or has muted- audio. It is unclear what exactly was said or what prompted the dog owner to leave without her dog, but the dog and owner remained within the airport during the incident. The dog owner has stated that she was denied access to a boarding pass because airline employees at the ticketing counter informed her that she had not filled out the necessary online paperwork to fly with her poodle mix in-cabin as a service dog. 

While it is not typical or advised to leave a dog tied up and unattended, we do not have all the details of the situation. What we do know, is that the dog’s owner claimed the dog is a service animal, and that she has a disability that requires the use of a service animal. We also know that the woman was clearly in distress over not being able to fly with her dog. 

It is possible that the dog owner went to the gate -either of her own volition, or, as possibly instructed to by ticket counter employees- to inquire with other airline employees about whether or not her dog would be allowed to fly with her, or if they had a paper service animal form available for her to fill out— perhaps the ticketing counter did not have one. It is not clear that she was only trying to board the flight, or that she had intentions of leaving her dog behind at the airport. Important to note: without a boarding pass, you cannot get past a gate to board a plane. 

A video recording of Officer Skeeter Black approaching and speaking with the dog owner reveals that the woman said she was trying to rebook her flight. She stated that her dog, “has a tracking device,” which officers interpreted as the owner, “implying it was acceptable to leave the animal behind and it would return to her.” The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department claims that the dog owner, “became hostile and resisted officers’ attempts to detain her.” She was subsequently arrested and charged with resisting arrest and animal abandonment. It is unclear how long the woman was or has been in custody. 

While the dog’s owner was being found, airport employees immediately tended to the friendly dog, as there were two employees at the ticket counter when the owner left. Later, other airport employees and law enforcement officers took control of the dog, and then passed the dog over to Animal Protective Services. Allegedly, the owner did not return to retrieve her dog during the mandatory 10-day hold period, and the dog was transferred to Retriever Rescue of Las Vegas and placed into a foster home before being put up for adoption.

Of the thousands of applicants looking to adopt the dog, who was renamed, “JetBlue,” Retriever Rescue of Las Vegas adopted the poodle mix out to the LVMPD responding officer, Skeeter Black. According to a Facebook post from the police department, Officer Black and his family had been looking to adopt a ‘Goldendoodle’ since September, and had already been pre-approved through the “rescue.” 

This story raises a lot more questions than it does answers, and the responding officer’s adoption of a disabled Black woman’s service dog in such a quick manner is rather suspicious. The media has been quick to spin this as a feel-good story, and many outlets have gone so far as to tag their articles about the case as, “heartwarming news,” but I concretely disagree. I also have deep concerns about how the state and local laws were applied and enforced. 

For example, Las Vegas’ Municipal Code 7.32.010, “Abandonment,” states: “It shall be unlawful for any person owning, possessing or having the care, custody and control of any animal, living or dead, to go away and leave without adequate care and control the same in a public street, road, alley, or any other public place, or upon the private property of himself or another.” 

One could argue that the woman in this story kept her dog under control, as her dog was tethered via leash to a metal carry-on baggage sizer. If the argument is made that tethering is not, “under control,” then any person who walks away from their animal while in a public place could be charged with “abandonment”— including those who leave their dog in their Tesla with “dog mode” on while shopping, temporarily tethered outside of a non-pet-friendly store while running inside, or even tied to a tree while having to use the bathroom facilities at a public park. 

Per Nevada State law, NRS 574.100, a dog owner who is charged with animal abandonment may be imprisoned in the city or county jail or detention facility for, “not less than 2 days, but not more than 6 months.”

Further, under NRS 574.055 (2), “If an officer takes possession of an animal, the officer shall give to the owner, if the owner can be found, a notice containing a written statement of the reasons for the taking, the location where the animal will be cared for and sheltered, the fact that there is a limited lien on the animal for the cost of shelter and care and notice of the right of the owner to request a hearing pursuant to NRS 574.203 within 5 days after receipt of the notice.” 

It is unclear how long the dog’s owner has been held in the local jail, and if she has even been released. She could be held for as long as 6 months, and no less than 2 days— which means she effectively had no more than 8 days to retrieve her dog, if she was, in fact, released from jail. Perhaps she didn’t have family or friends in the area to retrieve the dog on her behalf, or, it’s possible that Animal Protective Services wouldn’t release the dog to anyone but the dog’s legal owner. It’s also not clear if the dog’s owner was given proper notice of her right to request a hearing, or information on where her dog was being held. 

Were proper procedures followed? We don’t know. With the dog’s owner being both disabled and Black, there’s absolutely a chance that they were not, based on a lengthy history of police misconduct and violence towards Black and disabled people. 

Were proper procedures followed? We don’t know.

It seems as though the involved police department and the media are hellbent on demonizing this multiply-marginalized woman, despite the fact that several key details are missing or unknown. I don’t personally know anyone who would willingly abandon their service dog (which often cost several thousands to train) or even a pet dog, and it’s clear that this particular dog’s owner was in distress about not being able to fly with her dog. Per her own statements, she was trying to change her flight; not leave the airport without him. And without a boarding pass, which she was denied, she wouldn’t have been able to fly away without him anyways. You cannot purchase a ticket at the gate, either; she would’ve had to return to the ticketing counter -and her dog- to do so. 

Again, it is not clear why this dog’s owner tethered her dog near the ticketing counter and went to her gate without him, and it is ill-advised to do so. But by all accounts, it seems highly unlikely that she was going to leave the airport without him. Her disability/disabilities are also unknown. Perhaps she had questions or needed help filling out the DOT Service Dog Form and didn’t have such assistance available. One could speculate, per her statement in the responding officer’s body camera footage, that she may have been told by ticket counter employees to leave her dog to go make an inquiry with gate staff, or maybe she thought that leaving her dog there for a brief period to ask gate employees a question and then return was okay, but we simply don’t know because of the (suspiciously) missing audio from the ticketing counter video. 

Add in the fact that the responding officer has been wanting a dog of this same breed and type, and that the dog is seemingly friendly and well-trained, his quick adoption of the dog gives way to a lot of speculation and doesn’t sit well from an ethics perspective.

I’ll be keeping an eye on this story and provide updates when, or if, they become available.