DNA tests clear dogs, but owners face police bills

Three dogs seized by police in Denmark over suspicions that they belonged to an illegal breed were returned after DNA testing cleared them. Their owner, Ayda Jameian, has nevertheless received a bill of 200,000 kroner for boarding and veterinary costs, DR reports.

The two puppies and one-year-old male American bullies were seized in spring last year while police investigated their genetic origins. They were returned to Jameian in Aarhus in early February, 10 months later, after a test showed that they were not illegal breeds.

Jameian, a medical student, says she is now expected to pay for the dogs’ stay at a boarding kennel and veterinary care during the investigation. DR has seen documentation of the bill.

“Not only do we not receive an apology or compensation, we also receive a bill,” Jameian said.

“We have already paid an enormous price for the decision to remove the dogs. We have lived with the fear of losing them, and our family has been severely affected. It is difficult to understand why we should also bear the financial cost of the lengthy investigation,” she said.

The puppies now live with other owners. The adult male remains with Jameian.

Jameian’s case is one of two complaints filed with South-East Jutland Police. Another dog owner has received a bill of 34,493 kroner for boarding costs during an investigation, even though the dogs were cleared.

The Bully Care Union, an organisation that provides legal assistance and advice to owners of so-called bully breeds, has helped both owners file complaints.

“It is completely absurd that the police can carry out flawed work and then send the bill for it to a citizen. That goes against all legal safeguards,” said Amaja Loncarevic, the organisation’s deputy chair and a law student.

Complaint led to a new DNA test

Loncarevic said police initially offered to test the three dogs at the University of Copenhagen, with which police had worked for many years in dog cases.

That cooperation was abandoned last autumn while Jameian’s dogs were still in police custody, after the producer of the test said it was unsuitable and not approved for determining specific breeds in cases involving euthanasia. Jyllands-Posten has reported on the issue in several articles.

According to Loncarevic, the police offered to use the test on Jameian’s dogs, but the owners refused because of uncertainty about its reliability. After South-East Jutland Police initially rejected an alternative test, Loncarevic complained to the National Police, which authorised the use of an American testing system. That test established that the dogs were not illegal breeds.

“If we had not taken the case further, South-East Jutland Police would have euthanised the dogs,” Loncarevic said.

If the police reject the complaint over the 200,000-kroner bill, she intends to take the case to the National Police.

South-East Jutland Police told DR News in a written response that, under Denmark’s Dog Act, it is the owner’s responsibility to document that a dog is legal.

Jameian said police never explained why they suspected her dogs, for which she had already obtained documentation. American bullies are among the breeds that police frequently suspect of being illegal, she said.

Jameian said she knew of no incidents or complaints involving the dogs and that they had no behavioural problems. When the dogs were returned, police told her they had behaved exceptionally well towards both other dogs and people.

Professor questions legal safeguards

The Dog Act states that police cover the cost of placing a dog in a boarding kennel, but may demand reimbursement from the owner.

Frederik Waage, a professor of administrative law, said preparatory notes to the law indicate that owners should be exempt from paying when a dog is cleared.

The notes state that police have discretion over when an owner must pay the costs. They also say that consideration must be given to whether the outcome is that the dog should be euthanised, or whether it was kept in a boarding kennel for a long period because of circumstances over which the owner had no control.