Springfield Police Clarify Dangerous Dog Investigation After Juvenile Seriously Injured

Description: Springfield Police explain the legal process in a dangerous dog case involving serious injuries to a juvenile, addressing charges, public safety concerns and Colorado law...


Published: 06/20/2026
Byline: SECO News

SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

STATEMENT REGARDING DANGEROUS DOG INVESTIGATION
The Springfield Police Department has been investigating a dog attack that resulted in serious bodily injury to a juvenile. Due to the amount of information, misinformation, and speculation circulating within the community and on social media, we believe it is important to provide accurate information regarding this case and the actions taken by law enforcement.
 
First and foremost, our thoughts remain with the juvenile victim and their family. This incident resulted in significant injuries, and the seriousness of the matter has been reflected in the actions taken by investigators.
 
Based upon the investigation, it is alleged that a juvenile, while lawfully present on private property, was attacked by multiple dogs housed at that location. The incident occurred entirely on private property.
 
It is also important to clarify that the injuries giving rise to the dangerous dog charges did not occur in a public park, on a public street, or in another public place. Based upon the investigation, the incident occurred on private property involving dogs maintained at that location. While the allegations in this case are extremely serious and resulted in significant injuries to a juvenile, the fact that an attack occurred does not automatically authorize law enforcement to destroy animals outside of the legal process established by Colorado law.
Following the investigation, criminal charges of Unlawful Ownership of a Dangerous Dog Causing Serious Bodily Injury were filed against the adult owners within approximately 72 hours of the incident. Additional charges were also filed for violations of the Town's dog registration requirements and animal control ordinances.
 
Many members of the public have questioned why the dogs involved were not immediately euthanized. The answer is that Colorado law does not permit law enforcement to summarily destroy a dog simply because a bite has occurred.
 
Colorado Revised Statute establishes the process for dangerous dog cases and provides specific legal procedures that must be followed. While the statute allows courts to order the destruction of a dog under certain circumstances, those decisions are made through the judicial process after due process has occurred. The Springfield Police Department does not have the authority to bypass that process and unilaterally order euthanasia.
 
In this case, ten dogs were present on the property at the time of the incident. Investigators could not simply assume which animals were involved in the attack. Certain evidentiary samples were collected from some of the animals as part of the investigation. Those samples, along with witness accounts, medical records, physical evidence, observations made by investigators, and any additional evidence developed during the investigation, will be used to help determine the extent of each animal's involvement as much as possible. As with any criminal investigation, conclusions must be based upon evidence rather than assumptions or public speculation.
 
Another issue that has generated questions involves the disposition of the animals following the incident. Several dogs present on the property were not current on required vaccinations. Standard public health practices require animals involved in a bite investigation to be monitored for a period of time following the incident. Immediate euthanasia of animals before those procedures are completed would not be consistent with accepted public health practices and could potentially interfere with both the investigation and the ability to monitor the animals' health status.
 
The Springfield Police Department and Town Council have not ignored concerns regarding large numbers of dogs being maintained on residential properties. Prior to this incident, the Town Council adopted an ordinance limiting the number of dogs permitted on residential properties within the Town of Springfield. Because some residents already possessed more dogs than would be allowed under the new ordinance, a grandfather provision was included. As a result, properties that lawfully exceeded the new limit at the time the ordinance was adopted were allowed to retain those animals until the numbers were reduced through transfer, relocation, or natural attrition. While the ordinance was intended to reduce the number of dogs maintained on residential properties over time, it was not designed or legally structured to require the immediate removal of animals that were already present when the ordinance took effect.The Town also increased penalties associated with violations of dog registration requirements.
 
The registration process requires proof of current vaccinations and provides a mechanism for the Town to monitor compliance with local animal control regulations, including limitations on the number of dogs permitted at residential properties.
 
Unfortunately, despite repeated public education efforts regarding registration requirements, compliance has remained limited. Many residents expressed concerns that the registration requirements represented government overreach and declined to participate. However, registration remains one of the primary tools available to verify vaccination status, identify ownership, and enforce local animal control ordinances before incidents occur.
 
The Town Council and Police Department recognized that maintaining large numbers of dogs on residential properties can create additional challenges for owners, neighbors, and public safety. Those concerns were among the reasons local ordinances were strengthened prior to this incident.
 
We understand many residents have concerns regarding public safety and the disposition of the animals involved. Those concerns are understandable given the severity of the injuries sustained in this case. However, the role of the Springfield Police Department is to investigate the incident, collect evidence, and present the case through the judicial process. Questions regarding the ultimate disposition of the animals are governed by Colorado law and will ultimately be decided by the courts based upon the evidence presented and the result of the criminal case.
 
We understand the emotions surrounding this case and the desire for immediate action. We share the community's concern regarding the injuries sustained by the juvenile victim. However, law enforcement is required to operate within the confines of Colorado law, constitutional protections, evidentiary requirements, and accepted public health practices. We believe the investigation was conducted thoroughly and promptly, charges were filed quickly, and the matter is now moving through the judicial process where final determinations regarding the disposition of the animals can be made.
 
Because the investigation and criminal proceedings are ongoing and a juvenile victim is involved, no additional details regarding the victim or evidence collected during the investigation can be released at this time.

Chief Chris Griffin



Follow SECO News on Facebook.
Subscribe to the SECO News YouTube Channel.



The Police Beat Sponsor