Maryville Department of Public Safety Wants Dog Euthanized

The Maryville Department of Safety is seeking to have a dog, “Kingston,” euthanized for what it says are unprovoked dog attacks and bites on other people and another dog. The owner, Julie Bailey, is filing suit in court to prevent the city from doing so.

On March 23rd, 2025, at around 7 pm, the Maryville Police Department visited Bailey at her residence in Maryville and impounded the dog following a dangerous dog ticket that was written on March 21st.

In her petition appealing the impoundment of the dog, Bailey said the impoundment was unjust and unwarranted for the following reasons:

—The person in question did not wish to press charges;

—She has animal liability insurance;

—She has been attending training classes conducted by Dog Training Elite in Lee’s Summit;

—She utilizes the “Bakerville” dog muzzle when in public places;

—Kingston has an AVID microchip implanted between his shoulders;

—The dog has a valid city tag;

—She will continue to attend classes in Lee’s Summit for training and corrective behavior.

Judge Robert Rice issued a temporary injunction saying that no action could be done with the dog until after a court hearing that was subsequently conducted on Tuesday, April 15th.

Subsequently, a hearing was conducted involving Bailey representing herself as her own attorney and Maryville Public Safety, represented by Tina Dieter. After the hearing, Judge Rice issued the following findings of fact:

—Following four reports of Bailey’s dog biting other persons and a dog without provocation, the Maryville Department of Public Safety seized Kingston and gave Bailey written notification that they intended to have Kingston euthanized within 10 days. Bailey filed the written appeal in question.

—On four different occasions between April 2024 and March 16th, 2025, Bailey’s dog allegedly bit four other people and one dog. Two of the attacks on people resulted in substantial medical bills.

—Bailey claimed all the incidents in question were the result of people provoking her dog;

—Bailey has a diagnosed condition that requires a service animal for her emotional support. She uses Kingston as her emotional support animal although he has not been formally trained to be an emotional support animal.

—It is clear that Bailey’s condition benefits from having Kingston in her life because of her medical situation.

However, Judge Rice found that under Missouri law, the fact that Kingston is an emotional support animal to Bailey is not an affirmative defense to Kingston biting people and an animal without provocation. “It is also clear that Ms. Bailey brought Kingston into public areas, including a college campus, where children and young adults roam about, into the town’s hospital where service personnel work to assist patients’ medical needs, into the town’s major grocery store where children and adults shop for groceries, and into the town’s hiking trail where people hike with children and pets,” wrote Judge Rice.

Judge Rice continued, “In each case, Ms. Bailey’s dog, Kingston, repeatedly attacked other humans who happened to be in the vicinity of Kingston in those public places and causing significant injuries. The Court finds each individual did not provoke Kingston merely because they were in a public place where Ms. Bailey brought her unmuzzled dog to for her emotional support.” Rice said that three of the people in question all sought confirmation or tried to avoid Kingston prior to each attack, but that Kingston attacked them without provocation.

Missouri Section 578.024 allows either the county sheriff or the local animal control authority to seize a dog which has previously bitten a person or domestic animal without provocation and then bites a person on a subsequent occasion. The dog is to be impounded and held for ten days after the owner is notified, and thereafter destroyed.

Judge Rice issued a writ ordering the seizure and euthanization of Kingston; however, Bailey filed an appeal to the Western Missouri District Court of Appeals on April 16th. The writ was ordered stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.