LYNNWOOD—The Lynnwood City Council continued its discussion on recodifying portions of the Lynnwood Municipal Code (LMC) related to animal control and dangerous animals at its Work Session Monday, December 1, but no action was taken just yet.
The city of Lynnwood had requests – from both members of the council and members of the community – to review, and update, its animal control ordinance. The requests followed reports that Lynnwood City Councilwoman Derica Escamilla’s dog, Sumo, had been terrorizing her neighborhood without the consequence of being designated a “dangerous animal.”
The Lynnwood Police Department reviewed the city’s current Municipal Code, working with nearby Bothell PD as an outside opinion, and, after some presentations to council and multiple deliberations, returned with some suggested edits to the city’s code.
Council member Patrick Decker agreed with the changes, for the most part, only adding that he had concerns on the portions regarding “severe injury” (see last section of article for full language change suggestion).
In the recommended LMC changes it noted that an open wound resulting from a dog bite may not be considered a severe injury because it is common for dog bites to be left open so that they could heal.
“I’m not sure what further medical treatment is beyond maybe the original consult, the original visit to the ER, the doctor’s office, whatever it was,” said Decker. “Two, any dog bite that results in a puncture wound beneath the skin, I think is severe.”
Decker added that whenever a dog punctures skin it can result in severe consequences, especially if the animal was rabid. Even if the dog was not rabid, Decker continued, it can lead to serious infection if the dog’s mouth was clean.
Councilwoman Escamilla, for the most part, agreed with Council member Decker but added she thinks “doctors should be the one to define severity,” not the council.
“I’m not 100% opposed, I just don’t think in real life, having actually been through one of these scenarios, that we can get that,” said Escamilla.
By “get that,” Escamilla noted that in most litigative cases a determination must be made by a veterinarian anyway, she clarified earlier.
Escamilla added, in her case, she didn’t believe that “one incident” warranted a complete change to the city’s animal code but agreed that if it led to the “overall safety and wellbeing of our community” she would be okay with whatever the council decides on.
“It’s not a minor thing to be attacked by an animal and it needs to be treated as such,” said Decker who originally brought forth the idea of recodifying the LMC to begin with.
Decker clarified that the decision to bring forward recodifying the LMC wasn’t just about the incident involving Councilwoman Escamilla, but also inspired by a couple of dog attacks that happened to other community members.
Council President Nick Coelho proposed the council suspend the discussion for now, bringing back at a future meeting with a couple of amendments: adding puncture depth to measure “severity,” with the caveat that the city would consult a veterinarian to make that determination, as well as redefine what’s meant by “restraint.”
As such, no action was taken at Council’s December 1 meeting.
The LPD and City Council’s recommendations on Lynnwood’s Animal Control Codes
The LPD’s, and council’s, complete list of edits included the following (underlined segments indicate the edits/additions suggested by the LPD and/or council). Council’s recommendations came from a Work Session discussion on the matter back in November 17, 2025.
- A definitional clarification in LMC 6.02.015.F2: Killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or inflicts injuries requiring euthanasia of domestic animal while off the owner’s property. If the animal is euthanized, documentation must be provided that confirms this decision was recommended and supported by a licensed, practicing veterinarian.
- A definitional clarification also in LMC 6.02.015.F3: Been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of injury inflicted on a human (Add- or domestic animal), the owner having received notice of such, and the animal again aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans (Add- or domestic animals).
- A definitional clarification in LMC 6.02.015.: “Severe injury” means any physical injury that results in broken bones or lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic injury. (This is as the LMC currently reads. The LPD suggested replacing the word “injury” to “surgery”.)
- Adding a potential dangerous animal declaration: As the LMC currently reads: A statement of any restrictions placed on the animal or owner as a result of the declaration. The LPD suggested the city add the following: “2.e. Restraint. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, it is unlawful for an owner of a potentially dangerous dog to permit the dog to be allowed or permitted to run free and physically unrestrained or off leash or not otherwise under physical restraint, unless within a fenced yard or similar restraint reasonably designed to prevent the dog from running free and physically unrestrained. The top of such fence shall be at least six feet in height as measured from the ground level, unless there is a secured top – full enclosure – to the fenced-in area, and that such fence or enclosure area shall comply with all applicable city codes. For purposes of this section, a dog solely under voice and/or signal control shall be considered to be “physically unrestrained.” Violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor, and may be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment in jail not to exceed 90 days, or both such fine and imprisonment.”
- Concerning LMC 6.02.070 – animals running at large: The LMC portion that reads No domestic animal, with the exception of cats, or exotic animal or livestock of any kind shall be permitted to run at large during any hours of the day or night, would just be reworded so that “with the exception of cats” was struck and an addition “cats shall be exempt from this code” added at the end. The language change makes no difference to the code, just adds clarity, the LPD said.
Author: Kienan Briscoe
One Response
Recently it seems like people serving on this council have had conflicts of interest on topics being discussed, and voted on.
None of them have been more obvious in my opinion then cm Escamilla needing to recuse herself from the discussions and voting on anything dangerous dog related. She is currently involved in multiple dog issues, and she is working on a LMC that will likely be enforced on her.
Odd it was the same night they discussed the updates to dangerous dogs, they talked about earning the communities trust. How ironic was that?