It is the position of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (JCSO) that their K-9 deputies are not accountable under the law for any injuries or destruction caused by their dogs, including broken bones, maiming and even death. Jeffco deputies advanced and defended just such an outrageous argument after one of their “trained” dogs violently attacked a 2-year-old girl at her birthday party, and her father, sending both to the hospital.

Last Aug. 11, Nick Dean, his wife, their twin 2-year-olds, and multiple other children, filled their suburban Castle Rock backyard for the magical celebration of their kids’ second birthday. Next door, Zach Oliver had left his Belgian Malinois named Ragnar in a cage without securing it closed. During the birthday celebration, Ragnar popped the door open, leapt over the fence, popped an inflatable ball in his mouth, and then set his sights on the little angel. It sprinted to her and bit into her thigh with such force that he broke her femur — audible to her parents, who watched in horror. Dad — doing what any father would do in that moment — tried to pull the vicious dog off his little girl. Ragnar then turned on him, inflicting hospital-quality injuries. At the time of the attack, Oliver was nowhere to be found.

In Colorado, the charge that fits such a case is called “harboring a dangerous dog,” the charge each of us would face if our dogs engaged in such horrific behavior.

Oliver happens to be a Jefferson County sheriff’s K-9 deputy and his violent dog is a JCSO K-9. That fact should be of no consequence here. Because Douglas County subscribes to the principle that “nobody is above the law,” Oliver was cited for harboring a dangerous dog, a strict liability offense.

Oliver’s response was to reject any responsibility for the injuries caused by the dog for which he had sole responsibility, plead not guilty, and set the case for a jury trial. Sounds like a slam dunk for justice, doesn’t it?

But wait: There is a provision of that same law against harboring a dangerous dog that says it does not apply to a peace officer “while the officer is engaged in the performance of peace officer duties,” which is undefined in the law. Obviously, that language exists to protect K-9 officers who injure defendants or inadvertently injure the wrong person while chasing down a rapist or murderer or protecting some member of the public from imminent harm.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

However, the current law requires the jury to be told that they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oliver was not in the performance of law enforcement duties for him to be found guilty. Here, Oliver was hanging out at his home. On the weekend. In a tank top and shorts. Completely outside of his jurisdiction (thus, incapable of exercising Jeffco law enforcement powers). What possible law enforcement duty did Oliver claim he was performing that would provide immunity under these horrible circumstances?

Cleaning up dog pee. Inside his home. No joke.

With the support and testimony of the Jeffco Sheriff’s Office, Oliver claimed the law did not apply to him — as it does to anyone else — because he was inside his house cleaning up dog pee, a task his non-deputy wife also performs regularly. Oliver and two Jeffco sheriff supervisors testified that Oliver is on duty 24 hours per day caring for the K9 and has a contract with JCSO to clean up after the child-attacking dog — which they described as “peace officer duties.” They further testified that the dog is owned by JCSO and is akin to an employee, and thus, Oliver is off the hook for whatever the dog does. To anyone. Ever. Under any circumstance.

Based on that testimony, jurors told us they felt the law given to them by the court was extremely broad and lacked defined limitations on what could be considered “performance of duties.” Thus, it could not be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt that Oliver was immune.

The natural conclusion of JCSO’s argument is that Oliver is beyond the reach of the law, even if JCSO’s employee-dog had killed both 2-year-olds, their parents, and every other child in the backyard that day. That argument has the smell of the dog kennel Oliver hid behind to avoid accountability.

As a result, a well-intentioned immunity provision in the law — it had never before been tortured to govern such conduct — now needs to be changed or this will happen again.

Bizarrely, after the dog chewed on the toddler and her father, JCSO kept the violent dog at Oliver’s house right next door to the victims for nine months. What kind of person would do such a thing to that little girl and her family?

I take a back seat to no one in the defense of our brave law enforcement officers. I have spent a career defending their legitimate and lawful actions in and out of court. This is different. This is a failure of character and an abandonment of the phrase “to protect and serve.”

The great men and women of JCSO — some of the best crime fighters in Colorado — deserve better than this self-inflicted black eye. So do the other rightfully proud members of the K-9 officer community across the state who feel threatened by any change in the laws that protect their legitimate conduct. My best guess (and hope) is that they all cringe at Jeffco’s conduct.

Oliver’s and the Jeffco sheriff’s efforts to avoid accountability to our law and the 2-year-old their dog viciously attacked is offensive. Cleaning up dog pee grants immunity?

As they say in Texas about illogical arguments, “that dog won’t hunt.” Unless, of course, it’s this Jeffco sheriff’s dog hunting toddlers in Castle Rock.

George Brauchler is the 23rd Judicial District attorney and former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He has served as an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute. Follow him on Twitter (X): @GeorgeBrauchler.