Every summer, law enforcement authorities remind the public of how dangerous it can be to leave a dog in a car, even while just popping into a convenience store.
Yet a dog’s death in August 2025, while in the care of the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office employees, may illustrate this danger better than however many times cops warn the public each summer about not leaving dogs in hot cars.
That dog’s name was Bella.
Bella died in a DCSO truck after deputies and a lieutenant, while aiding in the arrests of several people associated with a homeless camp outside La Pine, passed her from vehicle to vehicle — custodial responsibility changing several hands — in service of delivering her to the Humane Society of Central Oregon, the Source recently learned.
During what police records indicate was a harried day, the last deputy in charge of Bella, Jonathan Ebner, either forgot — or never realized — that the dog was in the back of his vehicle when he parked at his La Pine home in the early morning on Aug. 8, 2025.
She remained there until the evening of Aug. 10, 2025, when Ebner returned to the vehicle to discover a foul odor and Bella’s remains.
A necroscopy administered by a local veterinary clinic concluded that Bella’s cause of death was compatible with heat stroke.
According to DCSO memos the Source reviewed, Capt. Mike Sundberg placed Ebner on paid leave on Aug. 15, 2025, pending the result of an internal affairs investigation. At DCSO’s request, the Bend Police Department also investigated Ebner’s involvement in Bella’s death.
Detectives recommended animal neglect charges to the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office. In turn, the DA’s Office referred the matter to the Oregon Department of Justice. Jake Kamins, the senior assistant attorney general, reviewed the case. He ultimately didn’t recommend an animal neglect charge, according to records the Source reviewed. Kamins did, however, recommend that the sheriff’s office work with the DOJ to develop and implement new training and have deputies review its current animal control policies.
The sheriff’s office’s administrative investigation concurred with that of the Oregon DOJ, DCSO spokesperson Jason Carr told the Source. Ebner returned to duty on Jan. 12, 2026, according to state certification records.
Carr added that DCSO officials are currently coordinating with the DOJ to implement the recommended enhanced training, which is scheduled for Oct. 26.
Prior to the Bella incident, Ebner had completed a half-hour K-9 familiarization course in May 2023 and a four-hour K-9 work course, according to state police certification records.
This isn’t the first time a dog has died in DCSO custody. In 2007, a Belgian Malinois patrol K-9 named Koda, recently acquired by the sheriff’s office, died after it escaped from its in-vehicle kennel and choked on the seat foam it had ingested, according to the Associated Press. DCSO concluded that the handler was not negligent.
What the law says
According to ORS 167.330, a person commits the crime of animal neglect in the first degree if the person intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence fails to provide minimum care for an animal in the person’s custody or control and the failure to provide care results in serious physical injury or death to the animal, along with other considerations.
Animal neglect in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor. A repeat offense is a felony.
Last December, Kamin of the Oregon DOJ wrote in the memo to the DA’s Office that there wasn’t any credible evidence that Ebner ever realized that Bella was in his prisoner compartment, nor that if he’d noticed her, he wouldn’t have taken care of her.
In most animal neglect cases, Kamins wrote, Bella’s dying in Ebner’s “custody or control” would be enough for a charge to stick. Yet, Kamins doubted that it would be provable that Ebner was ever aware that Bella had been placed in his vehicle.
However, Kamins noted several instances where DCSO officers made questionable decisions, including picking up Bella in the first place.
A ‘good dog’ during a chaotic day
In her last weeks and days, Bella was in the temporary care of several folks living in an encampment outside La Pine, on Darlene Road. DCSO authorities were on site, servicing several arrest warrants related to an arson that sparked the Jolene Fire on July 23.
When Deputy Jeff Woods noticed the dog and put her in his vehicle, she didn’t seem distressed, lost, injured, or a bother to anyone. Several DCSO officers later commented what a “good dog” Bella was, according to records. An unknown person told Woods that the dog’s name was Bella; a subsequent person with knowledge of Bella’s situation didn’t object to her going to the Humane Society.
Yet in his DOJ report, Kamins noted that La Pine investigation had nothing to do with Bella or animals in general. Deputies should have focused on the arson case and, if truly necessary, called another deputy to respond to Bella.
Also, Kamins dinged DCSO for not generating paperwork nor other documentation, including radio communication, regarding Bella’s transport until Bend PD became involved after her death.
After his arrest, the arson suspect claimed to be having a medical episode, which necessitated the arrival of an ambulance and several EMTs. Rangers with the Bureau of Land Management were also present. According to police records, DCSO officers reshuffled the suspects in patrol trucks for transport to the Deschutes County Adult Jail.
Bella was another variable in that game of Tetris.
Lt. Josh Spano approached Ebner, who was talking with the rangers. Spano interrupted, telling Ebner, “Woods found a dog. You just got to hold onto this dog really quick, can I put it in your car?” Ebner replied, “Oh, OK,” according to Bend PD’s report.
While Ebner talked with his back turned, officers transferred Bella to Ebner’s vehicle. She settled down on the floorboard in one of the prisoner compartments in the cab’s rear, according to in-vehicle camera footage reviewed by Bend PD.
Later, Ebner climbed in the patrol truck, continuing his shift for several hours, according to Bend PD, driving several times between Bend and La Pine. He ultimately parked his vehicle at his La Pine home around 1 a.m. the following day.
In an interview with Bend PD, Deputy Woods made it clear that he had made no direct contact with Ebner about Bella, according the DOJ’s memo. Lt. Spano told investigators that he’d had a single, brief conversation with Ebner about the dog. Ebner declined to be interviewed by Bend PD, yet issued a statement through his attorney. He claimed no memory of the conversation with Spano about Bella, nor ever being aware that she’d been put in his patrol truck.
Bend PD Detective Ryan Tiktin, in concluding his investigation, cited Ebner’s saying “Oh, OK” to Woods as clear acknowledgement that Bella was going to be placed in his vehicle and indicative of Ebner’s clear negligence.
According to interviews and in-vehicle camera footage, Bella isn’t visible while riding those last hours in Ebner’s patrol truck — it’s presumed she was lying down on the floorboard — nor does she make any audible sounds.
“I do not believe I would be able to prove that Ebner was aware that he had been given custody or control of Bella,” Kamins wrote in his report. “Or that, if he failed to be aware of it (per the criminal negligence standard), that the failure constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”
This article appears in the Source September 10, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“Also, Kamins dinged DCSO for not generating paperwork nor other documentation, including radio communication, regarding Bella’s transport until Bend PD became involved after her death.”
Is this yet another swept under the rug incident by interim Sheriff Rupert so he can portray “all is well” at DCSO under his authority? No paperwork? No other documentation? No radio communication between Spano and Ebner regarding Bella being dutifully transported per policy and common sense to safety? Nonsense.
Bend PD’s investigation report is 60-pages long (2025 00047147 ORI – OR0090100). It includes a written statement from Deputy Ebner which was provided by his attorney, Mr. Mike Starpoli, on 09-03-2025. In that statement Deputy Ebner offers he at no time was aware of having a dog in his patrol vehicle. This from August 7th until he reported its death on August 10th.
However the report clearly states Ebner knew Bella was being placed in his patrol vehicle and had watched Deputy Woods remove the dog from his vehicle to be then placed in Ebner’s.
Ebner states he and his family were preparing to go on vacation after he got off shift. He parked his patrol vehicle at his residence, used his personal vehicle for work the next day, and helped finish packing for vacation. The high temperature on August 7 was 71 degrees F; on August 8 it was 75 degrees F; on August 9th it was 80 degrees F; and on the 10th it was 86 degrees F.
The report includes the fact Bella had no water, no food, and was confined in the vehicle with all windows up. At 75 degrees F in such circumstances the interior temperature will reach 94 degrees in ten minutes. In 30 minutes the temperature will reach 109 degrees. Over time the interior temperature can range from between 115-125 degrees F.
I worked for the Astoria Police Department and DCSO during my career. There is no excuse for this poor animal literally cooking to death in a locked patrol vehicle over a three day period. LT Spano was responsible for ensuring Deputy Ebner safely transported Bella to the Humane Society or one of its partner shelters, period.
If Ebner was incapable of doing the transport then Spano should have called the DCSO Animal Control technician on duty and arranged for safe transport, period. Or taken Bella in himself.
The report offers at one point during the transfer from Wood’s vehicle to Ebner’s at least one body camera was turned off. No reason given. The rear seat area where Bella was placed has a camera. That camera had been on but was turned off after Bella was placed in the vehicle. No reason given.
A deputy or officer having a domestic animal in his custody is required to transport that animal to safe housing / care, period. To say “I didn’t know I had a healthy, friendly dog in my back seat” is absurd.
This was negligence on the part of LT Spano and Deputy Ebner.
The report states Ebner was overwhelmed with his duties that day. Sources offer Ebner has a history of being overwhelmed to include, during an incident where a husband, armed, was threatening to kill his family (barricaded inside the home) Ebner, responding to the call, gave his location once on scene as being 400 yards from the residence. When ordered to go to the residence he “lost it” over the radio and refused to move. Two other deputies were dispatched and arrived just after the man had kicked in the front door and was upstairs attempting to break into the bedroom his family was barricaded in. The deputies successfully took the man into custody without resorting to deadly force.
In Astoria I worked for DA Josh Marquis, formally an ADA under Mike Dugan in Bend. Josh created the first ever legislation (Kittles Bill) to make malicious animal abuse a felony in Oregon. He is now Director of Legal Affairs and Enforcement for the Animal Wellness Action. A copy of the BPD report is being forwarded to him for review and his professional assessment.
Justice for Bella
And here we get the latest from the “investigative journalist” Dream Team. We’re all truly blessed to witness such staggering brilliance and journalistic integrity from two people who fail at both.
PM publishes a garbage hit piece and right on cue, GW immediately arrives with paragraphs full of nonsense? At this point, you two aren’t even bothering to hide your agenda or coordination. You hacks clearly serve as a media operation for a flailing candidate. The real comedy is that campaign hitching its public-relations wagon to you two stooges in the first place. Desperate times, desperate measures.
Bottom line: you should be embarrassed. After one shallow, one-sided story after another, and an endless stream of excuses defending an ethically compromised candidate, this is the coordinated smear article you came up with? This is what your combined brilliance delivered? Complete amateur hour with you two.
Dear anonymous commenter: Kudos on a finely written screed! Genuinely, I enjoyed reading it aloud in the office. No Notes. Along with the bowl of strawberries I savored with my coffee, your thoughtful, well-paced diss has set me up for a lovely morning.
¿No es un amante de los perros lo tomo?
Any links or facts to back your opinion? Honestly it would make your comment seem less retaliatory……..being that you didnt use your name says alot. If what you say is true it would help inform public of it….
This is horrendous. Hard to read (but thankful for Peter Madsen’s willingness to investigate and report it) and even more difficult to come to grips with the fact that this level of negligence and incompetence is who we are entrusting our public safety to in Deschutes County. Awful, awful, awful. Justice for Bella.
This article does a good job of encapsulating the criminal investigation into the dog’s death, but it leaves open several questions as to how DCSO – and Sheriff Ty Rupert – handled the administrative investigation. DCSO media relations staffer Jason Carr told the Source “the sheriff’s office’s administrative investigation concurred with that of the Oregon DOJ.”
Be that as it may, the standards of proof for a criminal vs. administrative investigation are wildly different. And the general criteria for a competent administrative investigation is whether the investigation was thorough and objective.
To prove a criminal charge, Oregon DOJ would have had to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements of the crime existed. This was a difficult prospect, especially considering the deputy declined to be interviewed and only issued a statement presumably written by his attorney (which was more than the deputy was required to provide). Given the chaotic nature of the manner in which the dog ultimately ended up in the final vehicle, including a command staff Lieutenant placing it in the deputy’s vehicle with minimal explanation, it would be tough for any district attorney to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
But an internal investigation – or administrative investigation – has a far lower proof of standard: preponderance of the evidence. This means the standard they only have to meet to prove a policy violation is more likely than not, or 50% plus 1. Further, in an administrative investigation, the employee can be compelled to give a statement after receiving a Garrity admonishment. This orders them to tell the truth, but it also prevents anything they say from being used against them criminally. This also allows the investigator to ask follow-up questions for clarification.
So the question remains from the article: Did the Sheriff’s Office determine that NONE of its policies were violated when a dog ended up in a deputy’s vehicle and died of heat stroke?
The article does not make it clear whether the deputy was ever compelled to sit for an interview for the internal investigation. It does not make clear what kind of answers he gave, and what follow-up questions were asked. It appears as if the Sheriff’s Office washed its hands of the whole thing after DOJ declined to criminally prosecute and swept the internal investigation under the rug. This raises significant questions as to whether the Sheriff’s Office is truly interested in holding ALL of its employees accountable, or whether they’re only interested in holding those accountable that challenge the powers that be.
If the deputy and lieutenant in this article were never compelled to sit for an interview and answer questions, this shows that Ty Rupert’s administration handled this far differently than the investigation into his own political opponent, James McLaughlin, who has been placed on leave and forced to sit for possibly multiple interviews.
“Amateur hour” is rich coming from someone who just wrote three paragraphs of insults while conveniently avoiding the actual story.
Let’s cut through the tantrum: a dog died in the back of a patrol car. The Sheriff knew about the incident and the IA, yet the public apparently heard little about it. Instead of asking why, showing even a shred of concern for the animal, or demanding accountability, your response is to attack the people who brought the story forward.
That speaks volumes.
If the facts establish that Sheriff Rupert knew about this and it was kept from public scrutiny, then the real story isn’t the journalists you’re throwing insults at. It’s what happened to the dog, what the IA found, who knew, what consequences followed, and why the public wasn’t told.
Call people “hacks,” “stooges,” and “amateurs” all you want. Personal attacks are easy. Explaining why a dead K9 apparently warranted less transparency than McLaughlin’s IA is considerably harder.
Maybe spend fewer paragraphs attacking the messengers and one paragraph answering that.
You missed the point, so here is more than one paragraph for you, please keep up. You’re substituting an indirect incident for the broader pattern of “amateurs” smoke-screening for their candidate’s flawed character. Before going on, please accept my deepest and sincerest apologies for using that term again, but that’s the point you missed. The comments are about a systemic and coordinated effort of biased and unjust protection, which has been going on for weeks. The attacks aren’t personal, they’re attacks on their agenda and their “work.”
The argument made isn’t dismissing a dog dying or whether that event deserves scrutiny. Of course it’s tragic, discuss it how you want. But don’t somehow pretend it negates rightful criticism made about the larger trend of tilted coverage, spin, deflection, diversion, excuse-making, and overall nonsense used to promote the actual-morally-corrupt-candidate, from two neutral “investigative journalists” no less.
Instead, we get an article meant to paint his opponent as some kind of cold-hearted coverup-artist? What are we even doing here? At this point, these efforts to find anything that can be tied back to him are less journalism and more a search for any ounce of material supporting a predetermined narrative meant to rescue a spiraling campaign.
Conversely, their candidate doesn’t exactly need any media propagandists manufacturing press against him. There are plenty of legitimate questions and real controversies surrounding his character and record that he has created for himself. Just in recent months we’ve learned about alleged on-duty misconduct, unethical leadership, military service deceit, and everyone’s new favorite: the conveniently-timed democratic party affiliation that screams dishonest, hollow, and unprincipled, etc. Yet somehow, the tactics from the defenders of those flawed traits is to continually hunt for another person, another incident or another angle to redirect attention elsewhere. Just like we see here, clowns running cover for a charlatan.
Anyways friend, that’s the point you missed. You’re focused on one tree, the comment you replied to is about the forest. If the theme of those three simple paragraphs was lost on you, and you couldn’t get passed being offended by some nouns, I’m sorry but I can’t help you anymore beyond what has been done here. In closing, I won’t even make a ‘“Manipulation is real” is rich coming from McLaughlin supporters’ comment. That’d be too easy. Cheers.
Hey Amateur/The Larger Point: I am losing track. Which candidate are we supposedly supporting with our journalism?