Another big animal seizure. This one in Houston.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/21164605/detail.html?dsq=18446644#comment-18446644
The way it works.
1. Somebody says the animals are in deplorable conditions, abused, neglected.
2. The SPCA (or whoever) confiscates ALL the animals
3. They charge the owner for the "care" of the animals (that would be whatever care they deem necessary - only in some instances they have neglected to continue the treatment the animal was already on - under the direction of a vet)
4. There is some time delay in getting to court.
5. There is a whole lot of time delay if the person pleads not guilty and goes to trial
6. In some places the judge can order the animals disposed of before a trial
7. Should a person win in a trial they might get some of their animals back, not likely all, and guaranteed any they do get back will be so damaged as to be unrecognizable.
8. The person would have to pay for the "care" of the animals before they could get them back. Apparently these people providing the "care" can charge whatever they like and run up ridiculous vet bills, as well. $213,000 in Houston, mostly for rodents.
Nobody can afford that, and yes, it does work the same for children.
It isn't enough that the government has to run how children are raised, now they have found a new victim. People who raise animals.
But this news came today.
WOW!
Well, guess that just may be the way it used to work.
WOW! This is the greatest thing since sliced bread!
--- On Sat, 10/3/09, goodthingimrich barbarajhaines@ wrote:
This past Friday, very late in the day, the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government.
The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as here in Louisville, which was always part of our strategy. Below is the notice from LKC President, Donna Herzig, which clarifies some of the decision:
"This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional.
"He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution] , and the requirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.
"The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions.
"With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance (a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain a warrant prior to seizure.
"Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't .
"Notwithstanding the story in the Courier Journal--I am not sure that they read the same opinion--we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis.
"While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a recent change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order is issued or the owner gives consent in writing.
"Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, we will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement. "
A big 'Thank you!' to every individual and every club that donated to our legal fund. This has been a great victory on the most substantive issues possible, and opens the door to citizens everywhere being able to sue for damages against similar ordinances.
--Barbara Haines
******
I must get a copy of that decision..and I will post it everywhere!
http://www.click2houston.com/news/21164605/detail.html?dsq=18446644#comment-18446644
The way it works.
1. Somebody says the animals are in deplorable conditions, abused, neglected.
2. The SPCA (or whoever) confiscates ALL the animals
3. They charge the owner for the "care" of the animals (that would be whatever care they deem necessary - only in some instances they have neglected to continue the treatment the animal was already on - under the direction of a vet)
4. There is some time delay in getting to court.
5. There is a whole lot of time delay if the person pleads not guilty and goes to trial
6. In some places the judge can order the animals disposed of before a trial
7. Should a person win in a trial they might get some of their animals back, not likely all, and guaranteed any they do get back will be so damaged as to be unrecognizable.
8. The person would have to pay for the "care" of the animals before they could get them back. Apparently these people providing the "care" can charge whatever they like and run up ridiculous vet bills, as well. $213,000 in Houston, mostly for rodents.
Nobody can afford that, and yes, it does work the same for children.
It isn't enough that the government has to run how children are raised, now they have found a new victim. People who raise animals.
But this news came today.
WOW!
Well, guess that just may be the way it used to work.
WOW! This is the greatest thing since sliced bread!
--- On Sat, 10/3/09, goodthingimrich barbarajhaines@ wrote:
This past Friday, very late in the day, the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government.
The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as here in Louisville, which was always part of our strategy. Below is the notice from LKC President, Donna Herzig, which clarifies some of the decision:
"This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional.
"He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution] , and the requirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.
"The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions.
"With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance (a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain a warrant prior to seizure.
"Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't .
"Notwithstanding the story in the Courier Journal--I am not sure that they read the same opinion--we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis.
"While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a recent change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order is issued or the owner gives consent in writing.
"Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, we will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement. "
A big 'Thank you!' to every individual and every club that donated to our legal fund. This has been a great victory on the most substantive issues possible, and opens the door to citizens everywhere being able to sue for damages against similar ordinances.
--Barbara Haines
******
I must get a copy of that decision..and I will post it everywhere!
The AKC already posted it for me.
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/LKC_Metro_Govt_100509.pdf
hmmmmmm, copy and paste the link, I'll figure it out one of these days.
This means: ( I think.)
1. There must be probable cause to get a warrant to search for and seize your animals. (no change)
2. No up front bond to care for the animals seized.
3. No charge to take care of animals until a finding of guilty.
4. Anyone who has had animals so seized and charges for care assessed before a finding of guilt may.
…….A. Sue the organization that seized the animals
…….B. Sue the individuals that seized the animals individually.
There are a lot of potential lawsuits out there.
This is not the same as a decision handed down by the Supreme Court, but it does lend substantial credence to any lawsuit.
I hope people who have suffered through this go for it.
There is no statute of limitation on this issue.
6 comments:
I'm pretty sure you're mistaken as to point 1. there must be "probable cause" before a judge who signs a warrant.
otherwise a great decision. and here are many of the associated documents:
Re: THE LOUISVILLE KENNEL CLUB, INC., ET AL. Plaintiffs, v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT
http://gamedogs.org/docs/Louisville_Complaint.pdf
http://gamedogs.org/docs/Req_sum_jdg.pdf
http://gamedogs.org/docs/Order.pdf
http://gamedogs.org/docs/Opinion.pdf
http://gamedogs.org/docs/SigningStatement.html
I'm not exactly what you are referring to as "Point 1"
In the Order, it states:
"2. Section 91.101 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of
Ordinances is declared unconstitutional insofar as it threatens to deprive pet owners
of their property rights without a finding of guilt. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment (DN 20) is GRANTED in this respect, and Metro’s motion for summary
judgment (DN 27) is DENIED to the same extent. Metro is hereby enjoined from
enforcing § 91.101 in the manner just described."
I'm not sure how a judge could sign a warrant based on "probable cause" if it threatens to deprive a person of their property.
The opinion clarifies it a bit more.
"Consequently we must hold that the portion of § 91.101 that would
permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt, is unconstitutional."
So, if a judge signs a warrant and animals are seized without a finding of guilt, it is unconstitutional.
your point #1 was "There must be a finding of guilt to get a warrant." and that is what I'm pretty sure is inaccurate. in order to get a warrant there must be probable cause that the actual animal is evidence of some crime.
then, in order to retain (or otherwise "deprive" aka keep from you permanently, notice the judge's use of that term "permanently deprive") your property they must find you guilty. but they can still take anything that is "warranted" and that could include dogs, like any other personal property (e.g. computer files, a bloody knife, etc) used to build a case.
but it must be specific. not just nazi-like humaniacs rifling and taking as they want then talk to a judge and/or prosecuter later, if ever once they've taken fruit from the tainted tree. they can't just fish like they do now, which is maybe see one dog with a supposed mark (or just get an "anonymous report" of such) and use that as justification for an immediate forcible entry and search when basically they should be getting a judge's approval since there is no "crime in progress".
just as with any other physical evidence if a judge feels that there is probable cause that one or more PARTICULAR animals are EVIDENCE of some crime they can order them seized and held, but they must be kept and returned in similar/reasonable condition to when taken. they've been somehow using the cart to get the horse.
unless and until there is a finding of guilt or plea involving the particular animal seized (and held until trial or other resolution at no cost to defendant) as that dog particularly used in commission of some crime by its owner they are still property of their rightful owner and cannot be disposed of.
if someone uses their property (any property) in the commission of a crime they do subject it to seizure . I don't think we can have it both ways. they are our property and as such could be seized by a court. the key is "reasonably" and not without a right to due process.
I am not a lawyer but that is my reading of this. also would have been nice to give some credit on the other article where you used the documents from, since they weren't free and someone else did do that work.
http://gamedogs.org/docs/Order.pdf
http://gamedogs.org/docs/Opinion.pdf
You have to read the "Due Process" sectionthoroughly and that is why I posted it separately, and I hope in easier to read format.
I have asked someone else to look at it and see what they come up with.
I'm just thinking you can't have it both ways.
It seems the judge is saying the same thing.
You can't seize dogs, maybe euthanize them and then find people innocent. That is not 'reasonable' either.
I revised my points, but I haven't gotten my head around completely, just yet.
They can issue a warrant and seize, they just can't make you pay "up front", only after a finding of guilt.
Something like that.
shiacac.blogspot.com is very informative. The article is very professionally written. I enjoy reading shiacac.blogspot.com every day.
quick cash
bad credit loans
Post a Comment