Example 17 - Animal Collector: Extremely Large Number of Animals
The Complaint
A complainant sent a local humane agency a welldocumented, written complaint
that a large number of animals being kept at a private "shelter" in a farm setting
were living in deplorable conditions. The complainant stated that hundreds of animals
of various types were harbored at the farm, including dogs, cats, sheep, goats,
horses, pigs, chickens, ducks, and peacocks. The complainant further stated that the
animals were starving, as well as suffering from mange and other ailments.
There had been complaints about the "shelter" in the past, but the
investigations were unsuccessful.
The Response
- Based on the well documented complaint and a phone conversation with
the complainant, the humane agency contacted the sheriff's department, and
both agencies contacted the district attorney's office.
- Because of the history of complaints about the "shelter," the district
attorney's office assigned an undercover investigator to work there.
- The investigator's report corroborated the statements made in the complaint.
- Based on the investigator's report and the sworn statement from the
complainant, the humane society applied for a search warrant and contacted the
sheriff's department. A date was agreed upon to execute the warrant.
- The humane society made arrangements with various animal
organizations, veterinarians, and volunteers to be present on the day the search warrant was
to be executed.
- On the agreed upon day, the sheriff's department assembled the various
humane societies at the edge of the property.
- The sheriff's department entered the property. The officers issued the owner
an appearance ticket, and he was required to stay away from the property while
the rescue team entered the property.
- The humane society, a team of veterinarians, the animal organizations
and volunteers entered the property to minister to the animals.
- The animals were identified and photographed. See the "Executing the
Search Warrant In An Animal Collector Case" discussion in the "Overview" for
this section and the "Photographic Evidence" discussion in the "Be Prepared Ahead
of Time," section.
- The animals who were deemed to be not saveable were euthanized; the
others were provided with veterinary treatment.
- It took several days to tend to all the animals. When the humane society
staff, veterinarians, and volunteers left in the evening, sheriff's deputies remained
on the property overnight, so the chain of evidence would not be broken.
- Though numerous animals had to be euthanized, a large number of
animals remained on the property because there were no quarters large enough to
hold them. The humane society and the sheriff's department met with the DA to
decide how to care for the animals. Because it was decided that the owner had the
funds to pay for feed and veterinary care, the decision was made to impound the
animals on the property.
- The court instructed the owner to provide food and veterinary care. The
court charged the humane society with the responsibility of closely monitoring
the condition of the animals to ensure that they were cared for until the case
was adjudicated.
- The humane agency monitored the feeding of the animals and hired its
own veterinarian to administer the various treatments the animals needed to
regain their health.
- The humane agency also hired a security firm to monitor the property at night
to prevent the unauthorized removal of animals from the premises. (After
the decision was made to impound the animals on the property, and the
humane agency was put in charge of monitoring the animals, the sheriff's department
no longer remained on the property.)
- A plea bargain was agreed to in the criminal case, and the humane agency
was granted custody of the animals. In addition, the Attorney General brought a
civil action which stripped the "shelter" of its nonprofit status and resulted in
its closure.
Charges Brought
Because of the numbers of animals involved, and the inability to find an impartial
jury in the township where the case occurred, the case went to a grand jury which
indicted the farm owner on numerous counts of violating Section 353 of the Agriculture
and Markets law.
Application for Search Warrant, , Search Warrant
Supporting Documents Follow
|