Example 23 - Puppy Mills
The Complaint
A complainant called a local humane society and reported that she went to a breeder
to buy a puppy. The person was appalled by the conditions that she witnessed at
the premises and described them in a signed affidavit to the humane society.
The Response
- The humane society sent two investigators to the property on the premise
of looking to buy a puppy.
- They were not allowed into the kennel areas; instead the puppies were
brought out to the porch of the house. In addition to looking lethargic, the puppies had
a bad/dirty smell.
- They asked to see the parents of the puppies and the owner refused.
- Based on the condition of the animals, the owner's behavior, and the
original complaint, the investigators applied for a search warrant to enter the premises.
- The investigators contacted other area shelters to assist in a rescue effort.
They also contacted a local veterinarian and volunteers from other humane agencies.
- On an agreed upon date, the Sheriff's department executed the search
warrant and entered the property along with the humane society and the veterinarian.
- The owner and caretaker of the kennels were given an appearance ticket
and removed from the property.
- The team entered the property. Each animal was photographed and given
an identification number. In addition to numerous dogs, 4 cats, 1 goose, 1 duck, and
5 doves in poor condition, were on the premises. Animals were assigned to
the various shelters and removed. Their locations were documented.
- The situation was complicated by the fact that there were two
individuals involved, each of whom technically owned numerous of the animals. Thus,
the investigators had to determine which animals technically belonged to
whom, identify them, and specify the "Informations" accordingly.
- The humane society kept an accounting of the paperwork and presented it to
the District Attorney's office.
Charges Brought
The owner of the kennels was charged with 86 violations of Section 353 of
the Agriculture and Markets law.
The caretaker of the kennels was charged with 47 violations of Section 353 of
the Agriculture and Markets law.
Supporting Documents Follow
|