Saturday, June 14, 2014

The Wide Scope of Animal Cases and What is Legal?

What types of cases are handled? (Originally published in 2014)

  • Alleged animal abuse, defense, evaluation, experts
  • Claimed Dangerous dog, Hearings, Opposition 
  • Alleged Animal hoarding, over limit, negligence
  • Seizure, errant Warrants, Forfeitures, Disputes
  • Animal bite defense, or insurance claims
  • Animal injury or killing cases
  • Animal ownership, contract disputes
  • Pets as property, valuations
  • Use of animals in entertainment or contracts
  • Defamation in the use or sale, display or trade of animals
Most of the incidents but not all, in animal law, relate to some type of  alleged criminal conduct or gross negligence.

But what has been happening more frequently, is the situation where owners and breeders are being subjected to complete seizure by either animal control, or humane societies, with claims of abuse when in fact, there is no actual abuse.  One might be over the limit or not have a kennel license but that alone is not necessarily a criminal violation.  Having a dirty water bowl or an issue with an animal's eye has been used to SEIZE all animals on one's property under claimed abuse.
We have seen misdemeanor and felony charges which are not warranted, no experts even are allowed to view the animals in some cases.  In general, the larger the number of animals, the better the animal control likes the "bust" since they end up selling all the animals, some of them at fairly high prices, and often such animals are actually moved out of the area to be sold.  We have even seen animals sold to highest bidder at shelters. 
Unbeknownst to most of the public, California has the most animal laws (usually pertaining to abuse) -- in the United States, mostly because animal rights group purposely enacted such laws in this state.




  • California Animal & Dog Lawyers - Compare Top ... - Justia

    www.justia.com › Lawyer Directory › Animal & Dog Law

    San Francisco, CA Animal & Dog Law Lawyer. 38 years experience. 415.541.0300 150 Post Street Suite 600. San Francisco, CA 94108. Free Consultation
  • animalandpetlawattorney.blogspot.com/

    2 days ago - Animal Pet Law Attorney California 530.359.8810. Animal+Pet LawCases; Seizure,CA PC597,PC597.1,et seq, Forfeiture, alleged abuse ...
  • Attorney works with other criminal defense attorneys, animal husbandry people, and experts on aggression and more. 

  • Call 530 359 8810 or 916 877 5297 for inquiries, 24/7 for in custody.




    Chico Animal & Dog Lawyers - Compare Top Animal & Dog Attorneys ...

    https://www.justia.com/lawyers/animal-dog-law/california/chico

    Chico, CA Animal & Dog Law Attorney. 26 years experience. (530) 359-8810 2485 Notre Dame Blvd. Chico, CA 95928. Free ConsultationAnimal, Criminal, ...

    Sacramento Animal & Dog Lawyers - Compare Top Animal & Dog ...

    https://www.justia.com/lawyers/animal-dog-law/california/sacramento

    Compare animal & dog attorneys serving Sacramento, California on Justia. Comprehensive ... Carolyn J. Chan. Sacramento, CA Animal & Dog Law Attorney.

    Chico Affordable Family Law Attorney 20+ Years 530.359.8810

    affordablefamilylawattorneychico.blogspot.com/

    Oct 19, 2016 - Attorney is well aware of the long running case from Butte County that then .... Most of the cases involved family law and animal law issues; the ...




    Saturday, January 4, 2014

    Attorney Animal Case California: 530.359.8810 916.877.5297 IN Custody Calls 24/7

    Another PC 597.1 seizure done, BUT with very convoluted procedure.  Warrant was issued and AC seized all animals, claiming they were neglected. Essentially, they were not neglected, but the outside run was not in perfect picture condition. Nevertheless, the "post seizure" hearing result was that owner could get his animals back BUT supposedly only so MANY of them, as the limit in that county is 6 dogs.
               In any event, many actions and facts surfaced which indicated that AC had no reason to NOT let all of the animals be released.  However, AC then started on a shell game using the sheriff and essentially did not give back 6 dogs, and apparently either sold adopted or gave away the rest of the dogs, and while in the shelter, allowed TWO litters of puppies to be born from the seized animals. 

              Yet, AC is still trying to push criminal charges for neglect or abuse, even though the dogs had been allowed to be returned. The administrative hearing officer had already stated he did not find evidence of abuse.

                 The updated disposition of the case is that the County threw the charges out for abuse and ended up with an infraction for barking and no license. It seems the dogs were licensed so that means just barking. 


    a)(1) Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer shall take possession of the stray or abandoned animal and shall provide care and treatment for the animal until the animal is deemed to be in suitable condition to be returned to the owner. When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with subdivision (f). In all other cases, the officer shall comply with the provisions of subdivision (g). The full cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this subdivision or pursuant to a search warrant shall constitute a lien on the animal and the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid, if the seizure is upheld pursuant to this section.
    (2) Notwithstanding any other law, if an animal control officer or humane officer, when necessary to protect the health and safety of a wild, stray, or abandoned animal or the health and safety of others, seeks to administer a tranquilizer that contains a controlled substance, as defined in Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, to gain control of that animal, he or she may possess and administer that tranquilizer with direct or indirect supervision as determined by a licensed veterinarian, provided that the officer has met each of the following requirements:

    (A) Has received training in the administration of tranquilizers from a licensed veterinarian. The training shall be approved by the California Veterinary Medical Board.
    (B) Has successfully completed the firearms component of a course relating to the exercise of police powers, as set forth in Section 832.
    (C) Is authorized by his or her agency or organization to possess and administer the tranquilizer in accordance with a policy established by the agency or organization and approved by the veterinarian who obtained the controlled substance.
    (D) Has successfully completed the euthanasia training set forth in Section 2039 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations.
    (E) Has completed a state and federal fingerprinting background check and does not have any drug- or alcohol-related convictions.

    (b) Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a dog or cat, that is abandoned in any city, county, city and county, or judicial district may be killed by the officer if, after a reasonable search, no owner of the animal can be found. It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to cause the animal to be killed or rehabilitated and placed in a suitable home on information that the animal is stray or abandoned. The officer may likewise take charge of any animal, including a dog or cat, that by reason of lameness, sickness, feebleness, or neglect, is unfit for the labor it is performing, or that in any other manner is being cruelly treated, and provide care and treatment for the animal until it is deemed to be in a suitable condition to be returned to the owner. When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of an animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with subdivision (f). In all other cases, the officer shall comply with subdivision (g). The full cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this subdivision or pursuant to a search warrant shall constitute a lien on the animal and the animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid.

    (c)(1) Any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer shall convey all injured cats and dogs found without their owners in a public place directly to a veterinarian known by the officer to be a veterinarian who ordinarily treats dogs and cats for a determination of whether the animal shall be immediately and humanely destroyed or shall be hospitalized under proper care and given emergency treatment.
    (2) If the owner does not redeem the animal within the locally prescribed waiting period, the veterinarian may personally perform euthanasia on the animal. If the animal is treated and recovers from its injuries, the veterinarian may keep the animal for purposes of adoption, provided the responsible animal control agency has first been contacted and has refused to take possession of the animal.
    (3) Whenever any animal is transferred to a veterinarian in a clinic, such as an emergency clinic that is not in continuous operation, the veterinarian may, in turn, transfer the animal to an appropriate facility.
    (4) If the veterinarian determines that the animal shall be hospitalized under proper care and given emergency treatment, the costs of any services that are provided pending the owner's inquiry to the responsible agency, department, or society shall be paid from the dog license fees, fines, and fees for impounding dogs in the city, county, or city and county in which the animal was licensed or, if the animal is unlicensed, shall be paid by the jurisdiction in which the animal was found, subject to the provision that this cost be repaid by the animal's owner. The full cost of caring for and treating any animal seized under this subdivision shall constitute a lien on the animal and the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid. No veterinarian shall be criminally or civilly liable for any decision that he or she makes or for services that he or she provides pursuant to this subdivision.

    (d) An animal control agency that takes possession of an animal pursuant to subdivision (c) shall keep records of the whereabouts of the animal from the time of possession to the end of the animal's impoundment, and those records shall be available for inspection by the public upon request for three years after the date the animal's impoundment ended.

    (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any peace officer, humane society officer, or any animal control officer may, with the approval of his or her immediate superior, humanely destroy any stray or abandoned animal in the field in any case where the animal is too severely injured to move or where a veterinarian is not available and it would be more humane to euthanize the animal.
    (f) Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both.

    (1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice of the seizure or impoundment, or both, to the owner or keeper within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The notice shall include all of the following:
    (A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice.
    (B) A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.
    (C) The authority and purpose for the seizure or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.
    (D) A statement that, in order to receive a postseizure hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning an enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the agency providing the notice within 10 days, including weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice. The declaration may be returned by personal delivery or mail.
    (E) A statement that the full cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.
    (2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. The seizing agency may authorize its own officer or employee to conduct the hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person who directed the seizure or impoundment of the animal and is not junior in rank to that person. The agency may utilize the services of a hearing officer from outside the agency for the purposes of complying with this section.
    (3) Failure of the owner or keeper, or of his or her agent, to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in a forfeiture of any right to a postseizure hearing or right to challenge his or her liability for costs incurred.
    (4) The agency, department, or society employing the person who directed the seizure shall be responsible for the costs incurred for caring and treating the animal, if it is determined in the postseizure hearing that the seizing officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe very prompt action, including seizure of the animal, was required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others. If it is determined the seizure was justified, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for the full cost of the seizure and care of the animal. The charges for the seizure and care of the animal shall be a lien on the animal. The animal shall not be returned to its owner until the charges are paid and the owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the seizing agency or the hearing officer that the owner can and will provide the necessary care for the animal.

    (g) Where the need for immediate seizure is not present and prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, the agency shall provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a hearing prior to any seizure or impoundment of the animal. The owner shall produce the animal at the time of the hearing unless, prior to the hearing, the owner has made arrangements with the agency to view the animal upon request of the agency, or unless the owner can provide verification that the animal was humanely destroyed. Any person who willfully fails to produce the animal or provide the verification is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
    (1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice stating the grounds for believing the animal should be seized under subdivision (a) or (b). The notice shall include all of the following:
    (A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice.
    (B) A description of the animal to be seized, including any identification upon the animal.
    (C) The authority and purpose for the possible seizure or impoundment.
    (D) A statement that, in order to receive a hearing prior to any seizure, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning the enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the officer providing the notice within two days, excluding weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice.
    (E) A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal, that any animal seized shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in a conclusive determination that the animal may properly be seized and that the owner shall be liable for the charges.
    (2) The preseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, after receipt of the request. The seizing agency may authorize its own officer or employee to conduct the hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person who requests the seizure or impoundment of the animal and is not junior in rank to that person. The agency may utilize the services of a hearing officer from outside the agency for the purposes of complying with this section.
    (3) Failure of the owner or keeper, or his or her agent, to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in a forfeiture of any right to a preseizure hearing or right to challenge his or her liability for costs incurred pursuant to this section.
    (4) The hearing officer, after the hearing, may affirm or deny the owner's or keeper's right to custody of the animal and, if reasonable grounds are established, may order the seizure or impoundment of the animal for care and treatment.
    (h) If any animal is properly seized under this section or pursuant to a search warrant, the owner or keeper shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for the cost of the seizure and care of the animal. Further, if the charges for the seizure or impoundment and any other charges permitted under this section are not paid within 14 days of the seizure, or if the owner, within 14 days of notice of availability of the animal to be returned, fails to pay charges permitted under this section and take possession of the animal, the animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of by the seizing agency.

    (i) If the animal requires veterinary care and the humane society or public agency is not assured, within 14 days of the seizure of the animal, that the owner will provide the necessary care, the animal shall not be returned to its owner and shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of by the seizing agency. A veterinarian may humanely destroy an impounded animal without regard to the prescribed holding period when it has been determined that the animal has incurred severe injuries or is incurably crippled. A veterinarian also may immediately humanely destroy an impounded animal afflicted with a serious contagious disease unless the owner or his or her agent immediately authorizes treatment of the animal by a veterinarian at the expense of the owner or agent.

    (j) No animal properly seized under this section or pursuant to a search warrant shall be returned to its owner until the owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the seizing agency or hearing officer that the owner can and will provide the necessary care for the animal.

    (k)(1) In the case of cats and dogs, prior to the final disposition of any criminal charges, the seizing agency or prosecuting attorney may file a petition in a criminal action requesting that, prior to that final disposition, the court issue an order forfeiting the animal to the city, county, or seizing agency. The petitioner shall serve a true copy of the petition upon the defendant and the prosecuting attorney.
    (2) Upon receipt of the petition, the court shall set a hearing on the petition. The hearing shall be conducted within 14 days after the filing of the petition, or as soon as practicable.
    (3) The petitioner shall have the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that, even in the event of an acquittal of the criminal charges, the owner will not legally be permitted to retain the animal in question. If the court finds that the petitioner has met its burden, the court shall order the immediate forfeiture of the animal as sought by the petition.
    (4) Nothing in this subdivision is intended to authorize a seizing agency or prosecuting attorney to file a petition to determine an owner's ability to legally retain an animal pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (l) if a petition has previously been filed pursuant to this subdivision.

    (l)(1) Upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation of this section, or Section 597 or 597a, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other disposition. A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for all costs of impoundment from the time of seizure to the time of proper disposition. Upon conviction, the court shall order the convicted person to make payment to the appropriate public entity for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the seized or impounded animals. Each person convicted in connection with a particular animal may be held jointly and severally liable for restitution for that particular animal. The payment shall be in addition to any other fine or sentence ordered by the court.

    (2) The court may also order, as a condition of probation, that the convicted person be prohibited from owning, possessing, caring for, or residing with, animals of any kind, and require the convicted person to immediately deliver all animals in his or her possession to a designated public entity for adoption or other lawful disposition or provide proof to the court that the person no longer has possession, care, or control of any animals. In the event of the acquittal or final discharge without conviction of the person charged, if the animal is still impounded, the animal has not been previously deemed abandoned pursuant to subdivision (h), the court has not ordered that the animal be forfeited pursuant to subdivision (k), the court shall, on demand, direct the release of seized or impounded animals to the defendant upon a showing of proof of ownership.
    (3) Any questions regarding ownership shall be determined in a separate hearing by the court where the criminal case was finally adjudicated and the court shall hear testimony from any persons who may assist the court in determining ownership of the animal. If the owner is determined to be unknown or the owner is prohibited or unable to retain possession of the animals for any reason, the court shall order the animals to be released to the appropriate public entity for adoption or other lawful disposition. This section is not intended to cause the release of any animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish seized or impounded pursuant to any other statute, ordinance, or municipal regulation. This section shall not prohibit the seizure or impoundment of animals as evidence as provided for under any other provision of law.

    (m) It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to use all currently acceptable methods of identification, both electronic and otherwise, to determine the lawful owner or caretaker of any seized or impounded animal. It shall also be their duty to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the animal and, upon the owner's and caretaker's initiation of recovery procedures, retain custody of the animal for a reasonable period of time to allow for completion of the recovery process. Efforts to locate or contact the owner or caretaker and communications with persons claiming to be the owner or caretaker shall be recorded and maintained and be made available for public inspection.
    CREDIT(S)
    (Added by Stats.1991, c. 4 (A.B.35), § 1, eff. Dec. 13, 1990, operative Jan. 1, 1991. Amended by Stats.1998, c. 752 (S.B.1785), § 19; Stats.2011, c. 553 (A.B.1117), § 1; Stats.2012, c. 594 (S.B.1162), § 1, eff. Sept. 26, 2012; Stats.2012, c. 598 (S.B.1500), § 1.5.)

    General Anti-Cruelty Provisions



    Saturday, July 6, 2013

    Animal Activists Engaged in Racketeering re Elephant Case Ringling Bros.

    ANIMAL LAW

    Animal rights groups to pay attorney fees after losing suit against Ringling Bros. producer


    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/animal_rights_groups_will_have_to_pay_attorney_fees_for_lost_suit_against_c/   (see article below) NOTE THAT THIS OCCURRED IN 2013 AND THE ACTIVISTS HAD ACTUALLY KEPT THE CASE ALIVE IN FEDERAL COURT FOR ABOUT 10 (YES, 10) YEARS..AFTER THE RACKETEERING FINDING, THE ANIMAL RIGHTS PAID OUT MILLIONS TO BARNUM AND THE CIRCUS ENTITY LATER CLOSED DOWN, OBVIOUSLY NOT WANTING TO ENGAGE IN MORE LAWSUITS.
    Posted Apr 2, 2013 11:46 AM CDT
    By Debra Cassens Weiss

    Animal rights groups that sued the producer of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will have to pay attorney fees, a federal judge has ruled.
    U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington, D.C., did not yet decide how much is owed, the National Law Journal reports. The circus producer, Feld Entertainment Inc., says it has spent more than $20 million defending itself in the suit claiming that the circus was abusing its elephants.
    Sullivan had dismissed the suit in 2009, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that another plaintiff, an elephant trainer, was “essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness.”
    The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) applauded the new development in an editorial. “Losers pay in Judge Emmet Sullivan's courtroom, at least when those losers bring a ‘frivolous, unreasonable and groundless’ lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act,” the newspaper said.
    Sullivan also said one lawyer and her law firm are responsible for part of the fees because they helped the elephant trainer prepare a discovery response stating he wasn’t paid by the animal rights groups, the NLJ says. At the time, he had already received money from the groups.
    The lawyer is Katherine Meyer and her firm is Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal. When contacted by the NLJ, Meyer pointed to a declaration filed with the court that said she had no intention to mislead and the trainer didn’t consider the payments to be formal compensation. She also said lawyers for the trainer had offered to provide information about the payments under a confidentiality agreement.
    Sullivan's ruling doesn’t affect one plaintiff, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The group agreed to pay Feld $9.3 million in December, the Wall Street Journal says.
    Feld has filed a separate suit against the animal rights groups that claims they engaged in racketeering when they paid the trainer.
    Please see this link for current attorney site information.
     http://www.criminaldefenseattorneychico.com

    This is the correct site for animal pet law attorney, currently, and all the state information,etc. will apply to CA unless otherwise noted. [The fact that site lists Chico CA does not limit legal work to any particular area.]

    Attorney can and does work in any California county, and is admitted to Southern District Federal Court (San Diego), Northern District Federal Court (Bay Area- SF, San Jose, etc) and Eastern District Federal Court (Sacramento, Fresno, Redding, etc) and can easily be admitted to Central District (Los Angeles) but due to rabid Animal Rights in Los Angeles, it is rather useless to bring a lawsuit in Central District.  This is rather obvious from most of the case law that has happened in that district.

    NEWS STORIES RELATED TO ANIMALS AND ANIMAL LAW









    A Handy Flow Chart on How to Choose a Pet

    1. Animal Pet Law Help

      animalpetlawattorney.com/
      www.animalpetlawattorney.org
    2. Los Angeles ARs | Pet Defense petdefense.wordpress.com/category/los-angeles-ars/Animal Ag Alliance · Animal Agriculture Alliance · Animal Council · Animal Pet Law Attorney California · Animal Rights is NOT Animal Welfare · Animal Rights ...

    3. AR Rescuers Influencing Shelter Mgmt | Pet Defense

      petdefense.wordpress.com/category/ar-rescuers-influencing-shelter-mgmt/

      Animal Ag Alliance · Animal Agriculture Alliance · Animal Council · Animal Pet Law Attorney California · Animal Rights is NOT Animal Welfare · Animal Rights ...

    4. Exotic Animal Owners Lose Case in Ohio, No surprise…but Sad ...

      petdefense.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/14021/

      Dec 23, 2012 - Animal Ag Alliance · Animal Agriculture Alliance · Animal Council ·Animal Pet Law Attorney California · Animal Rights is NOT Animal Welfare ...

    5. Should Grace Fdn. Horse Story be Investigated? Comments | Pet ...

      petdefense.wordpress.com/.../should-grace-fdn-horse-story-be-investigat...

      Oct 29, 2012 - Animal Ag Alliance · Animal Agriculture Alliance · Animal Council ·Animal Pet Law Attorney California · Animal Rights is NOT Animal Welfare ...

    6. Harris Ranch Cattle Arson, Terrorist ARs Bragging | Pet Defense

      petdefense.wordpress.com/2012/.../harris-ranch-cattle-arson-ars-braggin...

      Jan 10, 2012 - Animal Ag Alliance · Animal Agriculture Alliance · Animal Council ·Animal Pet Law Attorney California · Animal Rights is NOT Animal Welfare ...

    7. HELP IN SAN JOSE+ BAY AREA 
    8. San Jose 650.336.8287
    9.  - San Jose 650.336.8287

    10. Sacto 916.877.5297 Affordable ParalegalService ... Affordable Help, San Jose 650.336.8287