by George J. Eigenhauser Jr.
(an attorney at law licensed in the State of California since 1979 and practices in the areas of civil litigation and estate planning)

ANTI-PET ENFORCEMENT
What Every Pet Owner Needs to Know

Pet owners and ethical breeders are increasingly being targeted. Disgruntled neighbors may retaliate against pet owners and many other reasons drive complaints, and anti-pet enforcement action, which many times may be conducted illegally. The following text outlines methods of inquiry and enforcement which may be used by local officials in attempts to enforce ordinances in your community and suggested techniques of response. These techniques are entirely legal and based upon the rights of citizens as stated by the U.S. Constitution. No one wants to have Animal Control come knocking on the door…but if they do, it will help if you know what your options are.
Remember, Animal Control is law enforcement. They are bound by the same Constitution as any other government agency. To protect yourself, you need to know your rights. These vary slightly one jurisdiction to another, but some general principles apply. One rule applies everywhere: never physically resist an officer.

When Animal Control is At Your Door:

1. Do not let them in, no matter how much they ask. Animal Control generally cannot enter your home without a warrant, or your permission. While regular police can enter in emergency situations when human life is at risk (i.e. they hear gunshots and a scream inside), there are few, if any, situations in which Animal Control can enter your home without a warrant. Simply tell them they may not come in.

2. If you let them in, anything they find in “plain sight” can be used against you. In some circumstances Animal Control officers, unable to find a legitimate reason to make an arrest, have reported building or zoning violations. This may include caging you attached to a wall without a building permit, that extra outlet in the puppy room, having more pets than allowed by zoning, even extension cords in violation of fire codes! No matter how clean your kennel, if they want to find a violation, they will.

3. Do not talk to them from an open doorway. Step outside an close (and lock if possible) the door behind you. This is necessary because:

• Anything they see through the open door is “plain sight” and may be the basis for an arrest, or probable cause for a search warrant.
• If they make an arrest or even feel threatened they are usually permitted to search for weapons in your immediate area. Do you keep a baseball bat inside the door for your protection? Even if you don’t, once they step inside to look, they are in your home and may continue to search.
• It is hard not to be intimidated by someone in authority. Some animal control is even done by local police, who carry guns. It is easy for them to get “in your face”, causing you to back up into the home. Once you go in, it will be interpreted as an invitation to follow.

4. If they claim to have a warrant, demand to see it. In general, a search warrant must be signed by a judge. A warrant to search your home for pets does not include an inventory of your jewelry box. A warrant to search your kennel in the garage or in the barn does not include a search of your home.

5. In some locations, pet owners may have obtained special “breeder permits” that stipulate that Animal Control has your permission to enter at any time. If you have signed such a permit they still cannot enter against your wishes, since you can revoke the permission at any time. However, if you refuse permission it may allow them to cancel your breeder permit, so you have to weigh the consequences.

6. Warning – anyone in lawful possession of the premises may be able to give permission for a search. Make sure your roommate, babysitter, pet-sitter, housekeeper and other know that they should not let animal control into your home or on your property (i.e.backyard, garage, etc.).

How to Handle Questions:

1. Don’t answer any questions beyond identifying yourself for the officer. Anything you say to the officer in your defense cannot be used in court (hearsay). Anything you say that is harmful to you will be used in court (confessions are not considered hearsay). You cannot win, except by remaining silent.

2. Be polite but firm. Do not argue, bad-mouth, curse, threaten or try to intimidate the officer.

3. Do not lie to an officer, ever. However, it is NOT a lie to exercise your right to remain silent.

4. Keep your hands in plain sight. People have been shot by police when common objects, such as a wallet, were mistaken for a gun.

5. Do not touch the officer in any way. Do not physically resist an officer, no matter how unlawful his or her actions.

6. Don’t try to tell your side of the story, it cannot help.

7. Do not threaten the officer that you plan to file a complaint for their actions.

8. If the questioning persists, demand to speak to a lawyer first. Repeat as necessary.

Gathering the Facts:

1. Get the name and badge number of each officer involved. If he/she does not volunteer this information, ask.

2. Ask the name of the agency they represent. Different agencies have different enforcement responsibilities.

3. Ask why they are there. Request the factual basis of the complaint and the identity of the complainant.

4. If they have other people with them (Humane Society, press, etc.) get the names and organizations for all present.

5. Note the names (and addresses) of any witnesses to the encounter.

6. If you are physically injured by an officer, you should take photographs of the injuries immediately, but do not forego proper medical treatment first.

7. Write down all of the information, as well as the date and time of the incident immediately, while details are fresh in your mind.

8. If you rights are violated, file a complaint with the appropriate body.

If You Are Arrested:

1. Remain silent. Answer no questions until you have consulted with a lawyer.

2. Don’t “explain” anything. You will have time for explanations after you have talked to a lawyer

3. Within a reasonable time they must allow you to make a phone call to get a lawyer or arrange bail. They are not allowed to listen to your phone call to your attorney, but they may “monitor” the rooms for “your protection”. Do not say anything you do not want them to overhear; save that until after you are out on bail.

Telephone Inquiries or Threats:

You may receive telephone inquiries concerning the number of pets you own and whether any dogs or kittens are for sale. Other questions may also be asked. Your response should be to inquire “Are you interested in a puppy?”. If the answer is “yes”, ask that person for his/her name, address and phone number. Suggest that you or a responsible breeder will contact that person at a more convenient time for you. If the answer is friendly and genuinely inquisitive, invite the person to look at your puppies. If the question asked is “What is the price of each puppy?”, simply say that puppies of this type are being sold for between “X” and “Y” dollars. Never say that you are selling them. If the question asked is “Are these your puppies?”, you should ask, “Why do you want to know?”. If you conversation indicates that the person is representing the county clerk’s office or allegedly representing an official body, ask the caller for: -Full name, title and phone number -Agency’s full name and full address -Their supervisor’s full name and phone number -Nature of the inquiry (what it is about) -Why the inquiry is being made -How your name and phone number were obtained -Ask that all future questions from that agency be submitted in writing

Preventative Measures:

1. Always keep you kennel clean and take good care of your animals.

2. Consider a P.O. Box or other address for business cards and advertisements. Keep descriptions of your location general ( i.e. Southern California , rather than the name of the city where you live). The internet can provide anonymity for initial contacts. You can even buy a “remote prefix” to get a number from a nearby community forwarded to your phone or to a voice mail. Avoid local newspaper classifieds, they are often monitored.

3. Screen any potential pet buyers carefully. Always be alert that they may be Animal Control or even Animal Rights working under cover.

4. Don’t allow strangers into your home until you have screened them.

5. Be fair and honest in all of your dealings, and be on good terms with your neighbors. Most animal control contacts are complaint-driven. Some complaints may arise as harassment by people with unrelated grievances against you. It may be a disgruntled pet buyer or a cranky neighbor who doesn’t like you parking in front of his house.

6. Anything about you that can be observed in “plain sight” from the street or sidewalk can become probably cause for a warrant. Even areas on your property open to visitors can be dangerous. Be aware of which areas of your home are visible from the outside and plan accordingly.

7. If you are confronted by Animal Control and turn them away, assume they will be back. Use the time available to make sure everything is clean and presentable. If you are over the limit on the number of pets, find friends who can provide temporary shelter for your dogs. Whatever you do, stay calm and keep your wits about you. Just say “no”, no matter what threats or promises of leniency they make. When in doubt, say nothing and speak to a lawyer afterwards.

Kentucky, North Dakota, Idaho, Mississippi and Iowa are the five best states in the country to be an animal abuser, according to a new report released today by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF). Based on a detailed comparative analysis of more than 4,000 pages of statutes, tracking fourteen broad categories of provisions, the report recognizes the states where animal law has real teeth, and calls out those like Kentucky — the single worst in the nation for animal protection laws for the fourth year running — where animal abusers get off easy. ALDF’s fifth annual state rankings report, the longest-running and most authoritative report of its kind, ranks all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories for the general comprehensiveness and relative strength of their respective animal protection laws.

Why are these five states in the dog house when it comes to getting tough on animal abuse? The legislative weaknesses seen in the states at the bottom of the animal protection barrel include severely restricted or absent felony animal cruelty provisions, inadequate animal fighting provisions, and lack of restrictions on the future ownership of animals for those convicted of cruelty to animals.

On the other end of the spectrum, this year’s “best five for animals” list remains unchanged from 2009, with Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Oregon and California demonstrating through their laws the strongest commitment to combating animal cruelty; for the fourth consecutive year, Illinois was the very best of the best for the strength of its laws protecting animals. Alaska showed the most improvement, moving from 44th last year to 37th overall this year. West Virginia, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Arizona all improved their standings due, in part, to the adoption of laws that allow animals to be included in domestic violence protective orders.

“While many states continue to make positive progress for animals, there are, unfortunately, still many places where the laws are incapable of providing the legal protections that our country’s animals need and deserve,” says Stephan Otto, Animal Legal Defense Fund’s director of legislative affairs and author of the report. “Even in those jurisdictions that have today’s best laws, there remain many opportunities for improvement. Animals do not vote — but those who love them do. We encourage lawmakers throughout the country to take heed and commit to working to improve these critical laws.”

ALDF was founded in 1979 with the unique mission of protecting the lives and advancing interests of animals through the legal system. For more information, including a copy of the state rankings report and a free downloadable version of the complete compendium of state anti-cruelty laws (US and Canada) on which the report is based, please visit www.aldf.org.

2010 State Animal Protection Laws Rankings
Comparing Overall Strength & Comprehensiveness

Note: The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and other territories are included in this report and are italicized. The Best Five and Worst Five categories are limited to states.

Annual Animal Protection Laws Rankings Reports
United States: 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010
Canada: 2008 | 2009 | 2010

National Report — Lawmakers in Rhode Island, California and Louisiana are considering registries to keep tabs on people convicted of animal abuse.

The registries would function much like sexual offender registries, requiring convicted animal abusers to register personal information with local law enforcement.

An animal abuser is anyone over the age of 18 convicted of a felony animal abuse offense, according to the California and Rhode Island proposals. Louisiana’s would require registration for any animal abuse conviction.

The laws would require registrants to list their personal information, employer’s name and location, the date and details of their animal abuse offense. Law enforcement authorities will have a varied number of days, according to each state, to enter the abuser’s information in to a database. Rhode Island would then require the chief of police to notify every residence, school, humane society, shelter and business within a half-mile of the abuser’s residence of their previous offense and description. The state attorney general also would maintain a central database of registrants that can be accessed by the general public.

The Louisiana and California versions of the proposal wouldn’t require law enforcement to make notifications about the offenders, but only to maintain a public database. They also would enact smaller penalties than Rhode Island’s proposed felony for failure to register, which would carry up to a $1,500 fine or two years in prison. In California, any fines collected as a result of the new law would be used to establish a state Animal Protection Fund, which would help local governments fund spay-and-neuter programs.

Votes on the bills were not scheduled on any of the three bills at press time.
……………………………..
reprinted from DVM Newsmagazine

Related articles by Zemanta

• Animal Abuse Registry in Canada (socialactions.net)
• California Animal-Abuse Registry: Lawmakers Propose Bill (time.com)
• Should There Be an Animal-Abuser Registry? (time.com)
• Should Animal Abusers, Like Sex Offenders, Be Registered? (time.com)
• Animal Abuse as Clue to Additional Cruelties (nytimes.com)

“All I know is, I love my dog more than anybody on the planet. There is nobody who will take better care of her or work harder to keep her safe and sound, with all the necessary aids and precautions.”

“When people tell me how much they love Brindi, I think that’s really great, because it reassures me that even behind bars, she is being her wonderful, beautiful, smart, attentive, fun, eager to learn, and above all, loving self. Even behind bars, all of that comes through; she is weary, she is lonely, she needs more exercise, her teeth and coat need attention, and Lord knows she needs to come home -but she has not gone crazy, she has not become vicious. Not this dog, people!”

“And it gives me a bit of hope. Who in their right mind could kill a dog like Brindi?

“My hope is that maybe, just maybe, people who say they love Brindi will put themselves in my shoes for just a moment. A fraction of a moment. Any amount of time, no matter how brief, would be enough for them to know one thing for certain: nobody loves Brindi as much as I do. And then they would understand exactly why I say that I am not going to stop until she is back home, safe and sound.” [May 2009]

“Good news: permission from the authorities to see Brindi 30 minutes a week, noontime Wednesdays. Two visits so far since January. Unlike back then, this time we were allowed to be inside the building, since it was cold and rainy that day… .” [Note: These are the first two visits Francesca has been "permitted" since Brindi was seized in July 2008.]

“I can’t helping thinking that Brindi has easily served ten times more time behind bars than even the worst animal abuser. My time has been much like prison; I certainly have not been living a real life. Knowing your dog is literally on death row makes that kind of impossible.” [May 2009]

[Note: Today's post is taken from Francesca's blog, Free Brindi. The text comes from May 2009, roughly halfway between today and where this ordeal began in late July 2008. It's but a small part of her story as told in her own words.]

Francesca makes her pre-sentencing statement before the judge on April 16, 2010.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Please call and/or email the contacts below.

Do it often and do it regularly.

Ask them to correct this iniquity and return Brindi to her owner, Francesca Rogier.

All of nature has the ability to reason and the ability to negotiate. It’s innate in us. As natural as rain.

You need only look at the pecking order in a herd of wild horses to see this or the feeding rotation of birds around a birdfeeder.

Society sets rules to govern us, to guide us on acceptable behavior. They provide lines and structure.

If we paint outside those lines, we negotiate the consequences.

Your son breaks your neighbor’s window with an errant baseball. Does your neighbor seize your child? Confiscate his baseball? No, you negotiate with the neighbor to replace his window at your expense. You teach your child a new behavior: don’t play baseball so close to windows.

We negotiate the consequences.

A look through the Halifax Animal By-Law Violation report included by the city each month in the minutes on their website shows that violations are negotiated every month. Fines are routinely negotiated.

There is nothing unusual about Brindi’s incident.

She broke away from Francesca while getting muzzled. She ran to the edge of her property and scuffled with a dog being walked past the house. It was over in seconds. There were no visible wounds nor was the dog vetted for any injuries.

So why has the city of Halifax NOT negotiated this case in all the time that has passed since Brindi was seized in July 2008? The only words we seem to hear from their camp is the long passed cliched response: “We cannot comment because the case is before the court.”

Even the Criminal Code of Canada clearly states in section 718.2 (b) “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances…”

It’s an indifference of sorts to not even attempt to negotiate.

Justice IS blind in Halifax. The same rules applied to other by-law violations are not being applied here.

Please call and/or email the Mayor of Halifax and the head of the city’s Legal Department. Ask them to correct this iniquity and return Brindi to her owner, Francesca Rogier.

It should not be wrong to stand up for what is right.

Mayor – Pete Kelly
kellyp@halifax.ca, mayorhrm@gmail.com
902-490-4010

Head of Legal – Mary Ellen Donovan
donovad@halifax.ca
Phone: 902-490-4232

Ciao, Holly

Related articles by Zemanta

• N.S. woman spends $30,000 fighting for dog’s life (ctv.ca)

WHAT IF city authorities arrived at your door one night with a warrant to SEIZE AND DESTROY your family pet… what would you do?

“From the minute they drove the big white truck away with Brindi sitting quietly in a locked metal cage, I began looking for help everywhere and anywhere – that is, after I finished screaming long and hard, enough to damage my vocal chords… For me, the excruciating pain of separation is compounded by horror and disbelief that in a case where no serious harm was inflicted, the city will actually kill a dog rather than punish me, her human owner and the responsible party.” [August 2008]

WHAT IF the same by-law that brought them to your door — a by-law designed to safeguard the city — offered you no option for challenging this warrant… what would you do?

“For the last ten days, I have been phoning, emailing, and visiting people, soliciting letters of support, and basically going crazy…. As a single woman, public safety is certainly important to me. I do not want people to worry about walking by my house. I have offered to install a fence right away, and work with a special trainer to correct her behavior. I will pay whatever fines and boarding costs are imposed. Animal Services has not responded to my offer, and the city’s lawyer declined my lawyer’s proposal to send Brindi to stay at an out of town facility until her behavior can be improved. Instead, Halifax appears determined to kill my dog.” [August 2008]

Between January 2007 and March 2010, THIRTY-ONE dogs were seized and destroyed IN HALIFAX by the letter of these very by-laws.

In 2008, one woman dared to stand up to the city and fight to save her dog.

It’s now the end of March, 2010, and she is STILL fighting.

Please call and/or email the Mayor of Halifax and the head of the city’s Legal Department. Ask them to correct this iniquity and return Brindi to her owner, Francesca Rogier.

It should not be wrong to stand up for what is right.

Mayor Pete Kelly -
kellyp@halifax.ca, mayorhrm@gmail.com
902-490-4010

Head of Legal – Mary Ellen Donovan
donovad@halifax.ca>
Phone: 902-490-4232

Ciao, Holly

Related articles by Zemanta

• N.S. woman spends $30,000 fighting for dog’s life (ctv.ca)

By DEBORAH BALL

ZURICH—Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a referendum that would have compelled all cantons to hire lawyers to defend the rights of animals, a setback to animal-rights organizations.

According to preliminary results, 71% of Swiss voters rejected the proposal on Sunday, with the rest voting in favor of the measure.

The referendum was hotly debated in a country that has some of the toughest animal-welfare laws in the world. If it had passed, each of the country’s 26 cantons would have had to hire official animal lawyers—a sort of public defender—to represent pets, farm animals and wildlife in court.

Animal-welfare groups had argued that if people accused of mistreating animals can hire lawyers, the victims of such abuse are also entitled to representation.

The Swiss generally take civil liberties very seriously, whether animal, vegetable or human. Scientists must consider the dignity of plants before embarking on experiments. The country is also known for its right-to-die laws that draw hundreds of foreigners each year to Switzerland to kill themselves.

Yet for all the existing protections, Swiss Animal Protection, the group behind the referendum, says that officials rarely prosecute animal-welfare infractions and that the average fine—just 439 Swiss francs ($409) in 2008—is hardly a deterrent.

“We do have very, very tough laws,” says Mark Rissi, spokesman for the organization. “But in some cantons, judges aren’t applying the law to the fullest.”

Several cantons had just two animal-mistreatment cases in 2008. In a statement released Sunday, Swiss Animal Protection said it was disappointed by the vote, and urged authorities to step up their enforcement of animal-welfare laws.

Instead, the Swiss government had urged voters to reject the referendum, arguing the money should go to extra veterinary resources to uncover animal abuse. Switzerland’s powerful farming lobby also opposed it, arguing farm animals are already closely monitored by state vets.

Since the 1970s, Swiss animals have enjoyed greater protection than their brethren in most countries. In 2008, a 160-page law tightened animal-welfare laws even further, requiring, for instance, that prospective dog owners take a four-hour course before buying a pet.

The run-up to the vote threw the spotlight on Zurich, the only canton that has an official animal lawyer. Antoine Goetschel, the canton’s animal defender, has recently become a media darling in Switzerland thanks to his high-profile defense of the referendum.

Mr. Goetschel, 51 years old, is a vegetarian who has no pets and avoids taking medication because of his opposition to research on lab animals. He became interested in animal rights at 23, when an accident left him unable to speak for 10 days, helping him understand the plight of animals who can’t express themselves. He was a major advocate of a 2003 Swiss law under which animals are to be treated as sentient beings, not personal property.

Last month, Mr. Goetschel went to court in defense of a pike that had fought a fisherman for 10 minutes before surrendering, after animal-welfare groups filed a complaint alleging animal cruelty in the fish’s epic battle.

The case emerged after a local newspaper photo showed the fisherman proudly showing off the 22-pound fish—a scene that, to Mr. Goetschel, was reminiscent of a safari hunter with his foot perched on the head of a dead lion.

“It is this Hemingway thinking,” he says. “Why should this be legal when other animals have to be slaughtered in a humane way?”

Mr. Goetschel lost the pike case last month, but is considering an appeal. Any further court action would come too late for the fish, which has been eaten.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12

Related articles by Zemanta

• In Zurich Courts, A Fish Is Entitled to a Lawyer (online.wsj.com)
• Lawyers for abused pets? Swiss ax idea (msnbc.msn.com)

She has three options:
1. Ordering the Killing of Brindi.
2. Leaving Brindi at the SPCA forever or rehome her to a third party.
3. Brindi returns home to her owner, Francesca Rogier.

It is our firm belief that the only decision that will serve true justice is the sparing of Brindi’s life and her return to Francesca Rogier.

The killing of Brindi or handing her to a third person would serve nobody’s interests and obviously, Brindi’s even less.

Either of those outcomes will do nothing other than irreparably damage the image of Halifax and destroy Mayor’s Kelly reputation forever in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people.

It would also cast a serious doubt over the judiciary system of Nova Scotia.

Imparting true justice is a very difficult task and this is why judges are held in such high regard in democratic societies. This authority is not God-given; it is granted by all of us as individuals.

Judges are there to deliver true justice, whether it serves the interest of the minority or the majority, the rich or the poor, the locals or the naturalized citizens or, in this case…

… a dog.

Viktor Larkhill

Let’s Adopt
…………………………….
reprinted from Let’s Adopt! Canada

Wow! Death for being a dog — and there were no injuries to either dog. The city contends that two previous attacks (also along the property line and also short-lived scuffles) classify Brindi as a “dangerous dog.” Yet in the 586 days they have illegally held Brindi in impoundment, they have never registered her as dangerous or required Francesca to license her as such.

Illegally held? Yes. The Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) cited various reasons and legislative provisions as the grounds and purpose for holding Brindi, none of which could be verified by Rogier’s counsel. Time limits set out in the Summary Proceedings Act are initiated upon the “day of seizure.” The Act states that “nothing shall be detained … for a period of more than three months … or for any longer period that ends when an application made under clause …”. HRM has made no applications.

Let’s Adopt! Canada has created a wonderful campaign to reach out to people with the message that Brindi should be returned to her owner. And the people of Halifax, Canada and around the world are voicing their outrage at this injustice.

We have been given homework to do this weekend: During the weekend speak to at least 10 people in your community about Brindi’s case. Share the facts, spread the absurdity of it all, and ask them to spread the news in their own personal circles. Discuss it with your friends, with the shopkeeper, at the gym, with your mates whilst out drinking… have the truth about Brindi and the Halifax City Government spread like a virus worldwide.

I hope you will join us. Make a phone call, send an email, be heard!

If you are abroad please email kellyp@halifax.ca and express the same… We have 5 days.…

Our sincere thanks to Let’s Adopt! Canada for their generous support.

And remember: “Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” ~ Margaret Mead

But when we join together for a common reason, we can affect change. Just look at the recent efforts to raise money for catastrophes half a world away. A dollar here and a dollar there. Your dollar, my dollar, a neighbor’s dollar, a stranger’s dollar.

It adds up.

And social media brings it closer to us. It allows all of us to participate and be a part of something bigger than us. We can be part of the change.

I hope you will join us as we continue to save lives. Because it will not stop with just one. It will go on to one more and one more until there are no more in need.

You can follow along as we worked to save Brindi from the injustice being dealt her by the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Let’s help all the animals in their jurisdiction one-by-one — starting with this one.

Let’s save Brindi! And return her to her owner, Francesca Rogier.

On Facebook: Save Brindi Group 1 | Group 2