Compiled by Barbara Andrews
©
TheDogPress
10|20|09 -
Barbara Haines, Louisville Kennel Club, has been waiting for this
decision for almost a year. The December 2007 suit by the LKC was
joined by veterinarians and concerned pet owners. The Federal
ruling sets a precedent with far-reaching implications, and sets the
stage for class-action lawsuits nationwide; anywhere similar
ordinances have been enacted and Constitutional rights of pet owners
have been violated.
Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:
* Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process,
search and seizure, i.e. all protections provided by Constitution
apply to pets. The ruling reaffirms you are the OWNER of your pets,
not a "guardian” as in the state having the right to take you pet
away as can be done with your child!
* Requirements for housing and care cannot be legislatively mandated
as different for intact dogs vs. altered dogs.
* Seizure bond is illegal and unconstitutional because it
constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after a search
warrant is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized,
their dogs must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held,
cannot be sold, transferred to anyone or euthanized) unless the
owner is found guilty after trial. If they arrest you for
commission of a crime involving your automobile, they can impound
your car but if you are found innocent, it must be returned to you
in the same condition in which it was seized. You are not charged
storage fees. The same applies to your dogs. You do NOT pay for
their care, until/unless found guilty of the charges.
This is major relief for pet owners as just the thought of
their dogs being euthanized or sold, and then being assessed
thousands of dollars for boarding and/or hysterectomy and
castration has held owners in abject fear.
The plaintiffs prevailed on virtually every essential
violation of the Federal Civil Rights act asserted. As
regards a provision that allows the city to take away dog
licenses for state or federal crimes not even related to
animals, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson stated in his
ruling, “This section is more problematic than those
discussed above, because it appears to allow the director
(of Metro Animal Services) to impose a civil punishment for
any reason at all, leaving citizens unaware of what actions
might constitute grounds for license revocation.”
No longer can LMAS (Louisville Metropolitan Animal Services)
inspect your property and decide if you can own an unaltered
dog. No longer can Louisville authorities require a seizure
bond where failure to post it makes you forfeit your animals
without a finding of guilt.
There is a case currently in Kenton County where 10 years
ago, a woman's beagles were confiscated on a nuisance issue
and recently they came back and asserted cruelty. When she
could not post the seizure bond, they said the animals
became their property and they euthanized all of them
including 10 year olds. They then dismissed the cruelty
charges. This case is in Federal Court in Northern Kentucky
on a challenge to the seizure bond and a violation of her
civil rights. This decision by Judge Simpson holds that the
conversion of her animals without a finding of guilt
violates her due process rights.
This type of thing is happening all over the county and this
decision will have a huge impact. While the search and
seizure issue was dismissed because the city agreed with us,
the Judge went on and discussed violations of the Fourth
Amendment and clearly indicated that the provision in the
Ordinance which allegedly permits seizure for any violation
of this chapter (a provision used by LMAS to seize puppies
because of an alleged violation of the Class A Kennel
License), requires a warrant for seizure.
Info courtesy of
AnimalConcerns.org,
edited by BJ Andrews
How Animal Rights influence local government revealed in
Man Bites Dog
AR Terrorists Lose Appeal
A landmark Federal Court
ruling in Kentucky.
AR Terrorism
first-person account of armed break in, federal suit, FBI,
etc.
Breeders
Damaged by Animal
Rightist Groups Actions
And summing
it up, this from the AKC:
American Kennel Club - Tuesday, October
06, 2009 -
Late Friday, United States
District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, of the Western
District of Kentucky issued his decision in the case of the
Louisville Kennel Club, Inc. v.
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government.
A significant victory for
the Louisville Kennel Club, the judge’s decision features
two key rulings that may also prove to be of great
importance for dog owners nationwide.
First, Judge
Simpson held that there was no rational basis why owners of
unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners
of altered dogs. This declared the part of the ordinance
that required owners of unaltered dogs to get the Director’s
written approval for those dogs’ enclosures (owners of
altered dogs did not have such a requirement) as an
unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection and
Substantive Due Process.
Reiterating
another court’s earlier decision that recognized that dogs
are personal property, the judge further held Louisville’s
seizure bond requirement as an unconstitutional violation of
procedural due process rules. This requirement, which
required anyone accused of animal cruelty to post bond for
the care of their seized animals, would have resulted in the
forfeiture of animals if they were not able to pay for the
bond regardless of whether or not they were later determined
to be innocent.
“We congratulate
the Louisville Kennel Club and their co-plaintiffs on their
leadership in opposing the Louisville ordinance,” said
Dennis Sprung, President and CEO of the American Kennel
Club. “We are confident that this decision will encourage
communities to consider the interests of responsible dog
breeders and owners when making changes to their animal
ordinances.”
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations
Department:
(919) 816-3720, go to the website, or e-mail
doglaw@akc.org.
http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/KY-Court-Rules-Pets-Are-Property
_Andrews-0910.asp