Call Us Toll-Free:
877-239-4480

animal cruelty

House Bill 24 Establishes Care Bond & Restitution for Livestock Cruelty Cases

Posted by DanaMarie Pannella on December 31, 2020   |   Comments Off on House Bill 24 Establishes Care Bond & Restitution for Livestock Cruelty Cases

House Bill 24 was signed by Governor DeWine on December 29, 2020. This lengthy bill goes into effect in 90 days. Most critically, HB 24 creates “care bond” hearings for livestock and allows courts to order convicted offenders to pay restitution for the care of those animals.

Care bond/cost of care laws help prevent humane societies and other law enforcement from incurring debilitating costs in animal cruelty cases and can help rescued animals find their new homes sooner, saving both money and animal lives.

Under current Ohio law, the seizure of a companion animal (generally cats, dogs, and some other animals kept in a residential dwelling) results in a judicial hearing within 10 days of seizure to determine whether the officer had probable cause to seize the companion animal, and if so, the amount of money (bond) necessary for the animal owner to pay for that companion animal’s care while it is impounded pending trial. If the owner does not pay the care bond, the animal may be forfeited to the impounding agency.

Livestock are not currently subject to the same care bond hearings and are held for an indefinite period of time pending trial. Restitution to the impending agency has not been upheld in these cases, causing the impounding agency to bear all costs of rescuing a neglected or abused livestock animal. Thus, under current law, it is an extreme burden for impounding agencies to rescue/care for livestock and livestock often endure long holds in a facility when they could otherwise be placed in a new home. HB 24 now ensures quick due process for the livestock owner, that livestock will not be held needlessly, and that the impounding agency may be justly compensated for care provided.

Here are some additional highlights:
⏩Reenacts current law provisions governing animal fighting, bestiality, and humane agent residency requirements, which were struck down in the Ohio Sixth Appellate District; thus making those provisions now enforceable in that district again
⏩Allows dog wardens to use chemical capture on companion animals
⏩Clarifies that a dog warden can “donate” or “adopt” out dogs that are not redeemed by their owner and may charge an adoption fee
⏩Codifies humane society procedures for appointment and removal of humane agents, nonprosecution agreements, and public records that were previously only determined by case law
⏩Creates a yearly report of humane society activity that is submitted to the county sheriff
⏩Removes the antiquated “Ohio Humane Society” and provisions regarding humane society enforcement of crimes related to children
⏩Specifies that a humane agent is a public servant for the purposes of bribery law
⏩Increases the minimum monthly salary of humane agents to $150 a month

The full text can be found here: https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/hb24/EN/05?format=pdf

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

PACT Act is now federal law–but what does it really cover?

Posted by DanaMarie Pannella on November 26, 2019   |   Comments Off on PACT Act is now federal law–but what does it really cover?

The PACT Act (Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act) was signed into federal law yesterday! This is a great law that builds on 2010’s Animal Crush Prohibition Act by making any activity defined as “animal crushing” potentially a federal crime, whether or not the act is committed as part of a crush video.

Unfortunately, there are lots of misleading and confusing headlines on this law, including that the PACT Act:
“makes animal cruelty a federal felony”
“Mak[es] Cruelty To Animals A Federal Crime”
“Bans Cruelty”
“Make[s] Animal Abuse a Federal Offense”
is a “Sweeping Federal Ban on Animal Cruelty”
covers “Most animal cruelty”

The PACT Act does make some animal cruelty a federal offense, but it isn’t that simple! Here are the basics:

✏️ What is “Animal Crushing”?
➡️ Animal crushing commonly refers to extreme fetish videos depicting animal abuse—where small animals are crushed, ripped apart, burned, or otherwise tortured to death. Usually, this is designed for the sexual gratification of the viewer. In 2010, a federal law was passed that banned the creation or depiction of such videos/acts, but NOT the actual underlying act of animal cruelty.

✏️ What does the PACT Act cover?
➡️  It outlaws purposeful crushing, burning, drowning, suffocation, impalement and other purposeful acts that cause “serious bodily injury” to animals other than fish. It also prohibits some acts of sexual abuse against animals other than fish, but this particular provision seems to have a qualifier that such acts are only prohibited if committed in the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” (federal property). The rest of the PACT Act applies to acts “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,” in addition to federal property. This limitation on the jurisdiction of animal sexual abuse crimes seems to negatively affect the federal prosecution of, for example, bestiality videos that are distributed online.
➡️ It outlines exemptions for humane euthanasia; slaughter for food; recreational activities such as hunting, trapping, and fishing; medical and scientific research; normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry, or other animal management practice; unintentional acts; and acts that are necessary to protect the life or property of a person.
➡️ It does not apply to anything other than the specific acts of cruelty listed above.
➡️ It does not cover all acts of animal cruelty.
➡️ It does not cover acts of neglect, abandonment, extreme weather, filthy conditions, or tethering issues.
➡️ It does not cover “puppy mill” issues.

✏️ Does the PACT Act change state and local law?
➡️ No. An offender can only be prosecuted pursuant to the PACT Act if the criminal act occurs on federal property (ex: national parks, military bases) or “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” Federal property (“special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”) is defined in 8 subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 7: maritime jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(1), 7(2); lands and buildings, 18 U.S.C. § 7(3); Guano Islands, 18 U.S.C. §7(4); aircraft, 18 U.S.C. § 7(5); spacecraft, 18 U.S.C. § 7(6); places outside the jurisdiction of any nation, 18 U.S.C. § 7(7); and foreign vessels en route to and from the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 7(8)).
➡️ The PACT Act was designed not to preempt or interfere with local/state animal cruelty laws or enforcement. The PACT Act is merely a federal overlay, exactly like the federal animal fighting law(s).

✏️ Who enforces the PACT Act?
➡️ Federal law enforcement in federal courts.

✏️ What are the possible punishments for violation of the PACT Act?
➡️ Violations could result in a fine and up to seven years’ imprisonment.

✏️ Does the PACT Act make all animal cruelty a felony?
➡️ No. As noted above, the PACT Act only applies in a narrow set of circumstances. State and local legislation to strengthen animal cruelty and neglect laws are still needed and very much necessary.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Ashland County Resident Found Guilty in Cockfighting Case

Posted by HM IT on March 21, 2017   |   Comments Off on Ashland County Resident Found Guilty in Cockfighting Case

State v. Benny Craft, a case we prosecuted which was investigated by the Ashland County Sheriff and the Ohio Department of Agriculture, with assistance from the Humane Society of Ashland County Ohio

Craft was found guilty after a jury trial of cockfighting, two counts of animal cruelty and one count of possession of criminal tools. Craft was found not guilty of 3 counts of criminal tools and 4 counts of cruelty.

Craft was sentenced to a total of 90 days in jail, $350 in fines, courts costs, forfeiture of the roosters seized and items found to be criminal tools. He was ordered to pay $1,070 restitution for veterinary and other care provided to the animals. Jail is suspended on condition that he successfully complete one year probation. During probation he may not possess chickens or other poultry, and he is subject to inspections.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Woman Convicted of Companion Animal Cruelty Will Only Keep One Cat

Posted by HM IT on March 3, 2017   |   Comments Off on Woman Convicted of Companion Animal Cruelty Will Only Keep One Cat

State v. Marlowe, a case we prosecuted for Animal Charity of Ohio. Marlowe was convicted of companion animal cruelty for neglecting 5 dogs at her house. One was emaciated and dehydrated in an outdoor, fenced area. The others were inside the basement, covered in debris, including a large accumulation of fecal material and urine, causing the investigator’s eyes and throat to burn.

On sentencing, Marlowe was prohibited from owning, possessing or living at a residence with any animals, except one cat which must be kept in a humane, sanitary and lawful manner. She is subject to random inspections. If she violates, she will serve up to 90 days in jail. She was also ordered to pay $4500 in restitution to Animal Charity for care provided to her animals.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Jailtime for Man Convicted of 9 Counts of Companion Animal Cruelty

Posted by HM IT on February 13, 2017   |   Comments Off on Jailtime for Man Convicted of 9 Counts of Companion Animal Cruelty

State v. David Taylor a case we prosecuted for the Lake Humane Society resulting in a lifetime ban from keeping companion animals.

Taylor was convicted in the Willoughby Municipal Court of 9 counts of companion animal cruelty after trial for neglecting his three dogs, who were kept in a cluttered, dirty yard full of debris, including broken glass and nails. They suffered from severe flea infestation, open abrasions, bacterial infection, severe ear mites, fly strikes and whipworms.

In addition to the ban on keeping animals, Taylor was sentenced to 90 days in jail, 45 of which was suspended pending successful completion of one year probation including mental health assessment and treatment. He was fined $750 of which $500 is suspended.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Over $17,000 Restitution Ordered for Care of Neglected Horses

Posted by HM IT on October 6, 2016   |   Comments Off on Over $17,000 Restitution Ordered for Care of Neglected Horses

State v. Patricia Floyd, a case we prosecuted which was investigated by Animal Charity of Ohio. Floyd pled guilty to 4 counts of animal cruelty for neglecting 7 horses. Two had extremely long hooves, several were dehydrated or excessively thin, and all were living in filthy conditions. Horses require regular hoof trimming by a qualified farrier. Lack of proper care can lead to this severe and painful deformity.

The horses were all surrendered. Floyd was ordered by the Youngstown Municipal Court to pay $17,400 in restitution to Happy Trails Farm Animal Sanctuary who did an excellent job rehabilitating these animals. Floyd will be subjected to random inspections for 5 years, and may not possess any animals other than two dogs she already possessed, which were in good condition.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Owner Convicted for Neglecting Dog’s Severe Skin Condition

Posted by HM IT on October 4, 2016   |   Comments Off on Owner Convicted for Neglecting Dog’s Severe Skin Condition

State v. Christopher Overton, a case we prosecuted in Youngstown investigated by Animal Charity of Ohio, the Humane Society which serves Mahoning County.

Mr. Overton had three dogs. Two were in good condition. The third had an extreme untreated skin condition which caused large sections of skin to be red, raw and bloody. Blood and flesh were found on the collar when it was removed.

Overton surrendered the dog to Animal Charity. Today he plead guilty to companion animal cruelty. Overton will be on probation for three years, and will be subjected to random inspections to make sure that he is providing proper care for his remaining dogs. He is not permitted to have other animals. He will pay $500 for the rehabilitation and care of this dog. If he violates any of these terms, he may be ordered to serve up to 90 days in jail.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

A Cluttered Van in the Hot Sun is not a Humane Place to keep 17 Chickens.

Posted by HM IT on August 10, 2016   |   Comments Off on A Cluttered Van in the Hot Sun is not a Humane Place to keep 17 Chickens.

State v. Sandra Rae Paul, a case we prosecuted for the Loudonville Police, with help from the Humane Society of Ashland County Ohio, was ound guilty of animal cruelty yesterday, and taken to jail.

The evidence showed that the chickens were left in the van for at least 7.5 hours on a day when temperatures were in the mid-80s without shade for the vehicle. The chickens appeared to be lethargic. One died later that night.

Veterinarian, Dr. Melissa Ferry testified that under these conditions, temperatures would reach 130-140 degrees within 40 minutes. She said the chickens would certainly be suffering and would be in danger of heatstroke.

Judge John Good concluded that the vehicle did not provide shelter from sun, but instead amplified the effects of the sun, creating a “death trap.” He scolded the Defendant for blaming the situation on everyone else and taking no responsibility.

The Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail for failing to appear, 20 more days for the offense, and will have 70 additional days hanging over her head during 2 years’ probation. During that time, she is prohibited from possessing farm animals, including fowl, and is subject to random inspections.

Tagged , , , , ,

Fine for Animal Cruelty to Lemur

Posted by HM IT on March 29, 2016   |   Comments Off on Fine for Animal Cruelty to Lemur

State of Ohio v. Jennifer Toth, a case prosecuted for the Cleveland Animal Protective League.

Toth was charged with one count of animal cruelty related to a Lemur named Nova that had an untreated broken leg. The leg was broken at the time Toth purchased the animal.

Toth pled to one count of attempted cruelty to animals. Toth agreed not to keep any more exotic animals is limited to two spayed/neutered dogs, two male guinea pigs, and a turtle for one and half years. There was no evidence that the non-exotic animals were not being cared for properly.

Additional provisions include payment of court costs, a $250 fine, and $1,109.90 in restitution, representing the cost of amputation of the lemur Nova’s leg. Toth is subject to random inspections and must keep all animals in a humane, lawful, and sanitary manner. She faces 45 days in jail if she fails to comply.

Nova recovered and was sent to a lemur sanctuary.

Nova the Lemur

Tagged , , , ,

Jail Time and Fines for Farm Animal Cruelty Case

Posted by HM IT on January 27, 2016   |   Comments Off on Jail Time and Fines for Farm Animal Cruelty Case

State v. Sofia Applegate, a case we prosecuted for the Geauga County Humane Society.

Applegate pled guilty today to one count of animal cruelty for neglecting to provided adequate food and water for three horses. One died on the scene. The others were not able to be rehabilitated despite the best efforts of the Humane Society, and were euthanized.

Applegate, who has no other criminal history, will serve three days in jail. Another 87 days were suspended and may be imposed if she fails to complete 5 years’ probation. During that time, she is prohibited from owning, keeping or living with any animals except for the two dogs and one cat she currently possesses, which must be kept in a humane, sanitary and lawful condition. (There was no evidence that the dogs and cat were not being cared for properly.) She is subject to random inspections during probation. She was fined $750, with $650 suspended, and must pay court costs.

Tagged , , , , , , ,