PD has become involved with a new case where owner who had ‘over the limit’ number of dogs with no kennel license (because county refuses to give one) — engaged a post seizure hearing. At first he had legal counsel, with over 30yr experience. Counsel contaced PD to discuss the post seizure hearing; PD advised to come out swinging at outset, not to wait for any nonsense. The post seizure hearing is normally or usually lost by most owners, since anything called “abuse” by ARs determines the “abuse” and that’s why we always say everything is “abuse” to ARs because they are ALLOWED to determine WHAT IS abuse.
So the 30yr veteran counsel engages the first part of the hearing and gets in some x-exam on the AC vet, and pretty much shreds her testimony. But apparently there was no notice that the defendant’s witnesses were to appear, since defense counsel was told it was an informal meeting and not the actual hearing with “witnesses.” So defense counsel had defendant take the 5th, and continued the hearing.
Then at the continued admin hearing, defense counsel failed to appear and defendant was left on his own. Defendant called PD and was advised to remember– YOU (as a dog breeder of over 15yr, with therapy/service type dogs for Asberger kids/others) — know MORE than any AR does, simply because ARs don’t know anything about animals and they certainly don’t know breeding of animals because that is their #1 no-no.
So defendant gets in there, has his vet and groomer testify, the hearing officer looks at the photos taken by ARs, a few of which show 1 dirty water bucket, and mud on ground because it had rained. and some wet dogs. Then the hearing officer says that he believes maybe the defendant had a lot of dogs but even so, did not believe it was animal abuse.
Now question would be– after the hearing not showing animal abuse, does the lien apply to all of the seized dogs? A reading of the code does not exactly explain that, because of the way it is worded. How a prosecutor would make probable cause out of no abuse is questionable. However because it is rare to get a no abuse out of admin hearing, we were looking for the legislative intent when the reg first came out. We found some data and will update.