PLEASE NOTE–CALIFORNIA CASES ONLY
Much has been written about warrants and seizures in the law, but for animal owners, breeders, livestock owners, pet store owners, show fanciers and just normal pet owners, the spectre of being cited, or having a warrant issued and served, or seizure of animals– is something most animal owners actually fear. Especially in CA, home of the most prolific animal “cruelty” laws in the United States.
And that’s only if they realize what is actually done to people, by using the HSUS drafted laws against them.
Unfortunately, we have many laws out there which really suck and so knowing that, as defense attorneys we try and stay current with the crappola that HSUS keeps churning out, most of which very few animal owners ever know about. The danger in this is that bad precedents are set in the law by morphing one bad law into even worse ones. That is the known method of ARs.
Our Background Knowledge in California
To be honest, almost NO attorneys want to be known as the ones that stick up for owners or those who are charged with purported abuse, or cruelty, or anything “bad” having to do with animals. Yet if no one does this, then the owners and businesses that don’t want to have their rights trampled simply call any defense attorney, if they know one, or worse, they don’t call an attorney at all. A good example is when an innocent owner loses all their animals even when an illegal warrant was used. Or, the proper seizure notice was never used. Or, no opposition was ever afforded the defendant. Or, the animal control ignored the law. 
We have the added benefit of being able to work with CA humane officers that have been certified properly. This means they are in good current standing and in some instances, may know more about animal husbandry, breeding, proper care and feeding than some animal control officers. Being at a “bust” and seizing animals does not make one into an expert. Animal control officers attend an education program, but it is a general program that is not necessarily one which would make an animal control officer an expert. MOST animal control officers in CA are NOT Peace Officers. [However, animal control officers in Modesto are supposedly all Peace Officers. We do not believe this is the case with most cities or counties.]
A purported expert in the field of animal control can depend on the length of time and background of the person, but in our opinion, most of them which testify are not experts. They may testify as to what they saw, which is usually one sided (against owner of course.) Many animal control officers think of themselves as HSUS agents, they are always on the lookout as bust patrollers. Wanna-be-cops. Many of them have very limited knowledge of animal breeding knowledge and will transfer AR [animal rights] concepts to animal owners in their assessment.
It is a known fact that some AC officers will lie, file false data and do anything they can to gain a “bust.” We have seen it firsthand. Live and in person. After seeing exactly how bad AC can be, we resolved to try and help others who are witnessing the SAME illegal acts, or where the law is compromised wrongfully.
Besides knowing this type of background, we have worked with both fanciers and animal rescue for years. That one element of having worked animal rescue hands on gives us a very novel benefit since we know what rescues do, how they pitch their products, and what improper actions we have seen in the past. Of course not all of them do these things, but many do. We have been in countless shelters, attended rescue group meetings, been authorized to pull animals (and still can), worked with canine and aggression experts, and listened to much rescue banter.
However, no animal owner who values their property, or their property rights, or constitutional rights would side with HSUS as HSUS does not place any value on those rights. HSUS’ sole purpose is to create human rights for animals, period. Whether they say it or not.
Our Ability To Help Owners in California, and sometimes Other Attorneys
It is very helpful for an attorney doing defense work for animal owners and animal related businesses, to have had experience in the field. This doesn’t mean we are like Mr. Karp (known AR attorney WA) but it does mean that we have to know defense work, strategy, and what is wrong in the case. Animal related cases are often not won because of delayed action, and in CAthere is a VERY short time frame to forfeiture. Although we don’t believe the law is good, that is the HSUS law currently, and asset forfeiture is what the animal laws were patterned after. Federal asset forfeiture is legendary, and although state law is bad, Federal is worse.
Dogs that are set to be killed, dogs that are deemed vicious, dogs that have bitten but not risen to the level of dangerous, animals that keep getting out, animals that stalk livestock, owners that keep going over the limit, live in renters that give authority when no authority is authorized, searches of vehicles when animals are seized, searches of people just because they are walking animals, animals in a location which is part of the dwelling seized without exigent circumstances, animals outside with housing seized with allegations of improper housing, animals with food that animal control said was not proper, water bowls empty because dogs drank the water 20 minutes ago, litter on the floor because cat kicked it out of box, poop on floor because dog not housebroken……… any or all of things things could potentially cause an animal owner to LOSE the ability of owning an animal for 5-10 years, thanks to new HSUS law.
And God forbid anyone who is not a “non profit” is outside (even say at Tractor Supply with permission) giving away, rehoming or selling their hamster. In CA that is called “animal abuse” under the Penal Code, mischievous conduct. The HSUS SB 917 implemented in 2012. The first strike is a fine, the second is misdemeanor or felony. But where is the “abuse?” It would seem that the first strike is just prima facie guilt. Such as owning a dog with cropped ears=a felony. That was another law HSUS tried to pass.
Because we tell the truth, and are not liars, we tend not to be well liked. We have been targeted BECAUSE we tell the truth, and BECAUSE we are willing to defend those who may seem un-defendable. Yet in defense work, it is not our job to determine who is not guilty or guilty. That is the job of the trier of fact, usually the jury.
Our job is to see that all elements of a case are analyzed and researched. Clients have a right to the best defense possible, and that is our job to do so. Without any animal background, defense attorneys in our opinion are handicapped because they are not familiar with how animal control, rescues, and how the system is used. Knowing these elements have helped to build a better defense for allegations, since many allegations [by AC] do not have adequate proof.
Jury instructions are often selected improperly, and are a leading cause of appeals. Animal related charges raise huge emotional aspects for many jurors, and bias is often indicated.
Selecting juries can be difficult because of the AR movement’s constant propaganda re “abuse.” In reality, there is very little animal abuse in contrast to what the HSUS and AR groups pander nationwide. This is because AR groups make $$$$ off pandering “abuse” “abuse” abuse” since it is a known $$$$$ maker, and makes headlines, it is on TV animal shows,etc.
It makes headlines BECAUSE it IS NOT that common, thus when it happens, it is rather uncommon. If it was as prevalent as HSUS claims, no one would bother to read their website, because it would be an everyday thing and they would NOT NEED TO OFFER REWARDS!!! The fact that REWARDS must be offered indicate that such abuse is NOT common.
Getting Help in California From Defense Counsel
If ANY seizure or warranted is executed on you, get legal help immediately! You will only have a day or so. Do not let animal control or anyone else tell you that you cannot be represented at any hearing–don’t believe it. In CA forfeiture starts very very quickly.
We help those accused of any crime, and we also do Plaintiff work, but are especially interested in defending animal related cases, or bringing suit in wrongful animal seizure cases, and in helping on cases where attorneys are not familiar with the territory. In some cases costs can be determined by income and ability to pay. We do not publish emails, contact numbers and other information since we have been targets of hacking for years. If you want information and have a potential case, you can leave a comment on the latest post we have, as all comments are moderated.
We have several generic legal sites which are not aimed at animal related cases, and yes, it is true that we have directly worked with canine expert that testified in the case which HSUS LOST, United States v Stevens. Although any attorney can defend a criminal case, it is to the animal owner or business owner’s benefit to consider those who know the territory, and have much access to those who are actually experts in animal husbandry. And last but not least, it helps to have people who actually care what happens when the law is ignored and due process is evaded.
Below is just a picture (not of us) that we found online of a cool dog and owner. 🙂
Pet Defense 
On February 13, 2019, the Sacramento Superior Court granted Elk Grove resident and landlord DAYLE ANN IMPERATO’S petition for a temporary restraining order, barring the owner of Elk Grove Animal Rescue (Krista Mitchell) from entering the property at 10087 Bond Road, Elk Grove, CA 95624, where her business and her 58 rescue dogs were located.
The property owner and landlord DAYLE ANN IMPERATO attempted an illegal eviction by getting temporary restraining orders against her black tenants. Rent was and is current. She just hated her tenants. Dayle ann imperator became irate once we asked her to cease continually trespassing on our property, she would go in to the bark and the bedroom nursery and handle underage nursing puppies, and have her friends go inside and handle them. Multiple times we would hear the lock turn and she would walk in without 24 hours notice, as if she could enter and do whatever she want. One day as my mother and I cleaned, she came in screaming that we couldn’t use bleach and disinfectant because she didn’t believe in chemicals on her property and that we could only use vinegar…
DAYLE ANN IMPERATO was keeper of the 58 rescue dogs from 6:34pm February 19, 2019 to 6:16pm February 21, 2019. During that time, DAYLE ANN IMPERATO failed and refused to provide proper care for the 58 rescue dogs, did not feed or water the dogs, and refused to allow Krista Mitchell’s volunteers to provide adequate care for the 58 rescue dogs. She stopped all volunteers at the gate. Elk Grove Animal Services and Elk Grove Police Department refused to hold DAYLE ANN IMPERATO accountable for failing to feed or water the 58 rescue dogs she was keeping.
After DAYLE ANN IMPERATO forcibly ejected the owner of the 58 dogs, Krista Mitchell, from the premises without warning at 6:34pm February 19, 2019, with a fraudulently acquired temporary restraining order “for walking her dogs on the wrong side of the property” that barred Krista Mitchell from re-entering the premises to provide proper care for her the 58 rescue dogs, DAYLE ANN IMPERATO was bound by law to take charge of the dogs (Civil Code § 1816 subd. (a)) and provide food, water, and proper care, which she failed and refused to do with the knowledge and consent of Animal Control Officers Michael Hildebrandt and Alicia Neronde, Animal Services Manager Sara Humlie, Elk Grove Police Officer Milton Pham, and Assistant City Attorney Suzanne Kennedy.
DAYLE ANN IMPERATO did not notify animal control officials to retrieve the dogs after she ejected Krista Mitchell from the property without warning and was therefore the “keeper” of the dogs as a matter of law (Civil Code § 1816 subd. (e)).
DAYLE ANN IMPERATO exercised her authority as keeper of the dogs by preventing anyone from entering the premises to care for the 58 rescue dogs unless they first signed her legal documents presented and explained to them in the dark by Elk Grove Police Officer Milton Pham. The police aided the keeper of the 58 dogs to prevent access to the dogs.
Before DAYLE ANN IMPERATO unlawfully ejected Krista Mitchell from the property on February 19, 2019, official inspections of Elk Grove Animal Rescue by Animal Services Officer Michael Hildebrandt rated high marks with no derogatory findings on January 31, 2019 and February 7, 2019 (Ex. A.) Officer Hildebrandt twice noted that the 58 rescue dogs had clean food, clean water, clean housing, were healthy, and were secure on the premises. The barn was spotless. The large dogs were walked 1 to 2 miles per day. The inspection on January 31, 2019 was unannounced and received high marks with no derogatory findings.
On March 8, 2019, the Sacramento Superior Court DENIED DAYLE ANN IMPERATO’S temporary restraining order against Krista Mitchell for the fraudulent petition it was, and restored Krista Mitchell to the premises (Ex. B)
The City of Elk Grove refuses to charge DR. DAYLE ANN IMPERATO with the 57 animal cruelty charges because she is white, but instead charged her black tenants who DAYLE ANN IMPERATO forcibly ejected with TROs because she hates them. The City of Elk Grove kept this quiet so DR. DAYLE IMPERATO would not face public retribution for abusing 58 animals in her barn. As she put it,”I just wanted them off my property.”
Animal Control’s Michael Hildebrandt was unaware of 9 time/date stamped videos volunteers took of him on Feb. 20th and 21st . Michael Hildebrandt lied about the seizure in a rigged administrative hearing on February 27, 2019. The City can’t explain the false charges or why they executed an ILLEGAL warrantless search and seizure of the premises. Thank GOD for the MULTIPLE videos that are time stamped and show our rescues volunteers there cleaning for hours, and the officer Hildenbrandt giving them the thumbs up saying the facility and animals looked well cared for.
Contact Sarah Humlie at Animal Services. Ask why she failed to give facts in her interview on KCRA on March 12, 2019 at 11:00pm. They lied and said the dogs went without food and water FOR DAYS. Video the night before the seizure shows volunteers feeding and watering the dogs and cleaning the runs and stalls at 10:30 at night, less then 19 hours before the illegal seizure! The City will not mention DAYLE ANN IMPERATO’S name because she is white. The City conspired with DAYLE IMPERATO to violate the civil rights of her black tenants. The case is in federal court. (City of Elk Grove vs. Elk Grove Animal Rescue, Case No. 2:19-CV-0439 TLN KJN PS.)
DAYLE ANN IMPERATO you cannot be anonymous any longer. The City can’t delete the internet. Hate crimes always come to the surface. See the watered down story at https://www.kcra.com/…/elk-grove-needs-foster-home…/26805281.
1. Search and seizures can not be executed after 6pm. The notice of seizure was done at 6:15 when they seized the animals and swore during the administrative hearing that they started the seizure at 6:15
2. Warrantless search : there was no warrant and no permission was given to the animal control officers or police department of elk grove to enter the premises. The videos on the night of the seizure, you can clearly see the no trespassing and keep out sign. In the video of our volunteers pulling up to get the dogs off the property, lights were already on at the facility and the door was wide open and officer hildenbrandt can be seen stepping out and denying our fosters and volunteers entry in to the barn.
3. They did not notify the owner of the animals and business license owner, me, Krista Mitchell of a seizure, or of the post seizure hearing. They refuse to acknowledge this and try to make my parents caretakers of
MY animals and my rescue in order to avoid being sued and loosing this battle. My parents are 60 year old retired parents that only support what I do and came down to help me find a place to rent. they don’t even live in the area, yet the city of elk grove wants to press criminal charges against me, and my parents, and trying to make them “caretakers” for being my parents.
4. This story is huge, but to make a long story short, my lawyer, susan Wallace, the owner of the rescue scooters pals violated client privacy and confidentiality helped aide in the seizure of my dogs and conspired against me to save her own rescue and look like the “savior” of my dogs. documented evidence shows she CC’ed someone in a private email discussing the animal control case prior to the seizure as we asked her for help and legal advice on how to proceed with the landlord drama. Since she was upset over not having a big pay day from another case she helped me on with a stolen foster dog by the foster, she deactivated her license to not represent me, sent a chain of emails saying I must be irresponsible for having 58 dogs and that animal control should just take them. I kid you not, my lawyer said this to animal control prior to the seizure!
It’s awful, all of my dogs are documented, a little over 20 were newborn puppies from moms pulled from Tulare and Visalia because they were urgent. 95% of the dogs there were all euthanasia listed dogs at high kill shelters. we have full documentary evidence, photos and videos that showed that the animals were walked everyday, got to run free at the ranch and that we cleaned all day and that they had access to food and water all day. our printed vet records show 100 dogs receiving medical at our vet in Natomas in January alone!