[accmemberdiscussion] Re: my review thus far of AL SB246 (seizure)
- From: "Eric Johnson" <Toller67@xxxxxxx>
- To: accmemberdiscussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:43:34 -0600
Theresa-
Well, right off the bat, current law requires a law enforcement officer. The
proposed language no longer requires that in that it allows "agent of the
county or the municipality" to seize the animal...as in the HSUS.
Second, the current language is for dog fighting only. The new language allows
for a much broader range of "offenses" and they are not defined in other than
general terms. For instance, under the old language, there's no offense for not
having water for a dog who may have just tipped the bucket. In the proposed
language, this kind of thing could be considered "inhumane treatment" and it
becomes an offense. That's missing from your message.
Third, the current language requires a judge to rule on disposal of the animal.
In the new language a vet employed by the agency (read HSUS) can simply make
the decision at any time. In fact, it doesn't even need to be a vet but rather
can simply be an employee of the agency (read HSUS). If the agency's employee
decides the dog can't be handled, he can put it down. Ooops...there goes your
evidence.
Next, the probable cause hearing is held at the ten day point. It should be
held before the animal is even seized.
In short, the proposal has been found by an attorney who is very experienced in
animal law to be worse that we have now and to potentially be as bad as the
Lousiville ordinance. If you don't chose to believe that, then we must disagree.
Eric
Other related posts:
