Herring Creates Nation's First Attorney General's Animal Law Unit

Commonwealth of Virginia
Office of the Attorney General

Mark Herring
Attorney General


900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219


For media inquiries only, contact:
Michael Kelly, Director of Communications
Phone: (804)786-5874
Email: mkelly@oag.state.va.us

RICHMOND (January 22, 2015)-- Attorney General Mark R. Herring today announced the designation of the nation's first Attorney General's "Animal Law" unit, a small group of current staff attorneys who will spend a portion of their time, as needed, serving as a resource for local law enforcement and state agencies on issues involving animal welfare and animal fighting or abuse. Because of the specialized and relatively infrequent nature of cases involving animal welfare, many prosecutors and law enforcement agencies seek assistance from the Office of Attorney General in effectively investigating and prosecuting these cases. The power to initiate an investigation or prosecution will remain with local agencies, but the Animal Law unit will be available to provide assistance or handle a case by request from a commonwealth's attorney or law enforcement agency.

"We've seen firsthand in Virginia that animal fighting is associated with other serious crimes such as drug distribution, possession of illegal alcohol or firearms, assaults, and illegal gambling," said Attorney General Herring. "There's also evidence that abuse of animals or exposure to animal abuse, especially by young people, can be predictive of future abusive or criminal behavior. Our attorneys often serve as a training and prosecutorial resource for commonwealth's attorneys working complex or specialized cases such as gang crimes, internet crimes, or complex drug cases. This unit won't replace or undermine local law enforcement decisions on whether to investigate or prosecute, but it will formalize the delivery of training and assistance our office already provides for communities who confront situations involving animal fighting, abuse, or neglect."

The team will be led by Michelle Welch, an assistant attorney general with nine years of service whose work on animal-related cases has earned her numerous accolades including the Humane Law Enforcement Award from the Humane Society of the United States, the Albert Schweitzer Medal from the Animal Welfare Institute, the Prosecutor of the Year Award from the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and awards from the Virginia Animal Control Association and Virginia Federation of Humane Societies.

"Over the past twenty years, there has been a growing realization that cruelty toward animals is a criminal act that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. All of the evidence shows a very direct link between animal cruelty and violence against women and children," said Anthony Spencer, Caroline County Commonwealth's Attorney. "As the Commonwealth's Attorney of Caroline County, I have relied on Michelle Welch on many occasions to help me in navigating Virginia's laws regarding animals and in prosecuting serious charges of dog fighting and animal cruelty. Her knowledge in these areas is unparalleled, and she is widely regarded throughout the Commonwealth as 'the expert' on understanding and enforcing Virginia's animal laws. Michelle has also been the person most responsible for drafting changes to our animal laws to make them more effective. Our Attorney General, the Honorable Mark R. Herring, is to be commended for his efforts in enforcing Virginia's animal laws and in ensuring that Michelle Welch will be available to assist local prosecutors throughout the Commonwealth with cases of dog fighting and animal cruelty."

As their first project, the unit has partnered with the Humane Society of the United States to send a letter and fact sheet to Virginia pet stores on important consumer rights involving the purchase of animals, including new rights created by Bailey's Law, which was sponsored by Sen. Chap Petersen and signed into law in 2014. The law helps ensure that customers have complete and accurate information about the health and history of a dog or cat before purchase and gives consumers recourse if an animal is later found to have significant, undisclosed health problems. Within certain specified time periods, if an animal is sold and subsequently determined by a veterinarian to suffer certain illnesses, or if the animal dies from an undisclosed health problem, the consumer has the right to return the animal for a refund, exchange the animal for a healthy one, or keep the animal and recover the costs of veterinary fees up to the original purchase price. A consumer can take legal action to recover damages if a retailer fails to honor the remedies in the law.

"The decision to bring an animal into the family, whether by adoption or purchase, is a big one, and consumers have the right to make an informed decision when they decide to add a companion animal to their household," said Attorney General Herring. "Though many Virginians may choose to adopt, these important new provisions will protect consumers purchasing pets, those who sell pets, and animals that will one day go to the home of a Virginia family."

In November, Attorney General Herring teamed up with the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the ASPCA for a statewide Law Enforcement Conference on Combating Animal Fighting in Virginia. The event trained nearly 100 prosecutors, police officers, and sheriffs' deputies on the tools they need to identify and investigate animal fighting, strategies for building a case against suspected animal fighters, and tactics for successfully prosecuting animal fighting cases.

Attorney General Herring's office recently worked with the former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia Tim Heaphy to prosecute the operators of one of the largest cock fighting rings in the region. Five individuals were sentenced to jail terms ranging from 6 months to 1.5 years in addition to fines for their roles in operating a cock fighting ring in Virginia and Kentucky.

Crackdown on Spectators at Animal Fights

Bipartisan legislation, S. 1947/H.R. 2492, has been introduced by U.S. Reps. Tom Marino, R-Pa., and Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, and by Senators Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mark Kirk, R-Ill., Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Scott Brown, R-Mass., that would prohibit knowing attendance at organized animal fights and impose additional penalties for causing a minor to attend such events.

Over the past decade, Congress has strengthened the penalties for and closed major loopholes in the federal animal fighting law, but has left the issue of spectators unaddressed. The legislation will correct this remaining gap in federal law to allow for a more comprehensive crackdown on this barbaric activity.

TAKE ACTION

Please make a brief, polite phone call to your two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative to urge co-sponsorship of S. 1947/H.R. 2492. Look up your legislators' phone numbers. You can say: "I would like you to please co-sponsor S. 1947/H.R. 2492 to prohibit knowing attendance at an animal fighting event and bringing a minor to such a cruel event. Spectators fuel the dogfighting and cockfighting industries, making them profitable."

After making your phone call (please do not skip that crucial step!), fill in and submit the form here to automatically send a follow-up message to your two U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative. Congress receives a lot of email, so be sure to edit your message so it stands out.

Take Action -- HB 2482 Weakens protection for animals

Under H.B. 2482 it would be more difficult to seize animals trapped in inhumane conditions by breeders, dealers or pet stores. Under the bill animals could only be seized if they are "(i) under a direct and immediate threat or (ii) the owner or custodian is unable to or does not provide adequate impoundment." Otherwise, the breeder, dealer or pet shop could be ordered to impound animals under a directive or order. Yes, the abuser would "impound" their own abused or neglected animals. Regardless, upon conviction, the breeder, dealer or pet shop could obtain return of the animals "at the discretion of the court."

Emergency veterinary care requirements for all owners and keepers would be limited under the bill. Emergency veterinary treatment would no longer include treatment to prevent further progression of a disease but only that necessary "to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate suffering, or prevent further transmission of a serious disease".

The bill would repeal provisions requiring owners to pay the costs associated with seizure of animals. Even if the animal is found to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care, the court would not be obligated to require the owner to pay for costs of caring for the animal following seizure.

The bill would also allow courts to return animals to owners who are convicted of depriving them of adequate care and even if the animals were abandoned or cruelly treated.

WHAT YOU CAN DO
This bill will repeal or weaken some hard won protections for animals. H.B. 2482 has been assigned to the Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources. Find committee members here and your Virginia legislators here. Call or write (faxes or letters are best) and urge them to vote NO on  H.B. 2482.

---

Federal law leashes pit bull restrictions

Municipal governments from New York City to Miami, and from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Denver, have responded to fear of pit bulls and similar breeds of dogs, by severely restricting their ownership or banning them entirely from their jurisdictions. Now, thanks to a rule issued recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, such actions are subject to being struck down. Jurisdictions now considering such overreactions, such as Douglasville, Georgia, would be well-advised to review the Justice Department’s opinion before proceeding.

Dog owners and humane societies have long-opposed such arbitrary and overly broad laws that penalize thousands of pit bull owners who maintain their canine companions properly and without incident, because of a small number who fail to properly train and control the dogs. Courts generally have permitted such ordinances to stand, based on deference to the so-called "police power" of local governments to protect the public "safety and welfare."

Read more...

---

Its a great day for Pit Bull Type Dogs!

Federal law leashes pit bull restrictions
6:00 am September 29, 2010, by Bob Barr
Municipal governments from New York City to Miami, and from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Denver, have responded to fear of pit bulls and similar breeds of dogs, by severely restricting their ownership or banning them entirely from their jurisdictions. Now, thanks to a rule issued recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, such actions are subject to being struck down. Jurisdictions now considering such overreactions, such as Douglasville, Georgia, would be well-advised to review the Justice Department’s opinion before proceeding.
Dog owners and humane societies have long-opposed such arbitrary and overly broad laws that penalize thousands of pit bull owners who maintain their canine companions properly and without incident, because of a small number who fail to properly train and control the dogs. Courts generally have permitted such ordinances to stand, based on deference to the so-called “police power” of local governments to protect the public “safety and welfare.”
The 20-year old, federal Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”), however, may put a stop to such “breed-specific legislation.” The ADA protects measures designed to help persons with disabilities, which includes dogs used by disabled persons for assistance. Laws that outlaw ownership of entire breeds, including those that might be used for assistive purposes, would limit the ability of persons with disabilities to use such pets, and would therefore violate the ADA and be deemed by the Justice Department to be unlawful.
In what some might consider a rare example of the federal government recognizing that laws can be overly broad and therefore harmful to individual liberty, the Justice Department’s opinion on breed-specific legislation noted that such laws sweep too broadly; and that it is inappropriate to outlaw an entire breed of dogs because a small number cause problems. Such problems are the result of owners not restraining their dogs properly or inadequately training them, rather than the result of a particular breed’s disposition, and can be addressed by more narrowly-crafted legislation.
Unfortunately, there are still those, like the mayor of Douglasville, Georgia, who favor overly restrictive measures. The mayor recently noted in support of the city’s proposed pit bull ordinance, that he had no problem singling out pit bulls, because he sees them “on TV” causing “incidents.” One would hope that local government officials might on their own possess some understanding of limited government and individual liberty; but if the Justice Department at least in this instance will ensure that they do so by way of a federal law, then the feds are serving as an important check on excessive government power.
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/09/29/federal-law-leashes-pit-bull-restrictions/?cxntfid=blogs_bob_barr_blog

NY: Make Animal Fight Attendance a Misdemeanor Crime!

A. 6287-B/S. 3926-A would make it a misdemeanor to attend an animal fight in New York State. The NY Senate passed its version of the bill, S. 3926-A, on June 22. Unfortunately, despite passing successfully through the Assembly Agriculture and Codes Committees, the Assembly companion bill, A. 6287-B, has not been scheduled for a floor vote by Assembly leadership.

By attending these barbaric spectacles, spectators make animal fighting a lucrative underground business. In addition, animal fights create environments that promote other hazardous acts, such as the sale of illegal drugs, weapons possession and gambling. Making attendance at animal fights a misdemeanor will give law enforcement an important tool with which to punish the spectators who drive the animal fighting market.

Sign the petition asking New York state assembly members to support A. 6287-B and to urge Assembly leadership to post this important humane bill for a floor vote.
-->Take Action Today--Click Here: http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/campaign.faces?siteId=3&campaign=AnimalFighting&ThirdPartyClicks=ETA_090910_AnimalFighting_F

Bill to Ban Animal Crush Videos Clears First Hurdle

The Supreme Court’s decision threw out the conviction of a Virginia man sentenced to three years in prison under the 1999 law for selling dog fighting videos. Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Virginia, appealed his conviction, saying it violated his right of free speech. The U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit inPhiladelphia tossed out Stevens' conviction and ruled the statute was unconstitutional.

The Department of Justice appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
The High Court ruled the 1999 law was too broad and could be interpreted to include such activities as hunting. Justices also noted that dog fighting and animal cruelty are illegal nationwide.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito cast the lone dissenting opinion in the case.
"The Court strikes down in its entirety a valuable statute that was enacted not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty -- in particular, the creation and commercial exploitation of 'crush videos,' a form of depraved entertainment that has no social value," Alito wrote. "The Court's approach, which has the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production, is unwarranted."
When reaching their decision, however, justices noted the court was not ruling on the validity of a law that would only address crush videos.

That language opened the door for Gallegly and other House members who wanted to stop the sale of “horrific” crush videos to introduce the new and more specific measure.
Pet owners can voice their support or concerns about the proposed bill to their Congressional Representatives.


Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/06/animal_cruelty_bill.html#ixzz0s62kzaHZ

Governor McDonnell Amends Bill to Prohibit Breed Based Euthanization of Dogs in Public Animal Shelters--As Attorney General, McDonnell Issued Official

The House is supposed to vote on the amended bill TODAY. The session starts at noon but we don't know when the vote on this bill will come up. There should be a calendar posted soon (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+cal+CAL) to at least see the order in which the bills will be presented. You can also watch the session online - there's a live stream posted at http://legis.state.va.us/streaming/hod_streams/hod_session_streaming.html.

It is also important that you contact your Delegate and Senator and ask him or her to vote for this amendment. To find out who they are, go to http://conview.state.va.us/whosmy.nsf/main?openform and fill out the form. When you click SUBMIT, you'll get a page with both your state legislators' information. Beneath their names is a button that says "Send a message to your delegate and senator." Click that to open an email which will go to both of them. In the subject line, write "Please support Governor's amendment to HB281" and send your personal message encouraging their support. Simply urge your representative to support the amendment and offer whatever personal message you feel is appropriate. Please be sure to articulate why discrimination based upon breed is unacceptable to you as a citizen and animal advocate.

Governor McDonnell Amends Bill to Prohibit Breed Based Euthanization of Dogs in Public Animal Shelters--As Attorney General, McDonnell Issued Official Opinion against Practice--

RICHMOND- Governor Bob McDonnell has amended a bill passed by the General Assembly to insert a prohibition banning breed-based killing of dogs in the Commonwealth.
In 2006, then Attorney General McDonnell issued a formal opinion that public animal shelters could not euthanize dogs based solely on breed. A bill introduced this session to codify McDonnell’s opinion into state law, HB 429 patroned by Delegate Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), was narrowly defeated in the House Agriculture Subcommittee. During the bill review period the Governor decided to take the language of Griffith’s bill and insert it as an amendment to HB 281, patroned by Delegate Dave Albo (R-Springfield), which was a successful bill increasing the penalties for animal cruelty in Virginia. The Governor’s amendment will add the following language:
“No pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed…”Speaking about his amendment to prohibit breed based killing of dogs, Governor McDonnell noted, “No dog should be euthanized solely because of their breed. As Attorney General I issued an opinion that this practice was not legal under Virginia law. However, there have continued to be questions regarding this matter. Therefore it is important that legislation be passed making it the clear law of the Commonwealth that no dog can be euthanized solely because of their breed. This is a humane amendment, and I urge the members of the General Assembly to accept it when they return next Wednesday.”

Virginia Kilmer, President of the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies noted, “The Virginia Federation of Humane Societies supports efforts to eliminate breed discrimination. If enacted into law the amendment to HB 281 will compel the few remaining public shelters that kill solely because of breed to end the euthanasia of otherwise healthy, happy and completely adoptable animals and truly change the future for all sheltered animals in Virginia.”

Other groups that have publicly supported this measure are The Virginia Animal Control Association, the Virginia Dog Breeders Association, the Richmond SPCA, the National Federation of Humane Societies, Henrico Humane Society, Ring Dog Rescue, Animal Rescue of Tidewater, Loudoun Shelter Watch, Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare, Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, the Charlottesville SPCA, the Humane Society of Franklin County and the Floyd County Humane Society.

McDonnell’s 2006 opinion can be read here: http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2006opns/06-078_Alexander.pdf

Justices Void Law Banning Videos of Animal Cruelty

Yesterday was a sad day for those of us who care about the life and well-being of animals. The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.

You can read the full article here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/us/21scotus.html but the long and short of it is this...The Supreme Court of the United States said that the law had created “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth” and that the government’s aggressive defense of the law was “startling and dangerous. The existing law, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, covered too much speech protected by the First Amendment.

And if that wasn't bad enough "the government argued that depictions showing harm to animals were of such minimal social worth that they should receive no First Amendment protection at all." And a number of news organizations, including The New York Times Company, filed a brief urging the court to rule in favor of Mr. Stevens.

I cannot believe that in 2010 the government would still not recognize the need for animals to be protected by our constitution, but more importantly that they would make the assumption that showing harm to animals was of such minimal social worth to our society! I can assure you that animals are of extreme social worth to me and the thousands of others embedded in animal welfare...especially bully breed rescue.

Chief Justice Roberts rejected the government’s analogy to a more recent category of unprotected speech, child pornography, which the court in 1982 said deserved no First Amendment protection. Child pornography, the chief justice said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”

WHAT?! And the market for dog fighting isn't "intrinsically related to underlying abuse?"

Often times I am ashamed to hear such ignorance from our nations government but this takes the cake.

Dog Owners need to know their rights!

We at RDR have been saying for years how important it is to know your rights as a dog owner. Even though we'd like to think that all local animal control divisions would never bully or scare you into thinking that something was the truth when it clearly is not, it does happen. Please educate yourself. Start by understanding the dangerous and vicious dog ordinances. Here are a few of the highlights you need to know:

• "Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat.

• "Vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has: (i) killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by ordinance, that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.

• When a dog attacks or bites a companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous: (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the dog or cat as a result of the attack or bite; (ii) if both animals are owned by the same person; (iii) if such attack occurs on the property of the attacking or biting dog's owner or custodian; or (iv) for other good cause as determined by the court. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking, or inflicting injury on a dog or cat while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event. No dog that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person shall be found to be a dangerous dog if the court determines, based on the totality of the evidence before it, that the dog is not dangerous or a threat to the community.

• Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within his jurisdiction is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate serving the jurisdiction for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time.

This means DO NOT mean you have to sign your dog over to animal control immediately after an incident!!

For your dogs sake please educate yourself and know your rights!!!

Click the link below to see the entire code:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+3.2-6540+501310

State Code and Companion Animal Care

Sometimes rescue work is so frustrating...especially when you feel like you don't get any support from your local animal control. Someone wrote a nice letter about a penned dog that was a victim of cruelty and neglect. The local animal control was contacted and the dog owner was found not to be in violation. We sent a volunteer over right after Animal Control left and the dog had no water (it is 82° here today), so please tell me how no violation was found?!!

Never mind that the State Code of Virginia states this:
§ 3.2-6503. Care of companion animals by owner; penalty.

A. Each owner shall provide for each of his companion animals:
1. Adequate feed;
2. Adequate water;
3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;
4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;
5. Adequate exercise;
6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and
7. Veterinary care when needed or to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.

So, what do we as a rescue group do? Try and educate the owner about proper care, of course but that doesn't always result in a positive change for the dog. Try to get the owner to surrender the dog to that same animal control that didn't care enough to make sure he had water? These laws are written to protect animals so why aren't they being protected?