Federal Judge Issues Mandate In Louisville

A major victory!! This is a Federal ruling so it sets a precedent for the entire country against draconian
animal legislation. The Bill of Rights lives! (Although I'm sure HSUS's attorneys are going over the ruling
with a fine tooth comb right now to prepare a lawsuit for the Supreme Court.)



This ruling by a federal judge (an esteemed Constitutional scholar) is a profound victory.

This precedent has far-reaching implications, and sets the stage for class-action lawsuits nationwide - anywhere similar ordinances have been enacted, and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been violated

Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:

1. Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search and seizure, etc.. (all protections provided by Constitution) apply to pets. You are the OWNER of your pets (not the "guardian.")

2. Requirements for housing, treatment, etc.. cannot be mandated by legislation to be different for intact dogs (vs. altered dogs.

3. Seizure bond is FLAT-OUT illegal and unconstitutional. This practice constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after search warrant is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold, "transferred" or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial. Meantime, owner DOES NOT have to pay a dime for their care, until/unless they are found guilty of the charges


Louisville Kennel Club
Subject: FW: LKC
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 11:23:58 -0400


I have been informed that the Courier Journal and several tee vee stations ran stories on the Judge Simpson's decision in our Federal action last night. After hearing the reports, I am not sure that they read the same opinion as we did. The plaintiffs in this action are beyond thrilled with this decision. We prevailed on virtually every essential violation of the Federal Civil Rights act asserted. Not every argument in a lawsuit carries equal weight nor do they have equal impact on a national or local level. No longer can LMAS inspect your property and decide if you can own an unaltered dog. No longer can they require a seizure bond where failure to post it makes you forfeit your animals without a finding of guilt. There is a case currently in Kenton County where 10 years ago a women's beagles were confiscated on a nuisance issue and recently they came back and asserted cruelty. When she could not post the seizure bond, they said the animals became their property and they euthanized all of them including 10 -year olds. They then dismissed the cruelty charges. This is in Federal Court in Northern Kentucky on a challenge to the seizure bond and a violation of her civil rights. This decision by Judge Simpson holds that the conversion of her animals without a finding of guilt violates her due process rights.

This type of thing is happening all over the county and this decision will have a huge impact. While, the search and seizure issue was dismissed because the city agreed with us, the Judge went on and discussed violations of the Fourth Amendment and clearly indicated that the provision in the Ordinance which allegedly permits seizure for any violation of this chapter which is the provision used by LMAS to seize puppies because of an alleged violation of the Class A Kennel License, requires a warrant for seizure. Please take the opportunity to read this opinion several times. It will have, we believe, a huge impact on a local and national basis. If you need to contact me please do so or contact our counsel, Jon Fleischaker at 502-540-2319. We have the upmost confidence in you as you have always been committed to accurate and complete reporting. Below is the information sent to folks around the country. Thank you.

Donna Herzig
------------------------------


From: donnaherzig@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: LKC


This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs is unconstitutional, He additionally found that dogs are personal property and the requirement of a seizure bond where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc. is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.

The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions. With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance(a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain
a warrant prior to seizure. Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't.

Notwithstanding the story in the "Courageless Journal"- I am not sure that they read the same opinion, we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis. Please read it a few times, it gets better with age. While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order issued or the owner gives consent in writing. Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, Jon will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement.

Donna Herzig