El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
• Agency Response
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Final Response To The 2004-2005
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
Page 5
Three of the complainants horses, running loose and significantly underweight, were seized by Animal Control.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Develop a formal structured process for determining the reasonableness of returning (or not returning) animals to their owner. Comment: The Grand Jury cannot identify any reasons why these horses, upon payment of seizure and maintenance charges, should not have been returned to the owners. A return in an incident such as this could be made contingent on an agreement that Animal Control be permitted to make inspections. Such an arrangement would be consistent with stated goals of animal control, such as reuniting animals with their owners and the education of owners. This arrangement would of course not be appropriate if overt abuse was suspected, or the owner simply did not have the means to care for the animals. However, that does not appear to be the case in this incident.
F2
Page 5
Based on the fact that the three horses were loose and underweight, Animal Control prepared a 597.1PC crime report (permitting animals to go without care), naming the owners as suspects. (Note: The District Attorney’s Office subsequently upgraded the charge to 597(b)/PC Cruelty to Animals (which potentially carries more severe penalties.) 3. The complainant attempted to recover her horses from Animal Control and was denied by a hearing Officer (a county employee).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 3
Use non-county employees as Hearing Officers in 597.1 hearings. Comment: While the statute allows the use of employees to perform the duties of hearing Officer, this clearly does not have the appearance of fairness.
F3
Page 6
There is no record of the discussions during the 597.1 hearing. Therefore, there is no indication that other options for handling this situation were considered. Response to Finding 3: The respondent agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 4
Prepare a formal record of 597.1 hearings. Comment: For all practical purposes, the decision of the hearing officer was a decision to permanently confiscate the property of the complainant. That level of government action requires documentation.
F4
Page 5
Animal Control demanded $2,873.05 from the complainant in lieu of forfeiting ownership.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 4
Provide additional training to Animal Control Officers relative to the preparation of crime reports and identification of the elements of the crimes they are likely to encounter.
F5
Page 5
The complainant forfeited three horses with a total value of between $4,000 and $5,000 (complainants estimate).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 4
Update and organize the Animal Control Policies and Procedures manual
F6
Page 5
Ownership of complainant’s three horses was transferred for high bids of $425.00 and 300.00 and $65.00.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 4
Animal Control needs to reconcile the Court judgment against the complainant for $1,915.36 and the $2,873.05 collection referral form they initiated.
F7
Page 5
The complainant and her husband were prosecuted for three counts of 597(b)/P.C. Cruelty to Animals. They were found not guilty on all counts by an El Dorado County jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 5
Animal Control initiated a lien for $2,873.05 against the complainant.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 5
The complainant believes that ownership of her horses was transferred to county employees or their friends, and states that rumor exists in the community.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 5
The new owners of the horses were contacted and they advised that Animal Control had conducted follow-ups to insure that the horses were receiving proper care. Findings 1. Animal Control acted within their statutory and discretionary authority. Response to Finding 1: The respondent agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding