📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ 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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2
Findings 7 findings
F1
Page 41
Animal Control acted within their statutory and discretionary authority. Response to Finding 1: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Grand Jury has contacted the current owners of the three horses and finds no evidence of impropriety in the transfer of ownership. Response to Finding 2: The respondent agrees with the finding.
F3
Page 41
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. 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report 42
F4
Page 42
The crime report prepared by Animal Control is extremely brief, making reference to loose horses and underweight horses. These two elements, standing alone, do not support a prosecution for cruelty to animals under any concept of fairness. Response to Finding 4: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. The crime report prepared by an Animal Control Officer references a nationally recognized Body Condition Scoring System for Horses which rated the horses in question extremely low in the scale of body condition, a statement by the Kennel Supervisor about the horses’ poor condition, and a statement by the attending veterinarian that the horses were underweight by approximately 20%. The Officer that prepared the report states that she was taught the Body Condition Scoring System while attending a Horse Abuse Investigation School and was trained and knowledgeable in the proper care of horses. The sum of these observations and assessments were deemed sufficient to present the case to the District Attorney. Based on the information contained in the crime report, the District Attorney’s office felt that there was probable cause to warrant a charge and prosecute the case. The prosecution was conducted referencing the following Penal Codes: PC 597 states “…every person who causes any animal…to be deprived of necessary sustenance… is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony…”. And Penal Code 597.1 states “…Every owner…who permits the animal to be in any street… without proper care … is guilty of a misdemeanor”.
F5
Page 42
The Policy and Procedures Manual for Animal Control is out dated and disorganized. Response to Finding 5: The respondent agrees with the finding.
F6
Page 42
Animal Control has an adequate process for handling animal adoptions. Response to Finding 6: The respondent agrees with the finding.
F7
Page 42
Grand Jury’s contacts with Animal Control personnel indicate they are a conscientious and committed group of employees working in a difficult environment. Response to Finding 7: The respondent agrees with the finding.
F8
Page 42
There has been no reconciliation between the $1,915.36 court judgment for the county and the $2,873.05 collection referral form initiated by Animal Control Response to Finding 8: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case, the judge ruled that the cost of the seizure and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $2,873.05 was the amount identified by Animal Control as owed for three horses ($957.69 per horse). The $2,873.05 was reduced by $957.69, to $1,915.36, to reflect the charge for two horses. The County Revenue Recovery Division (County Collections at the time) was informed in writing (after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $1,915.36 was the amount owed to the County. 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report 43
Recommendations 6
-
R1Page 39Develop 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. Response to Recommendation 1: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Chief Animal Control Officer adheres to CA Penal Code 597.1 when making a determination on whether to return or not return animals to their owners. The Chief Animal Control Officer consults with the attending veterinarian about the neglect and if the animal is physically fit. Then they review the case to see if the owner can and will provide the necessary care if the animal is returned to them. A policy and procedure will be developed which outlines the specific elements the Chief takes into consideration in making their decision. This will be completed by July 2005.
-
R2Page 39Use 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. Response to Recommendation 2: The recommendation has been implemented. The Animal Control Division has contracted for a non-county employee to be the hearing officer for the 597.1 hearings. This person is a local attorney.
-
R3Page 39Prepare 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. Response to recommendation 3: The recommendation has been implemented. Every 597.1 hearing is tape-recorded and the Animal Control Division staff takes supplemental notes.
-
R4Page 40Provide 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. 2004-2005 Grand Jury Final Report 44 Response to recommendation 4: The recommendation has been implemented. All Animal Control Officers attend training pursuant to CA Penal Code 832 which is an introductory course prescribed by the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training. This course identifies the elements of a crime and details the powers of arrest. All Animal Control Officers also attend a two-week Animal Law Enforcement Academy that includes the preparation of crime reports and evidence collection as well as the elements of a crime. Additionally, officers attend the Advanced Animal Law Enforcement Academy or similar training presented by nationally recognized agencies that encompass all aspects of animal crimes. The Chief Animal Control Officer and Supervising Animal Control Officer review all crime reports prior to submittal to the District Attorney’s office. Both have extensive training and experience in writing crime reports.
-
R5Page 40Update and organize the Animal Control Policies and Procedures manual Response to recommendation 5: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Animal Control Division and the Public Health Department are currently in the process of updating the Policies and Procedures manual and this project will be completed by July 2005.
-
R6Page 40Animal Control needs to reconcile the Court judgment against the complainant for $1,915.36 and the $2,873.05 collection referral form they initiated. Response to recommendation 6: The recommendation has been implemented. At the time of the court’s adjudication of the case the judge ruled that the cost of the seizure and care should only be attributed to two of the three horses seized. The $2,873.05 was the amount for the three horses and the $1,915.36 was the amount for the two horses. The County Revenue Recovery Division (County Collections at the time) was informed in writing (after the court’s judgment) that the amount of $1,915.36 was the amount owed to the County.