Welcome to the Animal Welfare Junction. This is your host, Dr. G. And our music is written and produced by Mike Sullivan. Today we have a very special guest, Dana Pannella, associate attorney with Holland and Muirden. welcome Dana. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. can you give us a little bit of your background, tell people who you are and why you are where you're

at? Sure. So I am an attorney with Holland and Muirden out of Medina County, Ohio. I've been with that law firm for about 10 years, although I clerked there while I was in law school. So actually a little bit longer than 10 years. But our primary function is that we act as animal law attorneys and as animal cruelty prosecutors in the state of Ohio. So I went to law school at Case Western to practice animal law. Ended up staying in Ohio, working in Holland and Muirden to pursue that work.

I was really surprised by somebody that asked me the other day, what is a prosecutor? So can you let people that don't know what that is, can you explain what a prosecutor does?

So prosecutor is the representative of the state, we essentially bring the cases that law enforcement has investigated to a judge or to a jury to try to bring justice to, in this case, cruelly treated animals.

So the animal control officers start the, the investigations and then they bring the case for you for evaluations to see if it, if it's enough to go to, to court. Is that how that process works?

Yeah. So in the state of Ohio, humane agents are the primary enforcers of the animal cruelty laws. So these cases start with a complaint normally. The agents go out, investigate the complaint. Sometimes we have communication with the agents throughout the entire process, throughout the entire investigation. Sometimes we don't, but in the end, ultimately they will bring forward their case file to us to determine if there's enough to move forward with criminal charges.

so what is animal cruelty and neglect and what's kind of the difference in between the, in between the two?

So in Ohio we have two main sections for animal cruelty, which are Ohio Revised code chapter 959.13, and Ohio revised code chapter 959.131. And this divides up the categories of animals. So one, three pertains to all animals, wildlife, livestock could also pertain to cats and dogs. But cats and dogs have their own section, which is 131. 131 provides for heightened penalties for acts of cruelty or neglect, committed against companion animals. And then there are many other sections that are companion sections. So of course we have crimes against, um, dog fighting that's a crime. Cock fighting poisoning animals, abandoning animals, all crimes under chapter 959. But the main two are one three and 131. So some of these.

Things that people may do against animals. Some of these crimes, some of them will fall as misdemeanors and some as felonies. So can you explain what the difference is between the crimes and what's the difference between the charges?

So the vast majority of animal cruelty or neglect crimes in Ohio are misdemeanors. Misdemeanors range from a minor misdemeanor all the way up to a first degree misdemeanor, which is the most serious, the most serious misdemeanor. The first degree misdemeanor is punishable by up to 180 days in jail, five years of probation, either or a fine of up to a thousand dollars. That's the highest level of misdemeanor, and it goes down from there. The majority of animal neglect, cruelty crimes are second degree misdemeanors, which are punishable by 90 days in jail, and a $750 fine as well as five years of probation. That's the most common crime there are. A few felonies, very few. One is dog fighting, which as a first defense is a fourth degree felony. That is the highest degree of animal cruelty crime in the state of Ohio, dog fighting. The next one is companion animal cruelty, commonly known as Goddard's Law, which includes serious physical harm committed against a campaigning animal. And serious physical harm is defined by statute that also has to be committed knowingly. So there has to be proof of the intent behind the act, which can be very difficult to prove, which is why it's a felony. Um, and it goes down from there. There's also a fifth degree felony for what's commonly known as nitros law. Nitros law pertains to kennel operators, owners, or managers named after a dog named Nitro, who was starved to death while at a boarding kennel in Youngstown. That's also a fifth degree felony. On a first defense,

I worked a a case. This was like four or five years ago. And it was a dog that was starved to death in a basement. It was up in Sandusky, I believe. And it was a case where the, the owners of the dog, there were parents, it was a domestic violence situation, and they were assaulting each other. And then at one point they used the dog, like many domestic violent abusers do. They were using the dog against each other. And at some point, one of them just flat out said, if you don't do X, Y, and Z, I'm gonna starve your dog. And they literally starved the dog to death. So we were able to get all the information, evaluate the dog, and realize that yes, the dog was starved to death. There was no evidence of injury or trauma or whatever. But because there were so many other charges against them, the prosecutor at that time decided that they were not going to do anything with the dog. And I think that that would be important, right, that to add that extra felony, especially since they had information about that. Like would that, how would that be beneficial to add a felony against cruelty to animals in a case of domestic violence, especially when there's children involved? Yeah, and I think whether it

was prosecuted as a felony or as a misdemeanor, it was important to bring that charge. The dog is a victim first and foremost, and they deserve to have their voice heard in court. It's also important to keep it on the offender's record because there were felonies involved for the domestic violence. It's very unlikely that offender's record was ever going to be expunged. That being the case, it would've included any crime that he was convicted of related to animals. That's an important thing to have on a person's record. We know there is a link between animal cruelty and human violence. So this is something that is important to have for that purpose, but also to acknowledge the fact that this dog suffered greatly because of this person's actions.

So when a animal control officer, officers humane officers are bringing you their cases, what makes a strong case? What should they work on to make sure that you have what you need to be able to prosecute a case?

The critical thing of any investigation is actually the investigation itself. So you have to ask the right questions. And humane agents are all specially trained through an opa, a program before they can be sworn in. And part of that training includes conducting investigations. You have to make sure you're asking all of the right questions, collecting the critical evidence, but more than that, you have to distill it to be able to tell the story of why this fits into. The offense, what makes everything that happened fit into the lines of the offense as it's written in the statute. And that can be very difficult because statutory language is not always clear. Then you have other complications. So humane agents are trained to recognize the signs of animal cruelty neglect, but the next thing they need to do is consult with a veterinarian. The veterinarian who either treats the animals or reviews the records afterwards. So they need to make sure that they are getting. A good statement from that veterinarian because that is yet another witness in their case. There are a lot of things that go into these investigations and I think behind the scenes, most people may not realize exactly how much it takes to bring one of these cases to court. There's gathering the evidence, the photos, potentially videos, writing the report, which needs to be quite detailed in these cases. Getting the expert opinion of the veterinarian, perhaps taking after photos if it's a case where the animal improved after treatment. Gathering all of that information to be able to bring the case forward. It's a lot of work. This is live evidence and I think it is very different than any other kind of crime where you have animals who are taken in, who are treated, kept at a humane society or other shelter. It's not a case where you can put a gun in an evidence locker and that's the end of your case. These are very different.

Some of the cases that we have worked with, one of the, one of the concerns that I have, right? Like people ask me to help with consults and then there's not enough information. And some of it comes from either not enough pictures were taken or pictures were taken, but the quality of the photograph was not very good. So everything was blurry. Um, things are missed at the crime scene as far as, you know, we think that this dog was overheated, but nobody takes a temperature before busting in the door and, and that kind of stuff. So from a veterinarian perspective, what are the kind of things that you need from a veterinarian to include in a report to know that there has been a problem with neglect or cruelty to

an animal. So I think the first thing that vets should know about this is don't be afraid to ask questions. So if they receive. Insufficient photos or reports, or they simply don't understand what exactly the scope of the situation is. Don't be afraid to go back to the humane agent and say, Hey, you know, I need more information about this before I can fully understand the situation to write a report. And that's perfectly allowed. So if there are questions veterinarians can ask them. I do the same thing when I'm looking at an investigatory file is, you know, this is great, but I need a little bit more information here before I can make a decision about whether or not this is a chargeable offense. Same thing for veterinarians. Um, the other thing too is sometimes veterinarians are afraid to give opinions when they haven't seen the animals hands on exams. It is very normal for humane agents to call veterinarians where they're on scene and say, what do you think about this? You know, I am looking at a plastic barrel. And it's 12 degrees outside and I have a pit bull chain to it. Do you think that dog will be suffering from the weather conditions? There are a lot of veterinarians who don't feel comfortable giving an opinion without physically putting their hands on the animal. It's okay to not put your hands on the animal and give an opinion. It's to a reasonable degree of veterinary medical certainty. That's the standard.

Yeah. One of the episodes that we just recorded, I was discussing with a animal control officer from Colorado who asked a veterinarian, he wanted to press charges against somebody and the dog's temperature was 94 and 94 degrees, which is very, very cold. That's hypothermia. And the veterinarian would not consider it hypothermia. And I think that a little bit of it, I don't know if there was a little bit of, they didn't wanna be told by the ct Oh, what to do, or they didn't, just didn't wanna get involved. But the end result was that dog was sent back. With dose owners, it was not treated for the issues that it had, like the dog was in pain, there were all these problems, and the dog ended up going back. And as a veterinarian, you could potentially get in trouble for, for doing that. Right. Especially being a mandatory reporter, how would that work out if somebody is so afraid to say that something was wrong, that they actually don't say

that it was wrong? Yeah. So one of the great things we have in Ohio now is a mandatory reporting by veterinarians of suspected animal cruelty, neglect of companion animals. It is law in Ohio now that veterinarians have to report this to humane agents, police, sheriffs, animal control officers, or whoever's enforcing the animal cruelty crimes in their jurisdiction. They can get in big trouble. If they don't, it's a warning letter at first, then it's fines, but it's also potential disciplinary action from the veterinary board. The great news is if they make that report in good faith, they have complete immunity, they can't be sued, they can't be prosecuted if they made that report in good faith.

Another thing that Dan Edinger, the ACO, he was saying about how some facilities, he will request records and they will say, well, hold on. I don't know if I can give you that information. And they do not wanna release information. So what about, what about that? Yeah, so this is a

big misconception too, is that animal records are protected by something like hipaa. They're not confidential. If you have a policy in your practice that you simply don't release the records without approval from the client, that's fine. This is slightly different though, because this is law enforcement asking for assistance with a law enforcement investigation, and if you don't comply, you're going to get served with a search warrant, and nobody likes that. When law enforcement walks into your clinic with a search warrant and says, now I'm going to look at all your records. Bad idea, right.

Just give them the records. Right. Exactly. It's, I don't know. I, that's exactly what we tell people. Like there is no HIPAA law, like there's a difference in between not handing out information like client information, client confidential information and that kind of stuff, versus releasing animal information and. When a, when an officer requests it, it's in your best interest to, to just comply. Uh, so speaking of warrants, that's another thing that people, ask questions like, why, if I see an animal that I think is in distress, why can't I just break into that person's house and take that animal with me? why is that not okay? And what kind of negative things can happen if you, if you do that?

So many reasons, it's not okay. Um, for citizens, it's not okay because you could be charged with a crime trespass breaking and entering theft, potentially obstruction if you were impeding on an investigation that's already in progress. Do not do this. Do not do it. Um, there are ways to help animals that are perfectly legal, including calling law enforcement and letting them do their jobs. They have the right equipment to do this job. They have the right knowledge to do it, and they'll make sure all of the legal guardrails are in place when they do it, because if you don't, you could take that animal today and tomorrow it's going back to its owner. The same situation will keep happening. The other thing too is that people will sometimes try to buy animals off of people they perceive to be being cruel. Uh, the problem is that doesn't really solve the issue either, because that person will then go and purchase another dog and do the same thing all over again. It's a perpetuating problem unless you actually get to the root of it, which is let the agents investigate, let them do their jobs, let them take it through the courts, let them obtain that conviction, and hopefully the pattern will stop at that point. But to go in and use self-help, it's really a bad idea all the time. Um, sometimes people do feel like it's an emergency and what I will tell them is, You will have to accept the risk, then the risk that you'll be prosecuted, the risk that this animal will be returned to its owner, the risk that nothing will happen as a result of what you've put yourself

through. Yeah. I think that some people, you know, we're all passionate about animals and they see something, and just because it's not the same circumstance that they would have their own pets, they think that it is not okay. Uh, like myself, I have my cats. They're indoors. They never go outside. They're pampered. They, they live the life. So I, if I see somebody that has a cat outside, then it's that idea of, well, how could they have their cat be outside? So I think about it the same way as people that own dogs, right? People that have their dogs inside and they sleep in their bed, but then they see a dog that is outside and living in a dog house. Well, that dog house may not be cruelty. It could potentially, depending on the circumstance, but. Not necessarily. How can people find out what minimal standards of care for owners or ownership are before they, they make that decision to contact somebody about it?

Yeah, and I think that's the really frustrating part, is our idea of how we would treat animals is not always the same way the law treats animals. The law, I think, is very far behind how you or I would treat animals. So that is a major frustration for most people, including me and probably you, right? The law does not match with how we feel about the issues. So it's tough to talk about minimal standards because the law isn't really laid out that way. What the law says is any act, omission or neglect that causes pain or suffering that is unnecessary or unjustifiable is animal cruelty. Well, that's kind of a weird thing, right? Um, I, so I think you and I now understand what animal cruelty neglect is, is perfectly clear. Wonderful. Right,

exactly. Um, very subjective. Nothing objective about it. Yeah.

So it is, um, an interesting legal standard. However, the basics are that shelter is required unless it would not cause pain or suffering that is unnecessary or unjustifiable. So for example, if I have my healthy dog out on a 65 degree day and he has no shelter, that's legal as long as he is not suffering right. But that same dog outside on an 18 degree day or on 105 degree day with no shelter is in violation of the law. There's a continuum as to how our animals can be treated. And that's what makes it complicated. And that is what makes humane agents, the experts at enforcing these laws. Because there is no black and white answer. And quite frankly, it's good that there's no black and white answer because we've seen laws enacted where it says, well, you can do this as long as it's above 32 degrees. Well, if it's 32 degrees, okay, it's illegal. If it's 33, it's not. So if you have an animal of a certain type, for example, a chihuahua who's outside in 33 degree weather, that's okay. Now, because it's not one degree colder, no it's not. Okay. Um, so these kinds of laws can actually create more problems than being helpful. So those are some of the complications. And we actually have great laws when it comes to things like shelter, because our shelter code does not require proof of suffering. The proof is where it would be reasonable and likely that the animal would become sicker, otherwise sufferer due to the lack of shelter. So it enables agents to act proactively. So, for example, some of the polar vortexes we've had, they're able to take the animal before they go off shift because they know it's going to be negative 10 degrees that night. It's reasonable that animal's going to become sicker in just a few hours. They don't have to wait until it hits negative 10. They can seize that animal. Great law. We also, of course, have laws about lack of food and water, same standard, where it would be reasonable, the animal will become sicker, otherwise suffer, and we have, um, beating laws. Of course, you're not allowed to be an animal. You're not allowed to poison an animal. Torture, torment and medical neglect is also against the law. So not providing veterinary care to an animal where that animal is experiencing pain or suffering as a result.

With medical neglect, sometimes we would see animals that Were being sent to us for evaluation because the humane officer would go and investigate or evaluate a, a call and find that there was a problem. So then the humane officer would say, you have a certain amount of time to go to the veterinarian to get it evaluated. But then there were times where people were coming in on their own and looking for help for, for an animal that had been neglected for a really long time. And some of my peers will say, well, we can't do anything about it because they brought the animal in. So it is okay now, like they are seeking care. The most common things that I can think of would be masses, would be excessive, matting, long nails and that kind of stuff. So is it true that if they bring you the animal, it is no longer considered an act of cruelty and neglect?

That is not true. So the act of cruelty has already occurred at that point, and it's important still at that point to report it because that is the obligation of the veterinarian. When the animal comes in and they see it as in that condition, they must report it. The act of cruelty is not over yet, and it's very common that sometimes they leave the vet clinic without obtaining all the proper care. That too needs to be reported, but the bottom line is the act of cruelty has already been committed prior to arriving at the vet, especially if it's been a long period of time. That's a really big problem. That animal has suffered extensively. And you know, the humane agent will conduct an investigation and we'll determine why that occurred. Maybe there was illness involved, maybe there was financial reasons, whatever it was. And that may affect the outcome of the case. You know, whether it's resolved in education, which probably 90% of these cases are resolved with education or whether it results in a criminal prosecution, depending on the severity and the reasons behind it. But it is the obligation of that veterinarian to report that potential act of animal cruel to your neglect. Yeah, and as a

veterinarians, I mean, what all we're doing is creating our objective findings, right? Like just saying, this is what I saw, this is what I found, taking pictures. Please take pictures. Please write everything down. Please keep your your logs properly. Because anything, even if, even if something is not a court case, anything that we write on is potentially a legal document. So we have to be really, really good and really careful. And then that would be how to protect ourselves if a case goes to court. with a veterinarian that may find themselves going to court. And they're not prepared. What would be the best way for them to prepare for given expert testimony in court?

Yeah, so first and foremost, it's to review their report and their records. So sit down, review your report and records. Make sure that you are refreshed on everything that happened. Um, if you have questions at that point, again, don't be afraid to ask. Most prosecutors are more than willing to talk to their veterinarians ahead of trial, to prepare them to make sure they understand, especially if they've not given testimony before, what the testimony might look like, what they might hear from the defense attorney, what they might hear from the judge, and certainly what they'll hear from the prosecutor as far as the line of questioning goes. So preparation is certainly key that way. There are no surprises when they're on the stand. Nobody likes surprises.

Nobody likes surprises. Yeah. And you know, knowing what to say and what not to say. Right? Because there are questions that are yes or no. Please stick to yes or no. Don't, don't keep elaborating on things that you may not need to elaborate. Don't get into a hole that you may not be able to, to dig yourself out of. Um, yeah, because I mean, that's the, that's the job of the defense attorney, right, is to try to poke holes and try to create reasonable doubt and make people find the, find the defendant not guilty because, I mean, that is their job. So know what to say, what not to say. Reach out to, to the prosecutors. And I think that it depends, like you guys are, this is what you do. So you know how to prepare veterinarians. But I know that I have worked in cases with. Other prosecutors that they haven't, they have not reached out to me. They have not talked to me. That they just send me the, the information on when I have to show up and I will bug them and say, Hey, I wanna talk to you, I wanna prepare, I wanna discuss things. And they're like, oh, no, no, it'll be okay. No, it's, it's not gonna be just okay. It, it needs to be fully prepared. so going back to cases, so let's say that, let's actually bring up a, a recent case we just worked on the case of Charles Park, which, anybody that's not familiar with it is, uh, ex dog warden in Trumbull County that was charged with not feeding dogs on two separate occasions at the dog shelter. So, let's actually break down the, break down that case. What was it? What was he charged with and what were the findings and, uh, what was his sentencing?

So, uh, Charles Parks was charged with two counts of failing to provide adequate food or water to the dogs at the kennel, the dogs that he was in charge of providing care to. And then he was also charged with two counts of failing to provide general care, things like medication, cleaning, things of those nature. So it ended up being four misdemeanor counts, second degree misdemeanors. The interesting part about this case is that the humane agent learned about it long after the fact. It was not reported until a long time after it actually happened, which meant there were no dogs. She had no dogs to look at. There were no dogs to be examined. It's a very unusual case where you have no actual animal evidence. All of the evidence was based on videos and witness statements and testimony from people who were there, as well as reviewing records from the kennel facility to determine what exactly happened here, and of course, an interview with the suspect. So all of those things came together to, um, form case, which was enough to proceed to prosecution. It was a very difficult case. Quite frankly, we may not have won it had it gone to trial. Um, the nature of the evidence is so difficult for people to understand when you don't have a dog and you don't have a veterinarian, and he was saying, yes, this dog was dehydrated, this dog was dehydrated, this dog suffered from not having its medication. This was very circumstantial. There was no direct evidence. Interesting case. Um, ultimately he did enter a plea to one of those counts. We recommended a longer period of probation so that he could be monitored appropriately. unfortunately the court ended up giving him a much shorter period, six months in ordering, um, an inspection of his home. So while it wasn't exactly what we would've liked to have seen or what the humane agent would've liked to have seen, it was certainly still a win because Mr. Parks was convicted of this offense and is no longer working with animals at the county

facility. And his plea was no contest, right? I believe so. What does that mean when somebody pleas pleads No contest?

So no contest is, is not an admission of guilt. It is an admission to the facts contained in the complaint. So essentially, I am not necessarily agreeing that I did this, but I'm entering a plea. So, um, it cannot be used against the defendant in any future criminal or civil proceeding, meaning it will not be taken into account if there are, uh, lawsuits, things of that nature. The fact that he was convicted cannot be used against him. Um, so it is smart to plead no contest really, and it doesn't have much legal significance as far as sentencing goes, but that is what a no contest plea is.

in his case, there was some jail time and it was suspended. So what I, why is I see that that happens quite frequently, that different cases have jail time suspended, and sometimes it will be jail time suspended as long as they don't violate certain parts of their probation. So why does that happen?

Yeah, so there are a lot of reasons this happens. First and foremost, it is because in Ohio there is a presumption against incarceration for first time offenders of any crime other than high level felonies. So if you are a first time offender, the presumption is you should be under community control, essentially probation, to give you a chance to rehabilitate before we start taking more serious sanctions. That changed slightly with a new modification of the law to the fifth degree felony campaigning, animal cruelty code, which now gives judges discretion on whether or not to sentence offenders to jail or prison for a first time offense, discretion. It does not make it mandatory to be clear. So the reason that sometimes suspending sentences can be more beneficial than incarceration is because it gives you a longer period of monitoring. So we know the maximum of sentence in these cases is 180 days for first degree misdemeanors. About the same for felonies. So if you send somebody to jail for all of that time, that's it. That's the end of the case. There's no monitoring, it's over. They've sat in jail. There's nothing else that can be done. Probation, on the other hand, allows a process of rehabilitation and may include checks by humane agents to see whether or not they're animals. It may include restrictions on animals, whether it be none or a limited amount, perhaps a limited amount that spayed or neutered. It could include things like education courses and general monitoring to make sure they're not committing further offenses while they're on probation, and that can extend all the way out to five years. So in those cases, if they violate the five year provision, there is jail time suspended, jail time hanging over their heads. So they have every incentive not to violate because if they do, they're going to jail. And they may not go to jail for the entire time. So sometimes if there's a violation, I'll ask the court to impose part of the jail time just so I can keep them on probation for the rest of the time. And later we can continue imposing time, especially in the cases of animal hoarders. Or it may take a long time to break the cycle. It's better to have them on probation for a long time under monitoring and continually give 'em a little bit at a time. I mean, we had one defendant who was in jail three separate times because she kept accumulating cats during the term of her probation. And on the third time, she finally learned she was not going to get any more cats, and she's still had three years of probation left. So, um, there is certainly a benefit to having that longer period of monitoring than having a defendant sit in jail or prison. Most people think of jail or prison as deterrent. It's normally not. Um, you have three square meals a day. You have no life obligations. Most of the time you'll get work released. You can actually go to work and then go back to jail at night and sleep. It's just really not much of a penalty. Um, and it doesn't teach them anything. There are no animal cruelty programs in prisons in Ohio that I'm aware of. So what they're really learning is probably how to do drugs and maybe they're learning how to do some worse crimes. Um, you know, how to

get away with things. Yeah,

I mean, how to make sure you're not letting people in your house, you know, with consent and all of this, you know, fun things that, uh, hardened criminals know. So, you know, there are a lot of benefits to actually putting these cases through a longer probationary period. The other thing too is that Ohio has a unique law when it comes to companion animals that courts can prohibit offenders from owning companion animals permanently. That is really cool.

all the hoarding cases that I have worked with, there's usually like a maximum of five years before they can own animals. So is that based on first offense or is that just because of the type of offense?

So the five years can be imposed regardless of how many offenses have been committed. So that's the period of probation. The ban can extend beyond the period of probation. It's often used for repeat offenders or sometimes very serious hoarders where there were a large number of animals that were harmed or the person is evidence that they really are not going to comply.

One of the things that I say cuz I'm really interested in hoarding cases and I have worked with different hoarding cases, both within the state and outside, is that mental health evaluations is not always mandatory. So is there a reason for that? And I mean, I personally believe that it should be mandatory in every case of animal hoarding, and that's why I did a master's in forensic psychology because I think that if we don't do anything to to help these people, then they're just gonna keep re-offending. What is the process for Mandatory Health Evaluations and why is it done and sometimes

not done? I don't know why it's not done. I agree with you. I think it is critical in every single case of hoarding, and it is allowed under the terms of probation. So not only to get a mental health evaluation, but also to follow all recommended treatment throughout the course of probation, which can extend, again, five years. So you can make sure that person is getting the treatment they need all throughout that period, which is really important because during that length of time, it's more likely than not that the pattern is going to be formed. Right? We all know it takes a long time to form a pattern to change our lives. It's the same thing with offenders. So if you have 'em on probation, they're getting the mental health services. Hopefully they will rehabilitate by the time they're off probation. So yes, I agree with you. It should be recommended in every single case of animal hoarding. No question about it.

Yeah, I, I think that, you know, definitely with hoarders, given them jail time, it doesn't help anything. Right. It's a, it's a mental health disease, so you're not really doing anything, giving them fines and, and penalties. Okay. Like, yeah, it may affect them, but again, it doesn't really do anything like it's, they have this need to have these animals. I was recently involved in a case that I was evaluating to see if there was neglect or cruelty, because there was a lady with a very, very large number of cats. She had 96 cats inside of her home. I went to her home and the cats were in perfect condition, not, well, I shouldn't say perfect condition. Some of them have ear mites. I have a couple of them had respiratory infections, and so there wasn't anything that I could say, yeah, this is animal cruelty and neglect, and I am kind of keeping an eye on that situation to make sure that it doesn't escalate. I think that I may have caught her in that in between while, while she's still able to manage. but one of the things that I was looking for was if there was a statute saying how many animals people can have, and I could only find a couple of areas that said, like a couple of counties that had requirements, but overall it didn't look like there was a requirement on the number of animals. So is that, is that correct? Uh,

Yeah, that is correct. There is no state law that governs how many animals a person can keep. Some jurisdictions do have those laws, generally they don't work. Um, so your idea that you walked in at a good time is probably true because it is going to descend into cruelty neglect in a short period of time. If something is not done to reduce the population of that home, there is not a single person who can take care of 96 cats. It

is not possible. And what I think is different in this case is that most of the hoarding cases that I've gone to is one person living by themselves in a home or potentially like two elderly people. This is somebody that's not elderly and she has a husband and she has a son, and everybody pulls together to take care of the animals. They're literally slaves to these cats, right? So they're cleaning after these cats every three hours. They have a schedule and she cleans houses for a living. So this is what she does. She, I walked into the house. The house smelled amazing. It's like you open the door and the fabuloso like smacks you in the face. Right. I brought my ammonia detector because I was like, come on, this, many cats in a two bedroom household, there has to be ammonia. Zero. Like it, it was not measuring. She has nine litter boxes like that, that should be nowhere near enough, and yet all these cats are going into the litter boxes because they're doing their best to keep it clean. But she even admitted that if any of them is not there., So if something happens to the husband, something happens to the son, something happens to her, then the balance is going to be offset. I'm just really interested in, and I don't want her to fail. They're really nice people, but very interested to see if that's, if we came at the, at that particular time. Now, one of the things that we did do was we went to her house and we sterilized every cat that was not sterilized, because that's how this problem started, right? That's how most hoarding problems start, is that somebody has a couple of cats and they're not fixed. And then cats will breed and breed and breed and breed, and then all of a sudden you have a bunch of cats. So her husband brought home seven cats. All seven cats were pregnant. Every litter was five or more. So this lady went from, she already had quite a few cats. She had about 30 cats to all of a sudden she has 90 cats. We sterilized everybody so that hopefully then, at least from what's inside of the house, there's no more cats coming in. But you always have the concern of they didn't, you know, even when they had 30 cats, they just kept bringing more cats because they just don't know where to stop because they have such a big heart and they wanna save everybody. So, I don't know. I'm writing a case report.

It's not, and I mean, you know, when you think, when you think about it, cats, you know, don't really thrive in those kind of environments either. Mm-hmm. So psychologically it's an issue for those animals. It's going to become an issue for the caregivers too at some point. You know, anybody who has a multi cat household knows that it can be very difficult to determine which animal is having litter box problems, for example. Mm-hmm. Now, multiply that by 10 later, 15. There may be very ill cats there that they will simply never be able to identify, who will suffer as a result. And I understand they care deeply about the cats. I think most people who care for animals do actually care about those animals, but it's also an act of selfishness. Mm-hmm. To continue to persist and have those 96 cats in the home. So certainly sterilizing them was a good first step. Hopefully they'll be open to reducing their population to try to adopt those cats

out. Yeah. And this is somewhere that I think where I think that mental health services needs to be available to help because there, there are very deep, deep-seated reasons and issues for why they don't wanna get rid of the cats because of traumas that happened earlier in life. So it's not as simple as saying, just trying to reason and say, Hey, you know, the cats are not okay. Their cats are coming to them and they're giving them affection. They get affection. they thankfully don't have any feral cats because that's another thing that I find in hoarding cases is that they think they have a certain number of cats and they have double that number. And a third of the cats are feral. So they're not there yet. But I think so important to get somebody to provide some mental health assessment and then determine what's gonna be the best way to, to help these people voluntarily understand that giving the cats away potentially would be the most humane thing to do. We'll see how that continues to develop. My concern is that I'm going to go check in and there's gonna be 150 cats because there's gonna be more cats coming in. So hopefully I'm wrong. What kind of cases can you share with us that you have worked on?

I have a lot of fun cases. Um, the cat case you was talking about reminds me of a case of 89 rabbits. We just had, uh, who started out as two and multiplied all the way up to 89. In fact, they were stacked in cages to the ceiling, including in the daughter's bedroom. It was the defendant's child, minor child who called the Humane Society to report their parents for hoarding the rabbits. Oh, wow.

How old was the,

the kid? 16 years old. 16. Wow. Yeah. So, um, that particularly disturbing situation, um, more particularly disturbing was the justification from the parents that their six or seven year old child really loved these animals and they couldn't get rid of a single one. So they tried to pin it all on their six-year-old daughter instead of accepting responsibility for the fact that they themselves could not bear to part with a single rabbit. They were asked to surrender rabbits numerous times by the humane agents. They would not surrender a single rabbit until ultimately they had to execute a search warrant at the home and seize every single one. Even after that happened, they requested a probable cause hearing, which is the post seizure hearing that is mandated by law in which they have the opportunity to contest the seizure in front of the magistrate. At that hearing, they continued to justify having 89 rabbits. And they blamed it on their hot water heater, um, being broken. Okay. And the magistrate interrupted the questioning and said, I'm sorry, what does your hot water heater have to do with you having, what is it, 89 rabbits? Um, and they couldn't answer the question. Um, it was really incredulous that they simply could not grasp the fact that there was a problem. Um, they refused to surrender most of the animals. They spent hours at the Humane Society identifying animals that they would like to surrender and still had difficulty doing that. It was, really, really an interesting case from the perspective of mental health. So they were both convicted and placed on probation with mental health treatment, a limited number of animals. They were allowed to move their three dogs and two cats back into the house. Once they had cleaned those animals were spayed or neutered, and now they'll undergo checks from the Humane Society to make sure they're keeping up on their mental health treatment and keeping up on not obtaining more animals during the term of their probation. So hopefully they will learn that five animals, which is by the way, the city maximum. Um, they wanted the exact city maximum cuz this city happened to have an animal limit law. and they had cleaned up the house. They did take those steps during the case. So the inspection went well prior to sentencing and they were allowed to retain those small amount of animals. No rabbits. No rabbits. What happens to

the, what happens to the kids in these situations? Since it's a crime against animals, what's the involvement with the kids? So humane

agents are mandated reporters of child abuse and these things often go hand in hand. So again, there's a cross reporting law. Now, not only do Child Protective Services agents have to report suspected neglect to humane agents, it's vice versa too. So humane agents are reporting to children's services when they see things like this happening. In this case, the children were also removed from the home. They were returned once the house was cleaned. So imagine the awkward situation with the 16 year old.

Yeah. What other cases have you had

was so many, I dunno. What kinda cases do you wanna hear about?

Let's see. Well, we just dealt with hoarders, um, I mean, something that is kinda that I've had three of, and none of them have actually, well actually that's not true. One of them. ended up with charges. It was a minor. It was a sexual abuse, sexual assault on a dog. I lost track of it, and it was because Covid happened, but it was a 13 year old that sexually abused their family dog. I recognized what happened. I was very open with the parents and I said, this is what happened to your dog. They said, the only person with the dog was the child. So I said, well, then your child was the one that, that did it. And they brought the kid into the room and I told the kid. I have a 17 year old, so I know how to not ask yes or no questions that they can tell me. No, I know the answer already, so I'm going to make you understand that I know the answer already. So I looked at him and I said, I know what you did. I just need to know what you did it with. And then he told me what he had done. So my concern at that point clearly was for the dog, which I had the dog, and then my concern was for the kid, because he is a minor, and yes, he has done something horrible, but then are these parents gonna take this kid home and, and beat him because I mean, he did something horrible to, to their dog. I contacted the police, And when the police officers came in, they came in and they're like, well, I don't know what you want us to do. you gotta call the animal control. I was like, I want you to do something with this child because he did something wrong. He's like, well, it's not a crime. What. So I had to explain to them that it is a crime and you have to do something about it. So they had to go out and speak with a detective and then explain to, said, detective. And the detective told them, yes, it is a crime, so you need to take this child into custody. And they took him to the children's Hospital for, for an evaluation. And something that was really great about this case, if there is something great about a sexual assault case, is that a few weeks after everything happened, the dad came back to the hospital. they allowed him to take the dog back into the house. They had the kid they had to, to be monitoring, but he brought the child with him and the kid talked to me and apologized and said that he wanted to get help and he wanted to do anything that he could to, to get better. But then the dad explained that they were having a really difficult time getting him help because nobody would help them get the help that they needed. They didn't have insurance, they didn't have enough information. And then after that I lost track of the case.

Yeah. So I think it would surprise most people to know that bestiality was not a crime, you know, Ohio until 2017. Yep. Um, and there were some other offenses that we were able to use to prosecute those acts, but only if an animal actually experienced pain or suffering as a result, which is not always the case with bestiality. So there were a lot of these offenses that were going un prosecuted because it was not a crime in the state of Ohio to have sexual conduct with an animal. Finally, in 2017, the law went into effect, and that was only after I had written a model ordinance for a number of local jurisdictions who started to pass it on their own. So the municipalities in Ohio have home rule, and they are allowed to generally pass laws that do not conflict with state laws that are stricter than the state law. So there was a jurisdiction in Ohio City of Warren, who had a case of bestiality. They were frustrated, they couldn't prosecute it, we presented a model ordinance to them. They passed the law, and shortly thereafter, another case occurred that they were able to prosecute. It was beautiful, but it made the state take notice. And the state then finally passed this law to make it illegal at the state level to have sexual conduct with an animal for the purpose of sexual gratification. So that excludes things like artificial insemination for a veterinary purpose. This is specifically for the purpose of sexual gratification of the human being. There have been a number of cases. The first one, again, shortly after this law was passed was the case of Scott Turner in the city of Cleveland, and this one went all the way up to the Court of Appeals. Really interesting case. It was reported again after the fact, which is what made it so difficult that he had written letters to his prison, pen pal slash boyfriend, about an act of oral sex he performed on his roommate's dog, and he described all sorts of things in those letters, how when his prison boyfriend got out, they were going to find a teenager to film these acts because Mr. Turner had previous convictions of pedophilia. Yeah. Again, these things are closely linked, correct sexual crimes against children, sexual crimes against animals. So they thought they were gonna move on to dogs, and these letters go on and on and on. While the letters were of course intercepted because not only was Mr. Turner on parole for his prior acts, of course they were intercepted at the prison too, and it was reported to the Humane Society who conducted an investigation. When they talked to the roommate, she specifically recalled her dog acting odd that day, licking her vulva scared. And that testimony was provided at trial, but there was no dog to examine because this all occurred long after the fact. There was no actual dog for a veterinarian to examine. But the veterinarian took into account the testimony of the dog owner about what she observed that day. Looked at the content of the letter, and he was convicted at trial. Convicted. The interesting part, uh, there is that shortly after conviction, he was yet again convicted of abusing a child.

And with the case that I was just talking about with a 13 year old, like the, the parents had little kids in the house. So you think about not just the fact that this kid just assaulted the dog, right? So it can be the first step. What's gonna happen after that, potentially molest the other kids, or sexually assault the other kids, or grow up and be a sexual offender or, or even worse. So, I mean, so important to identify and prosecute these cases. The, yeah. And

the frustrating part, by the way, is that these are not considered sex offenses. So people who commit bestiality do not go on any kind of sex offender registry. This is an animal cruelty offense. It is a misdemeanor offense. It is a second degree misdemeanor. Yikes. Yeah. The other weird thing about this section is that it does not include the permanent ban on owning or caring for companion animals. So it's a maximum of five years probation in these cases. That's the maximum length of monitoring. That's very frustrating. So in some cases, we've been able to combine this with the companion animal cruelty code under section 131 because the act arises to the level of torture or torment. And we saw that in a case out of Mahoney County, where the act that was depicted on the video was simply so horrific that it undoubtedly caused pain or suffering to that dog. And not only did we charge in bestiality, we charged in our companion animal cruelty too, and we were able to get the permanent ban by doing that. So sometimes you have to use all of the tools in your tool belt to really get the result you want.

With cases of sexual assault in animals, like with this case, the dog was profusely bleeding, had profuse vaginal bleeding because the kid inserted a pen, and caused a lot of trauma. And in other cases, like when there is rectal penetration, it often causes rectal tears. And that in many cases will result in either severe infection or even the death of the animal. So from what you're saying, the act itself is not the cruelty, the injuries that occur because of the act is how you can get them for cruelty to animals.

Exactly. So the bestiality statute does not require any element of pain or suffering. So, for example, oral sex is covered under the statute, which may not necessarily cause pain to an animal. Right. But. That's good. You can prosecute under the bestiality law. You may not be able to prosecute under the companion animal cruelty law. Now, the case I just talked about that was oral sex, but the way it was performed was such that it was absolutely torture, torment to that dog.

Do you, have you prosecuted any cases where people have inflicted injuries like burns?

Yeah. Um, it is rare that we see things like animals intentionally burned anymore for some reason. But what we do see a lot of, um, our. Cases where we cannot prove whether it was unintentional or intentional burning. So we had a case of a very badly burned dog, and the dog owner claimed that he took a shower and then put the dog in the leftover bathwater. So essentially he plugged the shower and then what accumulated was a bath full of water, right? His claim was that the burns to the dog's body, which were so horrific that its skin was just falling off, was caused from him giving the dog a bath in that leftover shower water. Well,

your feet would've melted, sir. I see. I see a problem here.

You know, maybe it was unintentional and the water was a little too hot and you know, his shower story was not true. Or maybe it was very intentional because he was mad at the dog. Regardless, we cannot prove the level of intent, but what we could prove is certainly that it was an active animal cruelty because he didn't even get the dog treatment. His neighbor called in seeing a horrifically burned dog three days later in the yard. Oh my gosh. So certainly neglect of the act of putting a dog in a bath full of hot water that you haven't tested, act of cruelty number one. Act of cruelty number two, not obtaining veterinary treatment for the dog.

And not obtaining treatment, not pursuing treatment by itself can be a problem. Sometimes we see dogs that have a foreign body obstruction. So clearly the owner did not feed the dog, the, the ball that got them stuck. But then they wait too long to bring them in, and now the dog is really, really skinny because of a medical issue caused by something else. But then they didn't seek medical attention. So then that would become a problem,

right? Yeah. And this is, this is why these cases are so complicated because a person may see an emaciated dog, right? And then you wanna see charges brought. Well, the problem we have is which charge to bring, which is often solved by our veterinarian because they're going to determine whether or not it was lack of food and water, or whether it was something like medical neglect because of an obstruction. So we had a case with a corn cob that was lodged in the intestines. The animal was getting skinnier and skinnier and skinnier, but the animal was eating. It was just, you know, compacting food essentially, and nothing was getting through. So it wasn't a food or water charge, but it was a medical neglect charge. And that was determined by the veterinarian who did the necropsy, because unfortunately the dog passed away. This is how long this went on. So the animal is eating and eating and eating, getting skinnier and skinnier and skinnier. And the owners did nothing until the dog passed away. And then they wanted animal control to come and pick up the body. And when animal control came to pick up the body, they reported it to the Humane Society. That's, you know, that is animal neglect, that lack of care for the animal failure to obtain appropriate veterinary care where the animal is experiencing pain or suffering. And that dog was undoubtedly experiencing pain or suffering.

We get into the, the issue of people that don't believe in euthanasia or don't want to euthanize their animal. And then as a veterinarian you are prolonging the inevitable, but at some point you believe that that animal is in pain, that it is suffering. Uh, I guess one of the best examples would be dogs with cancer. And you know, you keep giving them pain medications and you give 'em everything and anything that you can, and this dog is still miserable, but the owners are refusing to euthanize be it for personal beliefs or be it for religious beliefs or whatever. So can that still be considered animal cruelty? Is that something that a veterinarian should report?

It is absolutely animal cruelty and a veterinarian should report it. And of course, certainly, humane agents and myself try to handle those cases with compassion because it can be difficult to determine when you should euthanize your animal and to actually take that step. But the bottom line is if you are acting against veterinary advice and you have been advised this animal's experiencing pain or suffering to the point that it should be euthanized, and you do not do that, that animal continues to experience pain or suffering. You're not helping the animal, and you're certainly not helping yourself because you may end up in court. The other situation we see a lot is lack of palliative care. People sometimes determine that their animals are old and they're just gonna let them die. Well, we wouldn't do that to a human being. We don't put human beings in nursing homes, strap 'em to a bed and say, all right, you die when you die. You know, we give them pain medications, we give them care to make sure that the transition is peaceful. There are individuals who will not do that. Um, they simply do not provide the care that animals need in those last of days where they truly need the most support, whether it be pain medications, fluids, whatever else to make sure that they are not experiencing unnecessary pain or suffering. They don't even take him to the vet. So dog gets diagnosed with cancer, the vet says, you know, your dog is maybe three or four months to live. You should come back and get some pain medication. You know, when you think it's time or maybe some Nutra Cal or some extra, you know, food. And they never go back. And they say, well, my dog was diagnosed with cancer. He was going to die. So what's the big deal? Well, the big deal is the animal is not allowed by law to experience pain or suffering, and it's not fair to the animal. So,

I really appreciate you sharing all of these cases. So do you wanna, let people know how they can find out about your firm and how they get information about you guys? Yeah, so we have a

Facebook page, which is Holland Muirden, M U I R D E N, where we try to keep information updated as to new laws, sometimes interesting cases, and of course presentations, trainings that go on. Some of those presentations are for ordinary citizens and some are for law enforcement. You can also contact us through our website and that goes for not only humane societies or law enforcement, but we do general animal law too. So things like dangerous dog hearings, custody issues, anything that pertains to animals we handle.

Well, again, thank you so much for sharing all this information. It has been great and I'm sure that we'll probably talk again sometime. I hope so. All right, and for everybody that's listening in, thank you for listening and thank you for caring.