Apparently They Never Learn! - Phoenix, AZ

Item 33 on the agenda of the October 21st Phoenix City Council meeting includes a proposal to: An increase in the bond requirement - $500 per animal to defray some of the cost and care of the animal during the time the animal is under Arizona Humane society care. Any unused bond amount is to be returned to the owner.

And, A separate disposition process - A law enforcement officer may request a hearing if there is probable cause to believe that an animal has been cruelly mistreated or cruelly neglected. At the hearing, the court may determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether an animal has been cruelly mistreated or cruelly neglected. If the court makes such a finding, the court may order the animal: (1) forfeited to the officer or agent to be made available for adoption or for transfer to a legally incorporated humane society or approved rescue agency, or (2) humanely destroyed.

***

Has the Phoenix legal counsel reviewed this in view of the recent decision in the U.S. District Court (Louisville Kennel Club, Inc Et AL vs Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government)? This Court found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution], and the requirement of a seizure bond is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt - not merely probable cause - must occur before a court can take your property. The Court furthered reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement and a warrant must be obtained prior to seizure.

Item 33 appears counter to this US District Court ruling and if implemented Phoenix Is likely to face expensive litigation on this matter.

Are owners due restitution for monetary losses

I now have a copy of the judgement rendered by US District Court Judge Charles Simpson III in the Louisville Kennel Club, Inc ET AL. X Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government. One of the most important parts of his ruling is the affirmation that dogs are personal property. As such, I am the OWNER of my dogs and not their guardian. And, as an OWNER, I am due restitution for any devaluation or "taking" of my property.

The question now becomes: Does mandatory spay/neuter constitute a devaluation of property? It does deprive the owner of puppies from that dog and from the income that could be derived from those puppies. While this could be an issue with mixed breed puppies, it becomes an even larger issue with purebred puppies that are often sold for hundreds of dollars each.

Does a government that enacts mandatory spay/neuter laws have to reimburse dog owners for their loss of potential stud fees and puppy sales? I urge owners living under such a rule to file a class action demanding just compensation for this mandate.

Louisville Kennel Club Lawsuit Decided!

This past Friday the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government. The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as in Louisville.

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 by Animal Control is unconstitutional.

He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution], 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 Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement and a warrant must be obtained prior to seizure.