More information below about this law (not bill) as I have found out from a person living in PA. This is a viewpoint on how the law is working. You need to start at the bottom and work your way up to follow the conversation.
I am going to insert my word of warning: IF one state has the law, ALL states may try to pass it. Especially in this day and age. It is another thing to watch and be aware of it being sneaked in. CathyM Catren's Shar Pei Catren's Leather Show Accessories Kill "The Killing Fields" Bills of the HSUS <http://www.americanssupportinganimalownership.com> www.americanssupportinganimalownership.com I think it's a mixed bag. Someone has to enforce the cruelty laws since there aren't enough police officers to do it, nor is it a high enough priority given the scope of the law enforcement needs facing the police. However, the screening process for humane police officers isn't adequate and neither are the training requirements sufficient to ensure that the officers are properly trained to enforce the cruelty laws. When you couple that with the fact that people who want to become humane society police officers may disproportionately represent either those who want to be police officers and didn't get hired or those who have a mission or an agenda that makes them less than neutral arbiters of the law, you have to be concerned. There is no doubt that there is a need to enforce these laws. The fact that a court must review the request for appointment of officers is some protection for the public. However, the fact that a group that is other than neutral could have permission to enforce laws or could appoint someone with an agenda other than neutral enforcement of the laws, is troublesome. Right now, humane police do not have the protection from lawsuit for violation of rights that police officers have. There is a trend by some of the groups to grant them protection for mistakes made in enforcement actions. I think these are dangerous since it can be difficult to prove whether a "mistake" was intentional or not. There is another problem in that the organizations that employ them can get revenue from fines imposed or dogs seized as a result of enforcement actions. It is always potentially dangerous to have a built-in financial reward system for actions that are supposed to be neutral actions to enforce the law fairly and objectively. The confiscation of property (which dogs are despite the "guardian" movement) without reimbursement raises potential taking issues under the U.S. Constitution's 5th and 14th Amendments. While the value of the property to the individual might be disputed, especially in the case of an abused animal that needs medical or rehabilitative care, taking and selling the animal before guilt has been proven is a problem. First, the animals are evidence. By making the evidence unavailable, the case may be weakened. That is why in abuse cases, the animals are usually kept until the hearing is over and a conviction obtained. It seems anomalous that the state cannot take property, but thinks it has the right to give a private corporation the right to seize and dispose of property for non-criminal violations of the law. If the state cannot do it, what authority does it have to grant that power to another? This is not to say that I don't think the animals should be seized, just that there is a legitimate questions as to the extent of the government's authority to dispose of the property without any, even minimal, compensation for non-criminal violations of the law. Permission granted to crosspost. Julian Prager NAIA Legislative Coordinator PFDC Legislative Chair DLAB, Public Member On Jul 3, 2009, at 3:05 PM, CathyM wrote: Thank you Julian for the update. I received this on another list and was not sure what it was I was seeing. Given that you live there - what is your opinion of the law: Is it good? Or has it caused trouble? Also, may I post your answer to the other lists that I sent it to? CathyM Catren's Shar Pei Catren's Leather Show Accessories Kill "The Killing Fields" Bills of the HSUS www.americanssupportinganimalownership.com I am not sure why you are sharing this now. The law is five years old, not something new. It has nothing to do with a private partnership between the Department of Agriculture and the Humane Society. It permits humane societies to apply to the courts within a county to permit it to appoint officers to act within that county. With court approval, it may appoint officers to serve only within that county. Any actions taken outside the county are illegal without approval of a court in the other county. This is the statute that permits our county humane societies to appoint humane police officers within their counties to enforce the cruelty law. Julian Prager pennfed...@verizon.net --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.3/2216 - Release Date: 07/03/09 05:53:00
