1. Welcome to Game Dog Forum

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

Good news from lousiville, KY

Discussion in 'Laws & Legislation' started by simms, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. simms

    simms CH Dog

    Cross posted...

    US District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson III ordered the following
    in the case of the Louisville KC, et. al. v. Louisville/Jefferso n
    County Metro Government.

    RE: Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-230- S

    Judge basically found that the determination between S/N'd and intact
    dogs is without merit and thus required enclosure inspection for
    intact dogs is unconstitutional, He also found that dogs are
    personal property and the requirement of a seizure bond where the
    individual must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause or their
    animals become the property of the city, state, etc if unable is
    unconstitutional. That a finding of guilt must occur before a court
    can take your property.

    Judge Simpson issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing
    these provisions.

    It seems the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment
    and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for
    seizure without a warrant in the various parts, the Court reasoned
    that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so one
    must be obtained prior to seizure. The Court then went point by point
    and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't.
    This is a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis.

    Another thing, the veterinary issue which was most important one, was
    addressed by a change in the Kentucky State law which makes veterinary
    records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a
    court order issued or the owner gives consent in writing.

    Following is the Order by Judge Simpson...

    1. Section 91.022 of the Louisville/Jefferso n County Metro Gov. Code
    of Ordinances(LJCMGC) is declared unconstitutional insofar as it
    requires owners of unaltered dogs to obtain written approval of their
    enclosures. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement (DN 20) is
    GRANTED in this respect, and Metro's motion for summary judgement(DN
    27) is DENIED to the same extent. Metro is hereby enjoined from
    enforcing 91.022's written approval requirement.

    2. Section 91.101 of the LJCMGC of Ordinances is declared
    unconstitutional insofar as it threatens to deprive pet owners of
    their property rights without a finding of guilt. Plaintiffs' motion
    for summary judgement (DN 20) is GRANTED in this respect, and Metro's
    motion for summary judgement(DN 27) is DENIED to the same extent.
    Metro is hereby enjoined from enforcing 91.101 in the manner just
    described.

    3. Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims regarding 91.073(D), 91.094(A)
    and 91.101.(A) are hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter
    jurisdiction. The Court is without authority to rule on the parties'
    motions for summary judgment as regards those claims.

    With this one the court spent a lot of time discussing the 4th
    amendment came to the conclusion that no ordinance provision nullifies
    a warrant requirement prior to a seizure on this Ordinance that
    basically said that a tethering violation, some cruelty issue or for
    any ordinance violation would allow seizure w/o a warrant.

    4. With respect to all other claims presented in this case, Metro's
    motion for summary judgment(DN27) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' motion
    for summary judgment(DN 20) is DENIED.

    For those of us in other states we owe the Kentucky folks a debt of
    gratitude for taking this one to task and sticking it out over the
    long haul.
     
  2. Excellent news! Thank you SIMMS for sharing such wonderful news.
     
  3. art

    art Top Dog

    i live in the 502 big thanks :D:D:D
     
  4. simms

    simms CH Dog



    Up date...

    ---Permission to cross-post.' ''
    I'm on the phone with Barbara Haines, Louisville Kennel Club. We've been
    waiting for this decision for almost a year, but it was worth the wait.

    This ruling by a federal judge (an esteemed Constitutional scholar) is a
    profound victory.

    This precedent has far-reaching implications, and sets the stage for
    class-action lawsuits nationwide - anywhere similar ordinances have been
    enacted, and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been violated

    Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:

    1. Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search
    and seizure, etc.. (all protections provided by Constitution) apply to pets.
    You are the OWNER of your pets (not the "guardian.")
    2. Requirements for housing, treatment, etc.. cannot be mandated by
    legislation to be different for intact dogs (vs. altered dogs.).
    3. Seizure bond is FLAT-OUT illegal and unconstitutional. This practice
    constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after search warrant
    is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs
    must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold,
    "transferred" or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial.
    Meantime, owner DOES NOT have to pay a dime for their care, until/unless
    they are found guilty of the charges


     
  5. chinasmom

    chinasmom CH Dog

    ^^^ Wow and Fantastic. It's about time.
     
  6. lets hope they dont appeal.:eek:
     
  7. maybe we should all move to KY they seem to have made good start with that ruling. I think we should all write letters of thanks to the judge. but you first.:D
     
  8. outrightmike

    outrightmike CH Dog

    dosent that apply for the whole country since its a fed judge rulling on the behave of the constution?
     
  9. Horray, what a relief, NOTE TO EVERYONE, print these court papers and keep them at or near your front door at all times, I'm researching this through ADBA to see if these court papers & federal legislation will keep the SPCA's or HSUS from illegally confiscating our dogs. I'll get back with you as soon as I get a response from them.
    Great news though.
     
  10. I believe so, but am doing research on it.
     
  11. bgblok68

    bgblok68 CH Dog

    It's been a year. Are you still on here? Still researching? Whats up?
     

Share This Page