Sunday, May 17, 2009

TN Shelter Ordered by Judge to Reign in Killing of Redeemable Pets

I recently blogged about 2 seized Pitbulls in TN who were ordered released to their owner by a judge. The McKamey Animal Center killed both dogs before the owner got to the shelter to pick them up. The judge in the case has now issued a new order:
City Judge Sherry Paty has put down an order directing the McKamey Animal Care and Adoption Center not to euthanize animals [involved in court cases] without her approval.

Some new details emerge regarding the circumstances of the case as well:
Judge Paty said she heard a case on April 30 involving two dogs belonging to Raquelle Harrison of East Lake. She said the neighbor had complained about the dogs being chained to the fence, though she said the dogs had remained on Ms. Harrison's side of the fence and the neighbor did not come to court to testify.

She said the McKamey Center had gone out on April 17 and had taken the dogs, though they were still in Ms. Harrison's yard.

I'm not an attorney but I would think the owner has sufficient cause to pursue legal action against the McKamey Center. Since when is AC allowed to come into someone's yard and seize chained dogs who are contained within the yard? There is no mention made that the dogs were emaciated, lacking sufficient care or anything of that nature. And obviously even the judge agrees that killing the dogs was improper.

AC officers are supposed to help animals - not abuse their authority to seize and destroy them. I wonder if this is an isolated incident at McKamey or if there is a culture of abuse of power there and a history of killing pets waiting to be redeemed by owners.


Anonymous said...

I don't know about Tennessee, but here in Virgina that would have been an illegal seizure, as was explained to me by an ACO here in Fairfax County recently. I heard a news report on the radio the other day about law enforcement officers in Texas who have been abusing their power to seize property. I think it's becoming fairly widespread, and not confined to animals.

Susan said...

This, my friends, is a ticked-off judge. In her view, her order to release the dogs to the owner meant she wanted the dogs released to the owner, not killed on a stopwatch. Unfortunately, it is still true in most states that all you recover for the wrongful loss of a dog is its fair market value. This is beginning to change.

Anonymous said...

Its not an isolated problem,we are being railroaded right now by ac,they seized my fiances dog when she was bedfast from 3 surgeries on a cruelty x 3 charge for insufficent shelter even though they had doghouses appropriate for the weather at that time,and before it got cold we built new doghouses,they siezed the younger dog but left the older 2 and when we went to court the ac wanted to plea and if we signed over the adoptable dog we could keep the 2 older unadoptable ones! if we were so cruel then why did they leave the other 2 dogs? because they can make money on the younger one and make money from us for paying for them to keep the one they took!
The sad part is that the humane society is in with them,the d.a office is buddies with them and so is the judicial system and these poor animals are being legally kidnapped and sold for profit,breaking the hearts of the people who love them like children!