On March 11, 2005, the men were arrested and 57 dogs were seized from their Youngsville home after a Louisiana State Police investigation into alleged dogfighting.They stood trial in October 2008 and were acquitted of all charges.
According to state law, upon acquittal, all items confiscated from the Boudreauxs should be returned to them, [attorney Richard] Dalton said.
"But all the dogs are dead," he said.
It will be interesting to see how the court rules in what seems to be a complex case:
According to Louisiana Revised Statute 14:102.6, the law enforcement officer making the arrest can lawfully take possession of suspected fighting dogs and "cause them to be humanely euthanized as soon as possible by a licensed veterinarian or a qualified technician."So was this a case of the SPCA going rogue? What's their explanation for killing the dogs immediately upon seizure?But the law further allows the owners to post a bond with the court "within 15 days after receiving notice of such seizure..."
The Boudreauxs were arrested on a Friday, Dalton said. They were in jail until Monday and were unable to post a bond on their dogs until then.
By then, the dogs were dead, euthanized by the SPCA with 24 hours of being seized in the police raid, he said.
In testimony during their trial, Trooper Jacob Dickinson, a state police investigator who headed the case, said the SPCA gave investigators no prior notice before euthanizing the dogs.
Posts
10 comments:
wow... this could be interesting.
I assume "what is the explanation" is a rhetorical question? We KNOW why they killed the dogs so quickly
I meant that I am interested to hear their side of the story. The case investigators seem to be throwing the SPCA under the bus and I wonder how they will respond to that. For example, maybe they will say "No, the authorities told us to kill them immediately".
I am very interested in seeing how this turns out. It gets my wheels turning.
Huh. I am curious how this will play out as well.
I remember back when it happened and how there was a lot of ruckus among certain members of the pit bull community about the near instant deaths of these dogs, but it never left the pit bull community that I saw. The world has changed so much for fight bust dogs recently.
I am from Louisiana and am familiar with Mr. Boudreaux and his dogs. This was a case of Laura Maloney wanting to lead her organization, the LA SPCA, on a quest to gain praise and adoration for a job well done in the taking down of the "godfather of dogfighting". But as there was no proof or evidence to actually stand behind such a raid and such accusations, Mr. B. and his son were acquitted. Yet let's not kid ourselves on the real reason for this raid: to rid the world of APBTs. No matter what came out of Maloney's mouth about her owning an "abused, rescued pit bull", she did not like the dogs, she despised their history, and was determined to rid the world of the dogs and all those associated with them. Too bad she went in guns a'blazing with nothing but her own opinions and judgements to lead the way.
Not only were all the dogs dead in 24 (under 48) hours, but 1 died of heat stroke while being held in that hot van. Bet you didn't hear them admit such a "tragedy", did you?
I wish Mr. B. the best and you can be on the lookout for my own opinoins of this topic in the LA newspaper, The Advocate.
As an APBT and a certified Vet Tech, I stand behind Mr. B. all the way. And I pray that this not only changes the law that allows for such quick execution of innocent dogs belonging to innocent people, but it puts an end to innocent people having their live and reputations destroyed all because some gung-ho person can't let go of legal hisorical actions and tries to destroy them.
Why on earth would ANYONE have 57 pitbulls? Upon first hearing this, it seems to be highly suspect, not that that excuses the SPCA's actions. But if they were not used for fighting, were not part of a rescue org, were not altered, then they were themselves part of the problem too.
Does it really matter why if he wasn't breaking any laws?
I truly don't believe Boudreaux is a squeaky clean guy. He was a dog fighter before it became illegal and he breeds his dogs and sells them as a pretty respected line of old style pit bulls. While I don't agree with keeping 57 dogs of any type and I don't agree with that kind of production of more dogs, provided that they were cared for and appropriately housed, it is not illegal.
Didn't Laura Maloney work for HSUS before the LaSPCA job?
In any case, I have no doubt the marching orders to kill the dogs came from Wayne et al. They cared less about putting some broken down old (former) dogfighter in jail than in killing renowned "fighting" dogs.
As Katie, notes, the world sure has changed for bust dogs.
Interesting in light of the outcome of the recent Louisville KY court case which ruled both seizure bonds AND depriving an individual of their property without the return of a guilty verdict to be a violation of Constitional Rights.
It was noted in the KY case that State or Municipal laws DO NOT trump constitutional laws. I have little doubt that this recent KY case will be a useful precedent for citation in this case in LA. The SPCA and officials involved should be very, very concerned that their haste will cost them heavily financially.
I wonder if this is where LA SPCA supporters thought this is where their donations would be going?
Kelly,
Assuming it isn't against the law to own 57 dogs, why is it important? The point is an innocent man was deprived of his property. I would hope action against the group who killed them is swift and severe.
I wonder if he's still listed on "Pet Abuse.com"?
Post a Comment