Joint-Agency Investigations and Operational Planning
HLE may not always be the only agents involved in an animal cruelty investigation. In matters where the investigation may be complex, or where the investigating agency is not equipped to manage the scale or requirements of the investigation, that is, a large number of compromised animals, hoarding, animal fighting (dogfighting or cockfighting), bestiality, and so on, the investigating officer may request support from an outside agency with more comprehensive resources. Authorities, duties, and responsibilities differ from state to state and country to country. Regardless of which service, department, or agency is primary, the humane response body should be as organized and prepared as the lead agency.
In most law enforcement agencies, the most common operational planning system that is followed and recognized worldwide is known as SMEAC (situation, mission, execution, administration and logistics, and command and control). This system of operational planning began with the military and goes back several generations. The SMEAC operational plan allows for team leaders, regardless of agency, to bring together all departments and persons that will be involved and prepare for all possible contingencies. It sets out the Who/What/Where/When/Why/How for every person involved, from the police to the veterinarian to the animal handling team. Even if something goes awry (and it always does), such operational planning allows for personnel to remain on task, and should the unexpected happen, the delay can be minimized.
HLE, animal rescue services, or animal emergency response teams are the experts when it comes to animal cruelty and are well-versed in animal care, triage, transport, shelter setup, veterinary care, and veterinary forensic needs. When working with another agency as the lead, or even with multiple agencies, having an operational plan that uses the same format as the assisting agencies allows for clear communication between all levels and departments with regard to roles and responsibilities.
One example of an HLE agency that has developed an effective team approach is the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), which functions as the primary HLE service in Ontario. Agents and inspectors of the OSPCA are appointed under provincial law as peace officers and are granted all the authorities and privileges of police officers for the purpose of enforcing any legislation in Ontario for the protection of animals. In 2009, the Provincial Government of Ontario (Canada) made significant changes to provincial animal protection laws, establishing new offenses and penalties for persons who commit acts of cruelty. In 2014, the Ontario government mandated that a specialized team of animal cruelty investigators be established for the investigation and management of large-scale and complex animal cruelty investigations in Ontario. This resulted in the formation of the OSPCA Major Case Management (MCM) team. The MCM team is made up of a number of highly trained peace officers who receive specialized training in crime scene management, investigative techniques, crime scene photography and videography, search warrants and alternate search authorities, evidence collection, and animal handling and triage. The team responds to large-scale emergencies and natural disasters as part of the protocol for response with Emergency Management Ontario, and as such must be prepared to be deployed at the earliest notice. The team members are also provided with numerous resources and equipment to aid in accomplishing their goals, and all members are cross-trained on every person’s role, which can be interchangeable at any time.
In Ontario, in any investigation where the MCM team is required, prior to being deployed the team creates the operational plan. Several steps in planning and preparation are carried out, including review or preparation of search warrants and details of the investigation to date, logistical support, equipment inspection and preparation, personnel support, and assistance from other policing agencies and local veterinary resources. The team will then prepare a written operational plan and hold a briefing with all personnel involved, allowing for an open forum of clear communication.
When arriving on scene, the MCM team first begins with scene control and biosecurity. All steps are taken to minimize the risk of cross-contamination of evidence and disease transfer, and the safety of the officers is given high priority. In all cases, a certified veterinarian will accompany the MCM team to the locations; usually this is a veterinarian who is trained in veterinary forensic procedures. Working together, the team and the veterinarian plan the initial assessment of the scene, the priority of animal care, and the triage and subsequent removal of the animals from the location.
Following the first scene assessment, the priority then moves to the triage and care of the animals. Those in need of immediate care will be transported to veterinarians that have been identified as being located within a few minutes of the scene. The remaining animals, after triage, are then loaded and moved to secondary care locations which had been established during the operational planning stages prior to attending the scene. If possible, any evidence associated with the animals will be collected before removing them from their original locations, and photographs and video will be taken of the evidence and the animals in situ. After animals are removed from the location, the collection and processing of evidence continues. Officers, police, and forensic veterinarians work hand in hand, implementing government-established guidelines and best practices throughout the execution and processing of the scene.
Following completion of the operation, a debriefing must be held as soon as practicably possible to discuss what worked and what did not, to identify problems or breakdowns, and to implement best practices for future operations.
Case Examples: Veterinary Forensics with Singular Officer and Joint-Agency Operations
CASE 1: "The Groomer"
In this case, the OSPCA was contacted by a private citizen whose small Lhasa Apso—type dog died shortly after it had been taken to a groomer.
The owners had dropped off their dog at the groomer at 10:00 AM. The groomer was familiar with the dog, as its owner was a regular customer. About one and a half hours after the dog had been dropped off, the groomer contacted the owners telling them that there was an “incident” and their dog had died. When the owners arrived, the groomer told them that their dog had “choked on his collar.” The owners were taken to their dog, which was lying on a table in the back of store wrapped in a towel. When they picked it up the owners noted that the dog was wet, to which the groomer explained that he tried putting water on the dog to revive him. The owners took the dog to their veterinary clinic, at which time the dog was pronounced dead on arrival. An OSPCA agent was assigned and the owners signed over the body of the dog for further examination. The dog was immediately transported to the Animal Health Laboratory in Guelph, Ontario and submitted for necropsy.
When the groomer was interviewed, he stated that the dog had a history of being aggressive during nail trimmings. On this occasion, the groomer used a muzzle and had the dog tethered to the grooming table using a single tether strap around the neck. The groomer claimed that the dog became aggressive and jumped off the table, and while he tried to release the tether and muzzle the dog became unresponsive.
The preliminary necropsy findings stated that there was a 5 mm focal acute hemorrhage of the conjunctiva of the right eye. There was a vertical linear hemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue 5 cm long by 1 cm wide on the left flank just behind the ribs on the hind end. Internal examination revealed that the lungs were congested and edematous.
Histopathology confirmed that there was swelling in the brain; diseases that might have caused this, such as rabies, equine encephalitis, and West Nile virus, were ruled out. The cause of death was determined to be from traumatic brain injury. The veterinary pathologist stated that the manner of death was inconclusive, but based on the postmortem examination, accidental or nonaccidental blunt force trauma and possible asphyxia should be considered. Following the results of the investigation, these two possibilities could then either be ruled in or ruled out.
Further investigation based on the veterinary forensic report led to the conclusion that the dog had not choked on its collar as originally stated by the groomer. During further interviews, it was revealed that the groomer was alone at the time of the grooming. At some point the groomer had stepped away from the dog and left it in the muzzle and restraint. When he returned, the dog was found unresponsive.
It was determined through the findings of the veterinary pathologist and the interviews with the groomer that the dog had become agitated while being restrained and struggled to get free, causing it to fall from the table. Unable to regain footing, the dog had asphyxiated. The markings found on the body during the preliminary postmortem were consistent with the size and position of the wire restraints used on the grooming table—one around the neck, the other around the hind end—and not the dog’s collar, as originally stated at the time of the incident.
As a result, the groomer was charged and convicted under provincial law for causing distress to an animal. While the court ruled that the incident was not intentional, it was deemed neglectful and therefore preventable. The penalty was 12 months of probation, restitution to the owners in the amount of $2500, and payment of costs to the OSPCA in the amount of $1500. In addition, the court ordered that the groomer be given 6 months to modify the grooming facility to ensure that safe handling practices and equipment were put in place to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future. A later inspection by the OSPCA confirmed that the groomer created an employee policy that stated a minimum of two persons would be with each animal to ensure its safety, and the equipment was positioned in the facility to limit the movement of the animal during grooming in order to prevent accidental falls.
CASE 2: "The Rabbit Hoarder"
In early 2014, members of the OSPCA MCM Team were deployed to assist on an OSPCA Section 12 (1J warrant (animal in distress), at a residential home in Eastern Ontario. The OSPCA were contacted after a solicitor attended the property and became concerned about the foul odor emanating from inside the home. This was reported to 911, and fire services arrived in response. On arrival, firefighters reported that there was no one in the home, but found that the home was filled with rabbits of different breeds. There were feces, garbage, and decomposing carcasses of animals throughout the home. The homeowner was a local resident who was not able to be located at the time. A local OSPCA agent assisted fire service in providing water to the live animals that could be accessed, and a request was made for the OSPCA MCM team to be deployed.
Within 24 hours, members of the OSPCA MCM team had prepared an operational plan, which included drafting a search warrant and organizing the participation and coordination of numerous agencies: police, fire services, public health officials, local veterinarians and animal shelters, and a forensic veterinarian to accompany the team to the scene. Police were to be responsible for scene security and officer safety; fire services were to be on standby at the site to help with safety inspections and to provide assistance with negative pressure fans used to move poor air out of the residence; public health officials were to be permitted to inspect the location after the initial assessment and would make decisions regarding not only the residence itself, but the impact on the adjoining properties and people. The forensic veterinarian was to assist team members responsible for evidence collection, and to provide instructions on how and what would be taken as samples for further examination. OSPCA MCM team members were assigned respective duties as well: scribe, first aid, and team safety officer, photography, evidence collection, assistance to the forensic veterinarian, and animal handling in triage. One team member was designated as officer in charge and was responsible for overseeing the team actions and duties.
At approximately 2:00 PM the following afternoon, members of the OSPCA MCM team arrived at the location. The location was secured for preparation of inspection. Upon exiting their vehicles, they were immediately aware of a foul odor emanating from the residence; the odor was pungent and was recognized as that of rotting or decomposing meat. There was no response from inside the residence and the owner was not present.
The OSPCA MCM team members established biosecurity as a priority and donned personal protective equipment including coveralls, safety boots, full-face respirators, and latex gloves. At 2:20 PM, the first wave of OSPCA members—the assessment team—accompanied by the forensic veterinarian, entered the residence to ascertain whether animals were in distress and to what extent, and to photograph and document the location as it appeared.
Upon opening the front door of the residence, it was noted the odor became much stronger, and it was apparent that it was indeed emanating from inside the residence. At 2:23 PM, the veterinarian had ordered all live animals be removed from the property due to unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
Following the initial inspection, at 2:40 PM the second wave of team members entered the residence through the front door to assist in the systematic removal of the live animals from inside the residence. Upon entering, one team member noted that the interior of the residence was almost impassible; piles of trash and debris, old clothes, and feces were observed everywhere. As they proceeded further into the residence through the living room, they observed several live rabbits in cages, some on their own and others in cages with dead and decomposing animals.
Team members also observed several guinea pigs running loose in the living room and kitchen. They noted the water that had been provided to the live animals in cages on the previous evening by the local agent and fire services.
In the living room, team members observed several large garbage bags that were torn. After documenting these with photography, they found decomposing rabbit carcasses; other bags contained animal feces. The number of carcasses in bags was undetermined at the time because the level of decomposition was in various stages, with some in a partial state of decay and others that had become liquefied. Debris, trash, and dead and decomposing animals were found throughout the residence, in the kitchen, bedrooms, and basement. In the basement, there were several large rabbit carcasses, some of which were very bloated and beginning to decompose. Several large live rabbits were seen moving about as well.
In the bathroom on the main floor, the partially decomposed body of a small breed dog (possible terrier type) was observed. This body was later taken as evidence, as directed by the forensic veterinarian.
At 3:00 PM, the team members assigned to animal handling and triage began with the removal of the live animals. The animals were removed to the outside, photographed and logged, and preliminary medical assessment was conducted on each animal by the veterinarian; animals in need of immediate care were separated and transported to a local veterinary hospital. Following the removal of the live animals, several carcasses were seized for postmortem at the direction of the forensic veterinarian. An Ontario SPCA Certificate of a Veterinarian was executed and fourteen live rabbits, four guinea pigs, one deceased dog, and four deceased rabbits were removed from the property. It was later determined that there were approximately 300 animal carcasses in the home.
Following the removal of animals, public health officials not only condemned the home as a public health hazard, but also directed the families on either side of the home to be evacuated until the home could be cleaned and inspected by the health department and deemed safe for them to return.
The forensic veterinarian assisted the investigating officers with properly packaging the animals seized for postmortem for transport to a veterinary pathologist. The veterinarian also assisted with clearly articulating the necessary details and expectations required by the pathologist and providing details of the scene and the conditions.
The final report from the pathologist who examined the deceased animals clearly demonstrated that the cause of death was emaciation due to starvation. In addition, trauma was clearly ruled in as a potential factor. In one rabbit, cause of death was determined to be from an untreated kidney disorder. The conclusion was that the animals in this situation suffered needlessly because of neglect to provide even the basic standards of care.
The owner was eventually located and charged with several counts under provincial law. The owner was sentenced and received 2 years probation and a lifetime ban on owning, caring for, or living with any animals. She was fined $6000 and was also ordered to pay $4969.20 in restitution to the Ontario SPCA.
It can be seen from these case examples that while most situations handled by HLE are small enough that a single agency can fulfill all the duties, some require additional assistance from outside groups. Regardless of which agencies join the investigation, it is important that they are notified as early in the process as possible, and that all roles and responsibilities are clearly distributed.
