The Courtroom, Possible Outcomes, and the Emotional Toll

The Courtroom

HLE officers typically face a court system that simply doesn’t place much emphasis on animal cruelty cases. Incidents of cruelty may result in mere summary or petty offense charge and may be treated as little more than a parking violation. At this level the case will most likely never see a jury trial, and the judges handling bench trials in some cities have such a heavy load that they cannot stop to familiarize themselves with the state animal laws. In some rural areas a judge may be completely naive of them, having scarcely seen cases of animal cruelty, if at all. Occasionally, judges and attorneys will trivialize the matter even further, mocking a medical condition they are ignorant of, or poking fun at "Fluffy’s’’ silly expression in a photo, further destroying any validity that the case may have had. This not only demeans the law but also an officer’s self-respect and peace of mind. They may have worked the case for weeks or months, only to have it be made fun of or laughed at in an apathetic or indifferent manner. In addition, at the petty offense level the defendant often chooses to plea bargain, resulting in the officer having no opportunity to present the facts they may have worked hard to obtain, and having a small fine be the only punishment. Judges may refuse to even look at the photographs or video, or some judges may find a defendant guilty but still award custody of the animals back to the defendant for any number of reasons; the officers can see this as defeating the entire purpose and may feel as if they failed the animals they were trying to save (Arluke, 2004).

Possible Outcomes

Petty offenses can rise to the level of misdemeanors depending on many aggravating factors, which differ from state to state. For example, in Pennsylvania an offender can be charged with a misdemeanor if they maim or disfigure an animal; in a case of hoarding, for example, the charges can rise from a summary offense to a misdemeanor if one of the hoarded animals has a broken leg. In contrast, in Colorado, an offender’s first conviction of animal cruelty is a misdemeanor. But frequently built into the statute are the terms “knowingly” or "intentionally,” and proving this awareness or intent can be difficult. Misdemeanor cases will sometimes be tried before a jury, but typically in many large cities they are heard by a judge. Convictions usually do not result in jail time, however, no matter where the case is tried.

Although all 50 states now have felony provisions for animal cruelty, what constitutes a felony charge differs from state to state. A second animal cruelty offense in a state where the first conviction was a misdemeanor would result in a felony charge; such as in Colorado. Dogfighting is a felony in all states. In Florida, a felony charge can result from an intentional act that results in excessive or repeated unnecessary pain or suffering or cruel death (www.leg.state.fl.us).

What of the Animals?

As surprising as it may seem, the animals that were the recipients of such inhumane treatment are often either forgotten or pushed to the backburner as soon as they arrive at the facility tasked with caring for them, or they are simply viewed as a burden. If a defendant is found guilty, appeals can continue the case for years. Some appeals have reached state supreme courts. Unless voluntary surrender has been obtained or a court order relinquishes custody of the animals involved to the agency providing care, they must remain on hold for the duration of the appeal. This can, in some ways, be seen as just as cruel as the initial act.

An animal from a cruelty case may be considered evidence for the entire duration of its case. Animal cruelty law varies from state to state but most states do not have provisions for the disposition of the animals while the case is still active. This may mean that any animals seized must remain at an animal shelter or animal welfare facility for months to even years until their case is adjudicated. The cost of treating, feeding, and caring for these animals can be exorbitant. The animals often cannot be spayed or neutered or given any treatment that is not lifesaving in nature (such as dental work or lipoma removal) due to the fact that “evidence,” even in the form of a live animal, cannot be altered or changed in any way. If special treatment is needed, the HLE officer or prosecuting attorney can petition the judge in the case to obtain approval or can speak with the defendant’s attorney, who can then communicate the request to the defendant for permission, but this can be a burdensome process. The possibility of these difficulties and of the enormous financial burden can deter many agencies from pursuing legal action in these cases, creating yet another disincentive for enforcing the animal cruelty statutes. One case handled in part by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) resulted in the seizure of over 200 dogs which were held for more than 13 months and required over $600,000 in care (Sinclair et al., 2013).

Some animal welfare facilities have foster care programs in place that allow an animal to be placed in a home until the case is resolved, but many do not. Still, for the agencies fortunate enough to have these programs, it can be difficult to locate willing participants. Foster “parents" must be made to understand and are required to sign a contract agreeing that the animal does not legally belong to them and that they cannot alter the animal, have it spayed or neutered, or post photographs of the animal on social media. If an animal accidentally becomes pregnant while in protective custody foster, the offspring immediately become part of the case as well. It can be difficult to find individuals or families willing to make a commitment to care for and bond with an animal that may be returned to its original owner per court order, even after spending a significant amount of time in the foster home.