Ag Law Case Annotations :: Criminal Law

City v. Traylor, NO. 2008-1460, 2009 Ohio LEXIS 2265 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Aug. 26, 2009)(defendant's conviction for violating vicious dog ordinance reinstated; ordinance rationally related to City's legitimate interest in protecting citizens from vicious dogs).

State v. Stewart, No. E2008-00969-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 614 (Tenn. Ct. Cr. App. Aug. 3, 2009)(defendant's conviction of animal cruelty upheld; defendant shot arthritic dog as it was walking away).

Davis v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)(trial court determination that defendant guilty of promoting or staging animal fighting contest affirmed; substantial basis existed supporting issuance of search warrant).     

Mutter, et al. v. Sanders, et al., No. 06-3259, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37243 (C.D. Ill. May 4, 2009)(plaintiffs acquitted of illegally taking an albino deer in violation of state (IL) law, but then filed Bivens action against investigating/arresting Conservation officers; defendants had probably cause for arrest and entitled to summary judgment on false arrest and unlawful detention claims; defendants entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful interrogation claims; defendants also entitled to summary judgment on false arrest and false imprisonment claims under state law; defendants also entitled to summary judgment on malicious prosecution claim under state law due to lack of malice).

United States v. Gilkerson, No. 08-1138 (8th Cir. Feb. 24, 2009)(individual can be a "migratory bird preservation facility" for purposes of prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act).

United States v. Ritchie, No. 07-10094, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3409 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2009)(defendant's sentence for marijuana possession upheld; no reasonable expectation of privacy in trailer where defendant spent the night, and trailer used occasionally as a place to sleep while performing farm chores does not constitute a "home" for purposes of establishing Fourth Amendment protection in curtilage of home).

People v. Henderson, No. 285677, 2009 Mich. App. LEXIS 217 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2009)(prosecution sufficiently established and probable cause present that defendant committed animal torture and failed to provide adequate care to horses; prosecution not required to prove that defendant intended to harm the animals).

Armon v. McHenry County, et al., No. 07 C 50173, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104553 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2008)(summary judgment granted for defendants on claim that defendants violated plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of an alleged illegal search of plaintiff’s farm and seizure of several animals; sufficient evidence present that animals living in “horrible” conditions and search warrant valid).

State v. Hoffman, No. 07AP-886, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 5505 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2008)(sufficient evidence present to uphold defendant’s conviction on four counts of cruelty to animals; cows recklessly confined without supply of sufficient quantity of wholesome food and water and cause of death related to severe dehydration and emaciation).

State v. Simmons, No. WD 68948, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1717 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2008)(conviction for unlawful merchandising practices arising from misrepresentations made in the course of selling cattle upheld; defendant told buyer that all of the cows the defendant was selling had raised at least one generation of calves while on defendant’s farm, but such statement did not match sale barn records showing that some cows had been recently acquired).

Montana v. Cotterell, No. DA 07-0468, 2008 Mont. LEXIS 651 (Mont. Sup. Ct. Dec. 9, 2008)(defendant charged with various criminal violations of state hunting laws based initially on discovery of game feeder and salt-block viewed by state game officials from airplane; defendant moved to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment; trial court's denial of defendant's motion upheld because "search" was merely an innocent observation of defendant's property and not a "search" as contemplated by the Fourth Amendment; defendant's posting of property insufficient to shield any and all observation of items not shielded or protected from view from places exterior to the property).

Carter v. Cookie Coleman Cattle Company, Inc., No. 07-06-0436-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 8795 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2008)(conversion case involving buying and selling of cattle).

Abagninin, et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation, et al., No. 07-56326, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20226 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2008)(plaintiffs’ claim against defendants, makers of certain agricultural pesticide, for genocide and crimes against humanity based on allegation that pesticide caused male sterility and low sperm counts dismissed; plaintiffs did not allege that defendants acted with specific intent as required for genocide claim, and did not allege that defendants’ conduct occurred within context of a State or organizational policy as to crimes against humanity claim).

State v. Brooks, No. 07 CA 01111-M, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 3150 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 28, 2008)(defendant’s conviction and sentence resulting from 20 counts of animal cruelty upheld; convictions supported by evidence that horses had insufficient grass, grain or hay to eat and were not adequately sheltered from sun).

Dahlgren v. First National Bank of Holdrege, No. 07-1951, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14732 (8th Cir. Jul. 11, 2008)(cattle company placed in involuntary receivership and Chapter 7 bankruptcy upon $1.7 million in losses and $200,000 in bankruptcy litigation expenses sustained by fourteen cattle investors who were fattening cattle and storing grain at cattle company’s feedlot; cattle investors sued defendant, feedlot’s primary lender under RICO claiming that defendant misled them into continuing to do business with feedlot by concealing feedlot’s true financial condition; jury found defendant liable on all claims and district court denied defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law; on appeal court reversed trial court’s denial of motion for judgment as a matter of law on RICO claim, but trial court verdict on various fraud claims affirmed in part and reversed in part).

State v. Kolb, No. F-07-016, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2766 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2008)(arrest of defendant not within curtilage of home and, therefore, not within home’s umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection; while arrest occurred within close proximity of home, area not enclosed by fence or any form of enclosure and defendant did not engage in activities in front of home in which he engaged in private areas of home; area in which arrest occurred observable from highway).

State v. Koczur, No. SC 18058, 2008 Conn. LEXIS 214 (Conn. Sup. Ct. Jun. 3, 2008) (judgment for plaintiff against defendant on charge of animal cruelty or neglect upheld; animal cruelty statute applicable and not unconstitutionally vague).

Simko v. Intravaia, et al., No. 06-5369-cv, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9417 (2d Cir. May 1, 2008)( warrantless entry onto plaintiff’s property constituted reasonable search; area (dog shed) searched not within curtilage of plaintiff’s home – shed unattractive to private home activities, accessible with minimal effort and openly exposed to neighboring properties).

Reams v. Irvin, No. 1:06-CV-1511-RWS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25350 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2008)(state agriculture officials impounded 46 of plaintiff’s horses and 3 of her donkeys based on claim that plaintiff was not providing them adequate food and shelter; plaintiff brought claims against state officials for violation of her Constitutional rights; Due Process requirement satisfied by availability of both administrative and state court review, no Equal Protection violation, and areas where animals located not part of curtilage of home so no Fourth Amendment violation).

United States v. Lepp, No. CR 04-00317 MHP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17303 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2008)(criminal law case involving search of rural property where marijuana was grown; involves concepts of curtilage and open fields doctrine).

Animal Legal Defense Fund, et al. v. Mendes, et al., No. F052009, 160 Cal. App. 4th 136 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (dairy farm not subject to animal cruelty claim by plaintiff; state law did not provide for a private right of action).