christySYK
01-21-2010, 09:33 AM
http://www.willcoxr angenews. com/articles/ 2010/01/20/ news/news01. txt
Confiscation of dogs returns to bite county
By Shar Porier/wick communications
Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:36 AM CST
BISBEE - The seizure of a number of dogs from an Elfrida breeder in April
2008 by a county animal control officer has led to a tort
complaint being filed against the county, the sheriff's office and members
of an anti-puppy mill/animal rescue group.
Barbara and Bob Ratliff are suing the county, People Assisting Kindred
Spirits (PAKS), Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Veterinary
Clinic and various people accused of taking 29 dogs from their property
based on a complaint of neglect that was several months old.
When the matter came before Judge David Morales on June 13, 2008, he tossed
the warrant on the grounds of "staleness" and then
stated that the dogs were to be returned to the owners.
The county appealed the decision by Morales, but Superior Court Judge
Wallace Hoggatt upheld the decision Dec. 16, 2008.
On Feb. 9, 2009, Morales mandated the dogs be returned. The county failed to
comply.
The Ratliffs' attorney Perry Hicks states in the tort claim, "It is obvious
from the records attached to this claim there was never
any intent to return the dogs to the Ratliffs, despite valid, lawful court
orders. ... The dogs were farmed out and adopted off with
the full knowledge and consent of (county animal control officer Crystal)
Callahan, despite the dogs were in the custody and care of
the Cochise County Sheriff's Office, were evidence in a criminal case and
were subject to being returned to the Ratliffs if they
prevailed. ... The loss of Barbara Ratliff's dogs is the direct result of
the illegal search and seizure of the dogs and negligent
acts of Cochise County, Officer Callahan, the sheriff's office and animal
control, as well as the intentional acts of PAKS and
members of PAKS."
The Ratliffs are now seeking damages from the county, the sheriff's
department, the animal control division and Callahan. The
Ratliffs allege unlawful search and seizure, wrongful taking of property,
violation of the right to privacy, negligent entrustment
and negligence as stated in the complaint filed Dec. 31 in Superior Court.
Also named in the suit are PAKS, Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Animal
Clinic, Mary Pencin, Tipling, Donna Dunham, Karen
Radcliff, Darlene Burnett, Mary Hinton, Sherry Hoard, Jenelle Rodenberg and
associated people involved in allegations of civil
conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and aiding and abetting tortious conduct.
Problems for the Ratliffs began in April 2008 with a search warrant.
According to documents provided by Hicks, the warrant was based
on a 4-month-old complaint made by Marjorie "Heidi" Tipling, a technician at
the Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox and a member of
PAKS. Tipling stated in her complaint on March 31, 2008, to Callahan that
the dogs were not being cared for, had no clean water,
were infested with ticks, had eye and limb injuries, and had no food
available to eat at the time of her "surprise shopper" visit in
December 2007.
With the warrant in hand, Callahan took possession of four adult dogs and
eight puppies on April 16, 2008, and transported the dogs
to Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox for evaluations. Callahan stated the
dogs were suffering from "gum disease, eye problems,
tick scabs, hernias and pale mucous membranes."
Callahan later returned and collected 17 more dogs from the Ratliffs on the
grounds their medical health could not be determined
without a "complete medical examination, " documents show.
The Ratliffs requested the dogs be taken to their veterinarian in Bisbee,
Dr. Charles Behney, until the matter could be resolved.
Deputies told them the dogs would go to Pencin and transportation to
Behney's could be arranged. But that didn't happen. Instead,
six dogs were transported to Pantano veterinary clinic in Tucson and several
were adopted out to other people involved with PAKS.
In an April 16, 2008, letter to the county, veterinarian Mary Pencin stated,
"Today the Cochise County Animal Officer from Sierra
Vista, Laurie, (no last name given), brought to the clinic and turned over
to PAKS for treatment and adoption twelve dogs."
According to PAKS adoption agreements, adopters agree to "provide a foster
animal with proper and routine veterinary care, including
wellness exams, current required and recommended vaccinations and urgent
emergency care as needed." The agreement also acknowledges
that the owner of the animal has the "right to access the animal."
Copies of 10 foster care agreements from PAKS were provided to Hicks, but no
other information was given about the whereabouts of
the remaining 19 dogs.
In May 2008, the county filed a motion in Justice Court to have the Ratliffs
forfeit the dogs.
But in June, Hicks filed a motion for dismissal of charges due to a "stale"
search warrant. Tipling allegedly shopped Ratliff on
December 20, 2007, yet waited until March 2008 to make a formal complaint.
Then it took three more weeks for the animal control
officer to act on the complaint.
Justice David Morales tossed the evidence found under the "stale" search
warrant. He then dismissed the charges. He also ordered the
county to transport the dogs to Behney's office at Ratliff's expense for
examination and care.
The date of the transport of the dogs was set for June 27. However, Callahan
stated in an affidavit that the dogs couldn't be
transported because she didn't know where the dogs were.
The county appealed the decision by Morales and refused to return the dogs
until the appeal had been heard. Superior Court Judge
Wallace Hoggatt upheld the ruling by Morales in favor of the Ratliffs on
Dec. 22, 2008.
Charges were dismissed with prejudice by the county attorney's office on
Jan. 22, 2009.
The same day, Donna Dunham with PAKS wrote to Callahan stating, "All the
dogs have expired." She stated that instructions were given
not to provide "extraordinary care."
Confiscation of dogs returns to bite county
By Shar Porier/wick communications
Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:36 AM CST
BISBEE - The seizure of a number of dogs from an Elfrida breeder in April
2008 by a county animal control officer has led to a tort
complaint being filed against the county, the sheriff's office and members
of an anti-puppy mill/animal rescue group.
Barbara and Bob Ratliff are suing the county, People Assisting Kindred
Spirits (PAKS), Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Veterinary
Clinic and various people accused of taking 29 dogs from their property
based on a complaint of neglect that was several months old.
When the matter came before Judge David Morales on June 13, 2008, he tossed
the warrant on the grounds of "staleness" and then
stated that the dogs were to be returned to the owners.
The county appealed the decision by Morales, but Superior Court Judge
Wallace Hoggatt upheld the decision Dec. 16, 2008.
On Feb. 9, 2009, Morales mandated the dogs be returned. The county failed to
comply.
The Ratliffs' attorney Perry Hicks states in the tort claim, "It is obvious
from the records attached to this claim there was never
any intent to return the dogs to the Ratliffs, despite valid, lawful court
orders. ... The dogs were farmed out and adopted off with
the full knowledge and consent of (county animal control officer Crystal)
Callahan, despite the dogs were in the custody and care of
the Cochise County Sheriff's Office, were evidence in a criminal case and
were subject to being returned to the Ratliffs if they
prevailed. ... The loss of Barbara Ratliff's dogs is the direct result of
the illegal search and seizure of the dogs and negligent
acts of Cochise County, Officer Callahan, the sheriff's office and animal
control, as well as the intentional acts of PAKS and
members of PAKS."
The Ratliffs are now seeking damages from the county, the sheriff's
department, the animal control division and Callahan. The
Ratliffs allege unlawful search and seizure, wrongful taking of property,
violation of the right to privacy, negligent entrustment
and negligence as stated in the complaint filed Dec. 31 in Superior Court.
Also named in the suit are PAKS, Pencin Veterinary Clinic, Pantano Animal
Clinic, Mary Pencin, Tipling, Donna Dunham, Karen
Radcliff, Darlene Burnett, Mary Hinton, Sherry Hoard, Jenelle Rodenberg and
associated people involved in allegations of civil
conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and aiding and abetting tortious conduct.
Problems for the Ratliffs began in April 2008 with a search warrant.
According to documents provided by Hicks, the warrant was based
on a 4-month-old complaint made by Marjorie "Heidi" Tipling, a technician at
the Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox and a member of
PAKS. Tipling stated in her complaint on March 31, 2008, to Callahan that
the dogs were not being cared for, had no clean water,
were infested with ticks, had eye and limb injuries, and had no food
available to eat at the time of her "surprise shopper" visit in
December 2007.
With the warrant in hand, Callahan took possession of four adult dogs and
eight puppies on April 16, 2008, and transported the dogs
to Pencin Veterinary Clinic in Willcox for evaluations. Callahan stated the
dogs were suffering from "gum disease, eye problems,
tick scabs, hernias and pale mucous membranes."
Callahan later returned and collected 17 more dogs from the Ratliffs on the
grounds their medical health could not be determined
without a "complete medical examination, " documents show.
The Ratliffs requested the dogs be taken to their veterinarian in Bisbee,
Dr. Charles Behney, until the matter could be resolved.
Deputies told them the dogs would go to Pencin and transportation to
Behney's could be arranged. But that didn't happen. Instead,
six dogs were transported to Pantano veterinary clinic in Tucson and several
were adopted out to other people involved with PAKS.
In an April 16, 2008, letter to the county, veterinarian Mary Pencin stated,
"Today the Cochise County Animal Officer from Sierra
Vista, Laurie, (no last name given), brought to the clinic and turned over
to PAKS for treatment and adoption twelve dogs."
According to PAKS adoption agreements, adopters agree to "provide a foster
animal with proper and routine veterinary care, including
wellness exams, current required and recommended vaccinations and urgent
emergency care as needed." The agreement also acknowledges
that the owner of the animal has the "right to access the animal."
Copies of 10 foster care agreements from PAKS were provided to Hicks, but no
other information was given about the whereabouts of
the remaining 19 dogs.
In May 2008, the county filed a motion in Justice Court to have the Ratliffs
forfeit the dogs.
But in June, Hicks filed a motion for dismissal of charges due to a "stale"
search warrant. Tipling allegedly shopped Ratliff on
December 20, 2007, yet waited until March 2008 to make a formal complaint.
Then it took three more weeks for the animal control
officer to act on the complaint.
Justice David Morales tossed the evidence found under the "stale" search
warrant. He then dismissed the charges. He also ordered the
county to transport the dogs to Behney's office at Ratliff's expense for
examination and care.
The date of the transport of the dogs was set for June 27. However, Callahan
stated in an affidavit that the dogs couldn't be
transported because she didn't know where the dogs were.
The county appealed the decision by Morales and refused to return the dogs
until the appeal had been heard. Superior Court Judge
Wallace Hoggatt upheld the ruling by Morales in favor of the Ratliffs on
Dec. 22, 2008.
Charges were dismissed with prejudice by the county attorney's office on
Jan. 22, 2009.
The same day, Donna Dunham with PAKS wrote to Callahan stating, "All the
dogs have expired." She stated that instructions were given
not to provide "extraordinary care."