Court Rules Animals are Property!

Post Reply
User avatar
Rank: Champion
Posts: 373
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:14 am
Location: Ft Riley, KS

Court Rules Animals are Property!

Post by KwikIrish » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:23 pm

Just got this artical forwarded to me on my Setters List; Great News!

U.S. District court in Kentucky has ruled against a basic tenant of the
Animal Rights agenda. The historic challenge against Louisville Law wins
rights for all pet owners.

Compiled by Barbara Andrews © TheDogPress 10|20|09 - Barbara Haines,
Louisville Kennel Club, has been waiting for this decision for almost a year
The December 2007 suit by the LKC was joined by veterinarians and
pet owners. The Federal ruling sets a precedent with far-reaching
implications, and sets the stage for class-action lawsuits nationwide;
anywhere similar ordinances have been enacted and Constitutional rights of
pet owners have been violated.

Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:

* Pets are personal property, under the Constitution. Due process, search
and seizure, I.e. All protections provided by Constitution apply to pets.
The ruling reaffirms you are the OWNER of your pets, not a "guardian" as in
the state having the right to take you pet away as can be done with your

* Requirements for housing and care cannot be legislatively mandated as
different for intact dogs vs. Altered dogs.

* Seizure bond is illegal and unconstitutional because it constitutes
unlawful taking of personal property. If, after a search warrant is obtained
a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs must be held AS
IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold, transferred to anyone
or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial. If they arrest
you for commission of a crime involving your automobile, they can impound
your car but if you are found innocent, it must be returned to you in the
same condition in which it was seized. You are not charged storage fees. The
same applies to your dogs. You do NOT pay for their care, until/unless found
guilty of the charges.

This is major relief for pet owners as just the thought of their dogs being
euthanized or sold, and then being assessed thousands of dollars for
boarding and/or hysterectomy and castration has held owners in abject fear.

The plaintiffs prevailed on virtually every essential violation of the
Federal Civil Rights act asserted. As regards a provision that allows the
city to take away dog licenses for state or federal crimes not even related
to animals, U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson stated in his ruling, "This
section is more problematic than those discussed above, because it appears
to allow the director (of Metro Animal Services) to impose a civil
punishment for any reason at all, leaving citizens unaware of what actions
might constitute grounds for license revocation."

No longer can LMAS (Louisville Metropolitan Animal Services) inspect your
property and decide if you can own an unaltered dog. No longer can
Louisville authorities require a seizure bond where failure to post it makes
you forfeit your animals without a finding of guilt.

There is a case currently in Kenton County where 10 years ago, a woman's
beagles were confiscated on a nuisance issue and recently they came back and
asserted cruelty. When she could not post the seizure bond, they said the
animals became their property and they euthanized all of them including 10
year olds. They then dismissed the cruelty charges. This case is in Federal
Court in Northern Kentucky on a challenge to the seizure bond and a
violation of her civil rights. This decision by Judge Simpson holds that the
conversion of her animals without a finding of guilt violates her due
process rights.

This type of thing is happening all over the county and this decision will
have a huge impact. While the search and seizure issue was dismissed because
the city agreed with us, the Judge went on and discussed violations of the
Fourth Amendment and clearly indicated that the provision in the Ordinance
which allegedly permits seizure for any violation of this chapter (a
provision used by LMAS to seize puppies because of an alleged violation of
the Class A Kennel License), requires a warrant for seizure.

Info courtesy of, edited by BJ Andrews

How Animal Rights influence local government revealed in Man Bites Dog

AR Terrorists Lose Appeal A landmark Federal Court ruling in Kentucky.

AR Terrorism first-person account of armed break in, federal suit, FBI, etc.

Breeders Damaged by Animal Rightist Groups Actions

And summing it up, this from the AKC:

American Kennel Club - Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - Late Friday, United
States District Court Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, of the Western District
of Kentucky issued his decision in the case of the Louisville Kennel Club,
Inc. V. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government. A significant victory
for the Louisville Kennel Club, the judge's decision features two key
rulings that may also prove to be of great importance for dog owners

First, Judge Simpson held that there was no rational basis why owners of
unaltered dogs should be treated differently than the owners of altered dogs
This declared the part of the ordinance that required owners of unaltered
dogs to get the Director's written approval for those dogs' enclosures
(owners of altered dogs did not have such a requirement) as an
unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process.

Reiterating another court's earlier decision that recognized that dogs are
personal property, the judge further held Louisville's seizure bond
requirement as an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process rules
This requirement, which required anyone accused of animal cruelty to post
bond for the care of their seized animals, would have resulted in the
forfeiture of animals if they were not able to pay for the bond regardless
of whether or not they were later determined to be innocent.

"We congratulate the Louisville Kennel Club and their co-plaintiffs on their
leadership in opposing the Louisville ordinance," said Dennis Sprung,
President and CEO of the American Kennel Club. "We are confident that this
decision will encourage communities to consider the interests of responsible
dog breeders and owners when making changes to their animal ordinances."

For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department:
(919) 816-3720, go to the website, or e-mail
Happily owned by red heads-
Cairncross Cat Ballou
Donegans Deal Me In (11/25/2008-6/14/2012)

User avatar
Ryman Gun Dog
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:19 am
Location: Endless Mountains of Pa

Re: Court Rules Animals are Property!

Post by Ryman Gun Dog » Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:17 pm


Here in Pa animals of any kind have always been private property, this incudes farm animals. Human treatment is manditory by law, but all private property rights for search and seizure definitely apply. Even the state government here in Pa had to amend the Pa Constitution to inact new laws for kennels, trespassing on private property here in Pa to seize private property can be mighty risky. Especially with the new Castle Doctrine going into effect some time in March or April.

Post Reply