Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Cruel Confinement - § 21. Limiting Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy | FL CONST Art. 10 § 21 | West's F. S. A. Const. Art. 10 § 21 | This ballot proposal, adopted in 2002 and effective in 2008, addresses the inhumane treatment of animals, specifically, pregnant pigs. The law provides that to prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, and an effective date. This measure passed in the November 2002 election with 54% of the vote. | Statute |
| FL - Cruelty, Humane Slaughter - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes/Humane Slaughter Laws | West's F. S. A. § 828.01 - 828.43; West's F. S. A. § 768.139 | FL ST 828.01 - 828.43; FL ST § 768.139; FL ST § 843.19 | This section comprises the Florida anti-cruelty laws. Under this section, the word "animal" includes every living dumb creature. The misdemeanor violation of animal cruelty (section 828.12) occurs when a person unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or carries in or upon any vehicle, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner. A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal, or a person who owns or has the custody or control of any animal and fails to act, which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering is guilty of a felony of the third degree. Psychiatric or psychological counseling are also mandatory for convicted offenders. The section also criminalizes animal abandonment and neglect as well as animal fighting. | Statute |
| FL - Definitions - Animal Definitions | West's F. S. A. § 828.02 | FL ST § 828.02 | The word "animal" shall be held to include every living dumb creature. | Statute |
| FL - Fur - Sale of garments or items of clothing containing dog or cat fur prohibited; | West's F. S. A. § 828.1231 | FL ST § 828.1231 | Makes it illegal for a person to knowingly sell or offer to sell a garment which contains dog or cat fur, or a dog or cat pelt. Defines the first violation of this provision as a misdemeanor of the first degree, and any subsequent violations as felonies of the third degree. Allows any law enforcement agency or humane officer to enforce this provision and to seek a civil penalty up to $5,000 for each violation. | Statute |
| FL - Horse Slaughter - Chapter 828. Animals: Cruelty; Sales; Animal Enterprise Protection. | West's F. S. A. § 828.125 | FL ST § 828.125 | Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed this amendment into law on May 17, 2010 making it a second-degree felony for any person to willfully and unlawfully, by any means whatsoever, kill, maim, mutilate, or cause great bodily harm or permanent breeding disability to any animal of the genus Equus (horse). Any person who commits a violation of this subsection shall be sentenced to a minimum mandatory fine of $3,500 and a minimum mandatory period of incarceration of 1 year. | Statute |
| FL - Miami-Dade County - Chapter 5 - ANIMALS AND FOWL. | Sec. 5-1 - 5-25 |
This comprises Miami-Dade County, Florida's animal-related ordinances. Among the ordinances of note include a voluntary registration program for cats, minimum standards of care for kennels and pet dealers, and requirements for the humane trapping of dogs and cats. Most importantly, the county has a controversial breed specific ban on pit bull dogs that has been in place since 1990. Veterinary offices, kennels, commercial breeders, commercial animal establishments, pet shops, and dog grooming businesses are required to post conspicuous signs that inform residents of the ban. |
Local Ordinance | |
| FL - Police dog - 843.19. Offenses against police canines, fire canines, SAR canines, or police horses | West's F. S. A. § 843.19 | FL ST § 843.19 | This law makes it a felony of the second degree to intentionally and knowingly, without lawful cause or justification, causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or death to, or uses a deadly weapon upon, a police canine, fire canine, SAR canine, or police horse. Further, any person who actually and intentionally maliciously touches, strikes, or causes bodily harm to a police canine, fire canine, SAR canine, or police horse commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, Any person who intentionally or knowingly maliciously harasses, teases, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with a police canine, fire canine, SAR canine, or police horse while the animal is in the performance of its duties commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. | Statute |
| Fleet v District Court of New South Wales | [1999] NSWCA 363 |
The appellant's dog was removed by police officers and later euthanised. The dog was emaciated and suffering from numerous ailments. The appellant was charged and convicted with an animal cruelty offence and failure to state his name and address when asked. On appeal, it was found that the court had failed to address the elements of the animal cruelty offence and that the charge of failing to state name and address could not stand. |
Case | |
| Ford v. Com. | 630 S.E.2d 332 (Va. 2006) | 48 Va.App. 262 (2006) |
In this Virginia case, the defendant was convicted of maliciously shooting a companion animal of another “with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill,” contrary to Va. Code § 18.2-144, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions, where the defendant admitted he drove the vehicle witnesses saw by the barn where the dog was shot and one witness saw him shoot toward the barn. |
Case |
| Ford v. Wiley | 23 QBD 203 |
A farmer who had caused the horns of his cattle to be sawn off, a procedure which had caused great pain, was liable to conviction for cruelty. For an operation causing pain to be justifiable, it had to be carried out in pursuit of a legitimate aim that could not reasonably be attained through less painful means, and the pain inflicted had to be proportionate to the objective sought. The mere fact that the defendant believed that the procedure was necessary did not remove him from liability to conviction if, judged according to the circumstances that he believed to exist, his actions were not objectively justifiable. |
Case |