Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scared manually restrained night monkey laying on an unclean countertop | Slideshow Images | ||||
| Scent Identification Procedures in the U.S. Have Different History and Different Procedures From Those Conducted in Europe | John Ensminger | Animal Legal & Historical Center | Scent lineups, designed to use a dog’s behavior to establish that two scents, one from a crime scene and one from a suspect, derive from the same person, have been conducted in radically different ways in the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., scent lineups are often performed outdoors, in fields or parking lots, while in Europe they have for decades only been conducted indoors, often in canine forensic laboratories. In the U.S., lineups of individuals, as opposed to scents taken from individuals, have been part of standard practice in some jurisdictions until recently, but this has not been done in Europe for decades. Tracking of a suspect through a police station has been accepted as a formal identification procedure in the U.S., but not in Europe. | Article | |
| Scent lineups compared across eleven countries | Barbara Ferry, John J. Ensminger, Adee Schoon, Zbignev Bobrovskij, David Cant, Maciej Gawkowski, IIlkka Hormila, Pavel Kos, Ferenc Less, Elena Rodionova, Klim T. Sulimov, Leif Woidtke, Tadeusz Jezierski | A scent lineup is generally a procedure whereby a dog's alerting behavior is used to establish that the dog detects two scents, one from a crime scene and one from a suspect, as deriving from the same person. The aim of this article is to compare methodologies of using dogs in scent lineups as a means of identifying perpetrators of crimes. It is hoped that this comparative approach, looking at countries where the method is currently or has in the past been used, will help determine what issues should be addressed in order to assure that the scent lineup will have a future as a forensic technique. Participants from eleven countries—Belgium, The Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Russia, and the U.S.—completed a survey questionnaire regarding key aspects of the scent lineup procedures used by the police in their countries. Although there was broad overlap on certain matters, such as the use of control and zero trials, collection of decoy scents from individuals of similar gender and race as the suspect, materials for holding scent, frequency of cleaning and changing stations, and use and timing of rewards, there were significant differences in the degree of blindness required, who calls an alert (handler or experimenter), and whether handlers can work with more than one dog. The gap between recommendations and results available from the scientific literature and procedures used in police practice was greater for some countries than others, even taking into account that some scientific methodologies might be expensive or impractical given agency resources. The authors make recommendations about how to go forward if scent lineups are to remain a valid forensic technique. | Article | ||
| Scharer v. San Luis Rey Equine Hosp., Inc. | 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 921 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) | 210 Cal.App.4th 384; 2012 WL 661684 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) |
Horse owner sued veterinarians and equine hospital for professional malpractice after horse was euthanized less than two months after surgery to remove horse’s ovaries. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants based on the one-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that equitable tolling did not apply because plaintiff was not prevented from pursuing her claim in a timely manner by the defendants or the court. A provision in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act extending the statute of limitations by 90 days did not apply absent a claim for personal injury or wrongful death to a person. |
Case | |
| Scheele v. Dustin | 998 A.2d 697 (Vt.,2010) | 2010 VT 45 |
A dog that wandered onto defendant’s property was shot and killed by defendant. The dog’s owners sued under an intentional tort theory and a claim for loss of companionship. The Supreme Court upheld the award of economic damages for the intentional destruction of property. It also held that the owners could not recover noneconomic damages for emotional distress under Vermont common law. |
Case | |
| SCHELLMAN/ARCOS DORADOS RESTAURANTES DE CHILE LTDA, Tika the dog, Chile 2024 Do not publish yet | Case | ||||
| Schindler v. Mejias | 100 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012) | 2012 WL 5950370 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.); 955 N.Y.S.2d 252 |
This appeal is an appeal of the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment in a defamation action. Plaintiff, an attorney, brought an action against Hector L. Mejias Jr., an employee of defendant Ulster County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, claiming that Mejias falsely accused him of misrepresenting himself as the Ulster County District Attorney during a sworn deposition. The statement occurred during an incident at the SPCA where Plaintiff-Schindler was trying to pick up a dog owned by his client. The particular issue on appeal is whether the supreme court erred in determining that Mejias's supporting deposition constitutes libel per se. The court found that the alleged act was sufficiently egregious because such a claim would suggest professional misconduct on an attorney's part and invites both disciplinary action and damage to an attorney's professional reputation. Further, defendants failed to meet their burden of showing an absence of malice. The order was affirmed. |
Case | |
| Schmidt, d/b/a Top of the Ozark Auction | 65 Agric. Dec. 60 (U.S.D.A. Feb. 10, 2006) | The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture instituted a disciplinary proceeding alleging that Jerome Schmidt, a veterinarian, willfully violated the regulations and standards promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act. The alleged violations were based upon ten inspections conducted by a USDA inspector of Schmidt’s Top of the Ozark Auction facility where he conducted dog auctions. The 36 alleged violations centered on housing standards, structural soundness, soundness and security of the enclosures, house keeping and sanitation, trash on the premises, sufficiency of the lighting, the adequacy of the Schmidt’s insect and rodent control program, and interference and refusal of access to a USDA inspector. The Court found that the frequent inspections of Schmidt’s auction facility were inconsistent with and not based upon an objective risk-based assessment. None of the inspections, with the potential exception of one, conformed to the requirements of established Agency guidelines or policy. The inspector’s findings were exaggerated, biased, and unsupported by sufficient credible objective evidence of non-compliance. The egregious behavior of the inspector tainted the inspection results and, therefore, were precluded from being used for the purposes of an enforcement action. The Court ultimately dismissed the complaint against Schmidt and directed the Administrator of APHIS to take appropriate action to insure that the published polices and procedures of the Department are followed by APHIS personnel in future inspections. | Case | ||
| Schor v. N. Braddock Borough | 801 F. Supp. 2d 369 (W.D. Pa. 2011) | Sadie, a six (6) year old pit bull and family pet was shot and killed by the Defendant Officer Wittlinger. The Plaintiff, Sadie’s owner, filed a twelve count complaint alleging four § 1983 claims under federal law against all Defendants including the borough, police department, board of supervisors, police chief, and Officer Wittlinger. The remaining eight counts alleged claims solely against the officer. The Defendants' filed a partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the dismissal of claims against the board, police chief, and officer in their official capacities. The court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s state negligence claims. However, the court did not dismiss claims brought against Police Chief Bazzone and Officer Wittlinger in their individual capacities. The court reasoned that the facts pled by the Plaintiff were sufficient to show that Chief Bazzone may have acted with deliberate indifference by not disciplining Officer Wittlinger after a prior dog shooting incident, and maintained a custom within the Police Department that it was proper to shoot a pet dog wandering the streets. The court also denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth amendment rights claim. The court reasoned that the facts pled by the Plaintiff were sufficient to state a claim for violation of her Fourth Amendment rights because the plaintiff had a possessory interest in her dog Sadie as “property” and the officer used excessive force while seizing the Plaintiff’s property. | Case | ||
| Schor v. North Braddock Borough | 801 F.Supp.2d 369 (W.D. Pa. 2011) | The plaintiff’s dog jumped her fence and after encountering a couple of friendly people in the neighborhood, was confronted by two police officers. At the same time the officers arrived, the plaintiff and her sister arrived at the scene. The plaintiff’s sister yelled to the officer, “that’s our dog,” and while displaying no signs of aggression, with her owner 10-15 feet away, an officer shot the dog four times, killing her. The officer had previous similar encounters with dogs, having shot another dog approximately six months prior to this event. In evaluating the immunity of the police officer, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish an exception to immunity under the Pennsylvania Subdivision Tort Claims Act. However, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims. | Case |