Animal Fighting

Displaying 21 - 30 of 190
Titlesort descending Summary
CA - Enforcement - Chapter 5. Arrest, by Whom and How Made. This set of provisions authorizes private citizens to make arrests and explains when and how citizen arrests may be made.
CA - Fighting - § 597c. Animal fighting exhibitions; spectators; penalty Whoever owns, possesses, keeps, or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such animal shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting, or is present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
CA - Fighting - § 597d. Fighting animals or birds; entries and arrests without warrant This provision allows for law enforcement officers to enter any place, building, or tenement, where there is an exhibition of the fighting of birds or animals, or where preparations are being made for such an exhibition, and, without a warrant, arrest all persons present.
CA - Fighting - § 598.1. Dogfighting; forfeiture proceedings This California law allows the prosecuting attorney to file a petition for forfeiture in animal fighting cases under Section 597.5 or subdivision (b) of Section 597b. Any property interest, whether tangible or intangible, that was acquired through the commission of any of the crimes listed in subdivision (a) of Section 597.5 or subdivision (b) of Section 597b shall be subject to forfeiture, including both personal and real property, profits, proceeds, and the instrumentalities acquired, accumulated, or used by cockfighting or dogfighting participants, organizers, transporters of animals and equipment, breeders and trainers of fighting birds or fighting dogs, and persons who steal or illegally obtain dogs or other animals for fighting, including bait and sparring animals.
CA - Fighting Animals - § 597b. Fighting animals or cockfighting; prohibition; penalties; aiding and abetting This statute forbids anyone from causing a fight between any animal or creature for amusement or gain, or allowing an animal fight to take place on her premises. It also makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to be present at an animal fight.
CA - Forfeiture - § 599aa. Seizure of fighting animals and birds, paraphernalia, etc.; affidavit of officer; custody of seized p This section provides for the seizure and forfeiture of all birds, animals, paraphernalia, and any other property which is used in the fighting of birds or animals, the training of birds or animals to fight, or to inflict pain or cruelty on fighting animals. The section outlines the procedures for seizure and forfeiture, including what is to be done with seized animals.
Carpenter v. State After being convicted by a Superior Court bench trial and having the Superior Court’s judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeals, defendant appealed the admission of evidence recovered from his home after officers entered it without a warrant in pursuit of an aggressive and bloody dog. The Supreme Court of Indiana found that the entry was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution and that the evidence obtained pursuant to a subsequent search warrant was inadmissible. The Superior Court's judgment was therefore reversed.
Chart of State Dogfighting Laws


This chart, updated in 2014, lists the state laws concerning dog fighting. To date, all states have enacted laws that make actively participating in dog fighting a felony. Several states still regard being a spectator at a fight as a misdemeanor.
Claddie Savage v. Prator


A Parish Sheriff informed game clubs the parish ordinance against cockfighting would be enforced, despite the fact that cockfighting tournaments had been held at the game clubs since 1991.  The game clubs filed for and received a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the parish ordinance.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. 

Reversed by


Savage v. Prator

, 921 So.2d 51 (La., 2006).
Club Gallistico de Puerto Rico Inc. v. United States Club Gallistico de Puerto Rico, Inc. (Club Gallistico) and the Asociacion Cultural y Deportiva del Gallo Fino de Pelea (Asociacion Cultural) both filed civil complaints against the United States Government. The complaints alleged that the Section 12616 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violated bedrock principles of federalism and rights protected under the United States Constitution. Both Club Gallistico and Asociacion Cultural are both non-profit organizations involved in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s cockfighting industry. The amendments to the AWA outlawed all animal fighting ventures in which animals were moved in interstate or foreign commerce in every United States jurisdiction. These amendments extended the ban to United States territories which the Plaintiffs argued the United States did not have the authority to do. Both cases were consolidated and heard by the District Court. The Court analyzed the amendments under the Federalism doctrine, the Commerce Clause, and the Territorial Clause. Extending the ban on live-bird fighting did not violate either of the three. Further, the amendments did not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or any other constitutional rights such as free speech or due process. The Court ultimately denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Granted Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

Pages