|
IL - Cruelty Generally - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes (Humane Care for Animals Act) |
This comprehensive Humane Care of Animals Act from Illinois gives the requisite anti-cruelty provisions. "Animal" means every living creature, domestic or wild, but does not include man. Notably, the Act includes a provisions for psychological counseling for a person convicted of violating this section. An individual is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a second or subsequent violation is a Class 4 felony with every day that a violation continues constituting a separate offense. The Act includes special provisions for juveniles and "companion animal hoarders" (510 ILCS 70/2.10). The cruelty provisions are listed at 510 ILCS 70/3.01, 3.02, and 3.03. The statute also prohibits the marketing and distribution of depictions of animal torture or cruelty for entertainment purposes (510 ILCS 70/3.03-1). |
|
IL - Dog Fighting - Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses |
The following statute comprises Illinois' dogfighting law. Under the law, it is a felony to promote or instigate a fight, or to train or sell a dog for dogfighting purposes. Further, no person may solicit a minor to violate this Section. Providing equipment or aiding in providing equipment for a fight is also a felony. Knowingly attending a dogfight is a Class 4 felony for a first violation. A second or subsequent violation of subsection (g) of this Section is a Class 3 felony. |
|
IN - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These Indiana statutes set forth the anti-cruelty laws. As used in this chapter, "animal" does not include a human being. Among the provisions include anti-neglect, anti-animal fighting, and anti-abuse provisions. A person having a vertebrate animal in the person's custody who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally abandons or neglects the animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor. A person who knowingly or intentionally purchases or possesses an animal for the purpose of using the animal in an animal fighting contest commits a Level 6 felony. A person who knowingly or intentionally abuses a vertebrate animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor, which may become a Level 6 felony under described circumstances. |
|
Jones v. State |
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully owning, possessing, keeping or training a dog or dogs with intent that such dog or dogs be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog, and he appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that: (1) dogfighting statute was not unconstitutionally vague; (2) testimony of animal cruelty investigator was sufficient for jury to conclude that defendant owned dogs after effective date of antidog-fighting statute; (3) evidence as to poor conditions of dogs and their vicious propensities exhibited while lodged at animal shelter was relevant to issue of defendant's intent to fight the dogs; and (4) evidence gained by police officer pursuant to search warrant was not inadmissible.
|
|
KS - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty and Animal Fighting Laws |
The Kansas anti-cruelty statutes define cruelty to animals as knowingly killing, injuring, maiming, torturing, burning or mutilating any animal. Also included as cruelty are abandoning any animal, failing to provide food, horse-tripping, and poisoning any domestic animal, unlawful disposition of animals, dog and cock-fighting. Cruelty to animals may be a misdemeanor or a felony. Exceptions are made for such things as veterinary practices, research experiments, rodeo and farming practices, euthanasia, and pest control. It is also illegal to allow a dangerous animal to run at large or to engage in sodomy with an animal. |
|
KY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These Kentucky statutes represent the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Under the law, animal cruelty in the first-degree (a class D felony) occurs when a person causes four-legged animals to fight for pleasure or profit. Exclusions under this section include, among others, the killing of animals when hunting, fishing, or trapping; as incident to the processing as food or for other commercial purposes; or for veterinary, agricultural, spaying or neutering, or cosmetic purposes. |
|
LA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These Louisiana statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. The term "cruel" is defined in the first section every act or failure to act whereby unjustifiable physical pain or suffering is caused or permitted. The crime of cruelty to animals is subdivided into simple cruelty or aggravated cruelty. Simple cruelty occurs when a person intentionally or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, or overworks, torments, cruelly beats, or unjustifiably injures, or, having charge, custody, or possession of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, unjustifiably fails to provide any living animal with proper food, proper drink, proper shelter, or proper veterinary care. |
|
Lee v. State |
An attendant of a dog fight was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor under section 35-46-3-4 of the Indiana Code. On appeal, the defendant-appellant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and that the statute invited arbitrary law enforcement, which violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the appeals court found the defendant-appellant had waived her constitutional claims by not filing a motion at the bench trial, the appeals court found her claims lacked merit. The defendant-appellant’s conviction was therefore upheld.
|
|
Lessons Learned: Acting As Guardian/Special Master In The Bad Newz Kennels Case |
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Rebecca Huss as the guardian/special master of the pit bulls that were the subject of the case against Michael Vick relating to dog fighting. In April of 2007, the Surry County Sheriff’s Department seized fifty-three pit bulls from Vick’s home in Virginia. According to the facts set forth in the plea agreement, dogs on the property were killed and subjected to violent dog fights. Similar to human victims of abuse, the dogs needed someone to represent their best interests during litigation. Huss was in charge of determining whether each dog should be euthanized due to its inability to interact safely with humans or other animals or given a second chance at life in a new home. Huss explains her role as guardian/special master and how she made her determinations about each dog’s destiny.
|
|
Ley 14346, 1954 |
|
