|
Bolivia - Cruelty - Ley 700, 2015 |
Ley 700, is the animal cruelty statute of Bolivia. This law lays out the rules for the defense of animals against cruelty committed by humans. Animals are considered part of mother earth, and therefore, their life has to be defended and respected. This law punishes physical, psychological, emotional and sexual mistreatment, and prohibits the breeding of domestic animals for commercial purposes. It also prohibits sport hunting and overworking animals, especially those of an older age.
|
|
Brackett v. State |
In this Georgia case, appellants were convicted of the offense of cruelty to animals upon evidence that they were spectators at a cockfight. The Court of Appeals agreed with the appellants that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment was reversed. The court found that the statute prohibiting cruelty to animals was meant to include fowls as animals and thus proscribed cruelty to a gamecock. However, the evidence that defendants were among the spectators at a cockfight was insufficient to sustain their convictions.
|
|
Bradford v. State |
In this interlocutory appeal from a civil forfeiture proceeding, the Court addressed the application of the independent source doctrine to a warrant predicated on observations of animal cruelty, where the initial investigation involved a warrantless drone flight over the appellant's property. Assuming arguendo that the drone flight constituted an unlawful search, the Court's analysis centered on the two-prong test for the independent source doctrine: first, whether the warrant affidavit, after excising any information gleaned from the illegal drone surveillance, established probable cause for the search, and second, whether the law enforcement officer's decision to seek the warrant was prompted by the observations from the illicit drone flight. The Court held the warrant was valid, as the affidavit was based solely on evidence independently obtained during a subsequent in-person visit, which was initiated by a separate citizen complaint about a loose and malnourished dog and during which officers, from a lawful vantage point on a public road, observed two dogs in the front yard in conditions indicative of cruelty and heard a large number of dogs barking from the rear of the property, leading them to discover approximately 67 mistreated and malnourished dogs. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed, the disposition being that the warrant was supported by an independent source of probable cause unrelated to the prior drone overflight. |
|
Bramblett v. Habersham Cty. |
Defendants appeal from an order granting a petition for recoupment of costs filed by Habersham County pursuant to OCGA § 4-11-9.8, and a separate order directing the defendants to pay $69,282.85 into the court registry in connection with the boarding, treatment, and care of 29 dogs that the Brambletts refused to surrender after the County seized over 400 animals from their property. In April 2017, over 400 animals were removed from the Bramblett's property and they were charged with over 340 counts of cruelty to animals under Georgia law. There were 29 animals that were not surrendered and were running loose on the property. The current petition for recoupment of costs here refers to the care for those 29 animals, which were later impounded. The Brambletts appealed that order, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the County's petition without providing notice under OCGA § 4-11-9.4. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the procedure in OCGA § 4-11-9.8 applied because the notice provisions of OCGA §§ 4-11-9.4 and 4-11-9.5 only apply when the animal has been impounded “under” or “pursuant to this article” of the Georgia Animal Protection Act. Here, the animals were seized under as part of an investigation of violations of OCGA § 16-12-4 so the notice provisions did not apply. As to defendants contention that the court erred by not considering the "actual predicted costs" of caring for 29 dogs and instead relying on a "formulaic calculation," the court also found no error. The judgment was affirmed. |
|
Brayshaw v Liosatos |
The appellant had informations laid against him alleging that he, as a person in charge of animals, neglected cattle 'without reasonable excuse' by failing to provide them with food. The appellant had been informed by a veterinarian that his treatment of the cattle was potentially a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) and that they were in poor condition. The evidence admitted did not rule out the possibility that the appellant's feeding of the cattle accorded with 'maintenance rations' and the convictions were overturned.
|
|
Brazil - Federal Decree on Anti-Cruelty |
This is a short summary of the federal decree that gives federal jurisdiction over some domestic animal issues.
|
|
Brazil - Animal Cruelty - Decreto-lei nº 24645, |
Art. 1º - Todos os animais existentes no País sno tutelados do Estado.
|
|
Brazil - Animal weflare - PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 (in portuguese) |
|
|
Brief Summary of Canada's Anti-Cruelty Laws |
This paper summarizes the current state of Canadian animal anti-cruelty laws. It examines the federal, provincial, and municipal laws that govern and enforce penalties against those who commit cruel acts against animals. The paper also examines select cases in Canadian animal cruelty jurisprudence and compares Canadian anti-cruelty laws with their counterparts in the United States. |
|
Brief Summary of Cross-Reporting Laws |
|
