Oregon Supreme Court- Animals can be Victims just like People

[Koolblue13]

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/08/animals_can_be_victims_just_li.html?fb_action_ids=10204783046402496&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B848161295207511%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%22s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like%22

 

No more at link, except a cute picture of a goat.

 

In two landmark rulings earlier this month, the Oregon Supreme Court said that animals -- whether they be horses, goats, dogs or cats -- shall be afforded some of the same basic protections as human beings.

The dual rulings are expected to make it easier for police to rush to the aid of ailing animals without first obtaining a warrant. They also could result in harsher criminal repercussions for those found guilty of abusing or neglecting animals.

“These are hugely helpful to the prosecution of animal-cruelty cases,” said Jacob Kamins, a Corvallis-based prosecutor assigned to pursuing such cases across Oregon.

Specifically, in State v. Arnold Nix, the supreme court ruled that a Umatilla County man who was convicted of starving 20 horses and goats on his property could be sentenced -- not just on one count of second-degree animal neglect -- but on 20 different counts, meaning each animal counted as a separate “victim.”

For defendants in general, that could result in longer jail or prison sentences, and make it more difficult for defendants to -- years later -- expunge such convictions off of their criminal records.

“To acknowledge that animals are victims of crime, that’s really common sense to us,” said Lora Dunn, staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland.

Nix, who was 68 at the time of his arrest in 2009, argued that the ordinary meaning of “victims” doesn’t include “non-humans,” and Oregon law defines animals as the property of their human owners.

In State vs. Linda Fessenden and Teresa Dicke, the supreme court found that

Linda Fessenden and Teresa Dicke's horse, pictured here in 2010, had more than 6,000 fans on Facebook at the time it died in July 2011. The horse, named Grace, was 28.The Associated Press

a sheriff’s deputy was legally justified in 2010 in rushing onto a Douglas County pasture to get medical help for a horse that was so malnourished every one of its ribs was showing. The state's high court ruled that the deputy, who thought the horse was in immediate danger of falling and dying, didn’t need a warrant to step onto private property and get the animal to a veterinarian.

As Nix had argued, Fessenden and Dicke also argued that state law defines animals as property -- and police should first have to obtain a warrant before bursting onto private property to prevent harm to property.

The high court agreed that animals are still defined by law as “property.” But the court ruled that the deputy didn’t violate the constitutional search and seizure rights of its two owners because “exigent circumstance” existed -- that is that swift action was required to prevent harm to people or to property.

The deputy estimated it would take four to eight hours to obtain the warrant, and by then, it might not be possible to save the horse.

“We get calls every day from law enforcement in Oregon and other states that say ‘I need help right now. These animals are on the brink of death’ -- whether it’s a hoarding case with cats or dogs in a puppy mill or horses that are starving,” said Dunn of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

“Absolutely, we recommend ‘Get a warrant if you can,’” Dunn said. “Because we don’t want to deal with these constitutional issues down the line.”

But sometimes, Dunn said, an animal’s life might be in jeopardy in the time it takes to get a warrant. Dunn said that’s why her organization is “thrilled” about theFessenden/Dicke case.

In making its findings -- some of the strongest favoring animal rights to date -- the high court noted how Oregon law is evolving to reflect the sentiments of society in general.

Justice Martha Lee Walters, who wrote the Fessenden/Dicke opinion for the court, noted that household pets, such as dogs, and even a farm animal -- the horse -- “occupy a unique position in people’s hearts” and that’s reflected in the development of animal-welfare laws.

Walters referenced a legal fight by American attorneys trying to establish the right of a chimpanzee to sue its owner for poor living conditions, and even a zoo in India that won’t allow the exhibition of dolphins because of their advanced intelligence.

Walters also cited a 2013 study by the Animal Legal Defense Fund that ranked Oregon second and Washington seventh among states for their laws protecting animals. Among Oregon’s strengths, the study said, were laws that increase penalties if the harm to the animal happened in the presence of a child and the power of judges to require mental-health counseling.

“As we continue to learn more about the interrelated nature of all life, the day may come when humans perceive less separation between themselves and other living beings than the law now reflects,” Walters wrote. “However, we do not need a mirror to the past or a telescope to the future to recognize that the legal status of animals has changed and is changing still…”

-- Aimee Green

 

 

I think this is great personally and a conscience move in the right direction. I do wonder the affect it will have on agriculture animals. 

[Huly]

I love this!  As an Animal Rights/ Rescue whatever you want to call it, WAY TO GO!

[Koolblue13]

I love this!  As an Animal Rights/ Rescue whatever you want to call it, WAY TO GO!

Right there with you. This is a huge step.

[Larry]

Not really sure I agree with this.

But then, I suppose, if corporations are people. . . .

[Mocountyskins]

Who left this animal tied to a piece of metal? I'm sure it was not born there! Can I get fried olives in a dog portion? You left it there for only a few minutes? That's like dog months!

[Koolblue13]

Not really sure I agree with this.

But then, I suppose, if corporations are people. . . .

Do you think your neighbor should be able to starve his dog to death or beat it to death, without anyone legally being able to stop it?

[Huly]

Plus the slap on the wrist animal abusers get because pets are looked at as property.

 

I can tell you if anyone hurt an animal in my presence their would be hell to pay!

[burgundyrush]

Damn had to electrocute my girl pit after she lost me a couple thousand on this fight the other day.

I kid! I kid!

[Koolblue13]

Plus the slap on the wrist animal abusers get because pets are looked at as property.

 

I can tell you if anyone hurt an animal in my presence their would be hell to pay!

I remember a case in Maryland I believe, where two 17yo boys tortured a neighbors dog to death and because the judge didn't want to see two young mens lives ruined in the future, dropped it.  

[Huly]

There are multiple situations like that Kool.  Also look at the puppy mills that get busted then change a name and reset their operation back up. 

 

Look at PetLand and what that store/chain etc has gotten away with.  PetLand Fairfax is awful! 

[Larry]

Do you think your neighbor should be able to starve his dog to death or beat it to death, without anyone legally being able to stop it?

 

Yep.  That's what I said. 

[twa]

seems something that could easily be abused by authorities ....but then what isn't.

[RawBBQSauce]

Well, considering humans are part of the animal kingdom, this makes some sense.

[Slateman]

Next they'll be people and they'll be able to marry your dog.

[Popeman38]

There are easy ways to accomplish what was desired without doing what the Oregon SC did. If it is plain sight, the officers should have a right to take action. There is a reason that private property is subject to different rules than public property. What one person views as cruelty isn't necessarily cruelty. Huly and KB as animal lovers, for instance, are likely to have a much lower standard for animal cruelty than non-animal lovers.

[Koolblue13]

There are multiple situations like that Kool.  Also look at the puppy mills that get busted then change a name and reset their operation back up. 

 

Look at PetLand and what that store/chain etc has gotten away with.  PetLand Fairfax is awful! 

I know. Working with rescue the last 7/8 years or more, I've seen so many heart breaking things. Today, thee is a young mother someone didn't get fixed, she got dumped at the dump site and now has one week old babies. We are grossly underfunded here and understaffed, so if no one gets her today, down her and her pups go. I already have 6 foster pups right now and other animal projects and another pregnant female foster coming in next week.

 

Yep.  That's what I said. 

Not really.

There are easy ways to accomplish what was desired without doing what the Oregon SC did. If it is plain sight, the officers should have a right to take action. There is a reason that private property is subject to different rules than public property. What one person views as cruelty isn't necessarily cruelty. Huly and KB as animal lovers, for instance, are likely to have a much lower standard for animal cruelty than non-animal lovers.

What are the easy ways, that won't result in legal issues towards the police force?

[Larry]

Not really.

So, your point is that no, I didn't say what you tried to claim I said?

Apology accepted.

[RVAbrendan]

What one person views as cruelty isn't necessarily cruelty.

 

Out of curiosity, could you give an example or two?

 

I generally agree with this ruling - maybe I just have too much of a soft-side for animals, I don't know... just breaks my heart to see them in pain

[The 12th Commandment]

Next they'll be people and they'll be able to marry your dog.

They should get their own dog to marry.  

 

Working last year for the humane society in a really poor area of New Mexico and I saw some fairly horrific things and some fairly horrific people.  One that comes to mind was a guy ostensibly running a rescue operation.  When they went to clean the place out, the 60+ dogs hadn't been fed in some time and the bigger dogs were going after the small ones.  You can imagine what happened.  That guy deserved jail.  I think he got a fine for it but I'm not even sure of that.

[mcsluggo]

Not really sure I agree with this.

But then, I suppose, if corporations are people. . . .

 

i am in agreement -----   in not wholeheartedly agreeing with this (as portrayed in the article)   

[Koolblue13]

So, your point is that no, I didn't say what you tried to claim I said?

Apology accepted.

I didn't claim ****. I asked you a question that was less vague than the comment you made about your opinion from the article.

[mcsluggo]

What one person views as cruelty isn't necessarily cruelty.

 

 

Out of curiosity, could you give an example or two?

 

 

 

how about, say... cutting up, cooking, and eating of animals?

 

i'd say that SOME definitely view that as cruel and inhumane, and others quite clearly do not.... right?

[Koolblue13]

how about, say... cutting up, cooking, and eating of animals?

 

i'd say that SOME definitely view that as cruel and inhumane, and others quite clearly do not.... right?

I'd say the majority of them, like myself and why I don't generally eat meat, is the treatment of the animals in industrial meat industry.

 

As far as hunting or raising free range, happy healthy animals is much different. 

[Kosher Ham]

They don't sell hunting licenses for people.

 

Overall, it's a good idea.

 

Common sense will have to prevail in certain instances.

I like the concept of it though.

[Popeman38]

What are the easy ways, that won't result in legal issues towards the police force?

Out of curiosity, could you give an example or two?

For starters, if an officer sees an animal clearly in distress, document (video) and rescue. If you have to question if the animal is clearly in distress, get a warrant. This ruling seems way to vague to me and leaves way too much to the officers discretion. Pets are clearly still labeled as property by this ruling, yet now property can be confiscated without a warrant. You don't see how that is troubling?