Rabbit raid?

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
None of these cases have anything to do with non married roommates.

Only one even half way relates(married an both there) an in it the court ruled that the search that was refused by one an granted by the other was illegal.

 

[Okie Amazon]

For me, the issue is not whether her rabbits were living in filth or living in the lap of luxury. To me the issue is a WARRANTLESS SEARCH and SEIZURE and WORSE YET, allowing an independent, non-law-enforcement group (the House Rabbit people), to run around on this womans' private property doing as they wanted. This issue was discussed on one of my dog forums and the consensus was if "unmentionable" was allowed on any of our properties, they would find that the presence of evil prong collars and bite suits/sleeves, would provide the "proof" that our dogs are vicious killers and should all be destroyed immediately and we MUST be animal abusers ourselves. This is dangerous ground people, whether you have chickens, rabbits, or a flea circus. Allowing people with an agenda to "make the call" regarding your care of your animals puts ALL of us at risk of being right where this woman is today!

 

[sommrluv]

Quote:
None of these cases have anything to do with non married roommates.

From the case of co-habitation and a search permitted by a tenant or co-habitator: (though honestly it's obvious you don't care about any of the facts or laws and you just want to argue and contradict those that don't agree with you)

"Police need not seek out other non-present tenants to obtain their permission to search. Exigent circumstances,
such as removal/destruction of evidence, protecting the safety of the police or others present (such as in a
domestic dispute), or hot pursuit, may still allow an entry over a co-tenant’s objection."

Google is your friend, it's all over the internet.


My point is...especially considering how "proud" and "aware" she was of the condition of her rabbitry, she should know the laws as she was previously licensed in the state. She should have the knowledge to instruct any of her friends/roommates/tenants to not allow a search without a warrant. She should also have called a lawyer when presented with the fee for boarding/bonding. The paperwork states that you get 30 days to file a counter-claim for the fees of boarding.



Most of the outcry is over the search, and the neutering/spaying of the animals. I would be right there most vocal among you if any laws were broken or rights were infringed. But the fact is, they were not. And the police were acting as they've been instructed...the animals had poor conditions. There was a dead animal. They have to surmise the conditions caused the death and remove all the animals.


Really, if anything, it's a wake-up call for anyone with larger scale livestock operations to start reading up and educating themselves on the laws of their city/state/country. In most places there are tons of lawyers that offer free consults and can help you. I posted on another site, but my suggestion is to start a dialogue with your local animal control officers, police, sheriff, etc. (I realize some people are rural and that's not really realistic).

Stop by with a plate of cookies or brownies and ask questions. Ask them to look at your set up if they are so inclined. A proactive, concerned breeder is not an abuser. And THAN if something (god forbid) ever did happen in the way of someone making a complaint, the local LEO is acquainted with you and your setup, knows that you are above board, and even if they catch you in an "off day" has something to compare it too.


I totally agree that there are animal rescue and animal rights nuts. But the vast majority of them do not have time to be out manufacturing stories because they have enough work on their plates.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I disagree with one part of that. I see tons of manufactured and manipulated stories being put out. I have seen purposefully edited videos of people I personally work with which I know are outrageous. I've also had personal experience with one group who used time and money to send out a mole and provide them with high tech video devices, then went through the four months of footage to pull out whatever they thought they could use.. Many groups put a lot of their money towards mail-outs and publicity (including false or heavily altered stories), as well as lobbying.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
There's the problem. Google will mostly get you little meaningless statements like that.

The case you are getting it from is about two married people. One said no to a search an the other said yes so the cops searched. The supreme court stated that the "no" wins out over the "yes" an threw out what was found in the search.


If you actually read case law, the court held that you can only consent to a search of the property you have shared or sole use of. In the event of roommates that is usually the living room, kitchen, yard an your bedroom. Roommates effects that are not used by you does not apply. You can not consent to a search of your roommates bedroom, private bath, closets, computer, purse, car or outbuildings.

Also outbuildings are normally named on a warrant because outbuildings are a second structure an not part of the residence.

 

[sommrluv]

Go back and read it.

So sorry that you seem unable to take this in.

 

[86121]

Quote:
Agreed!

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
I have read it several times, listened to the recordings of the oral arguments an the recording of the opinion announcement.
Its an interesting case an I think everyone should listen to it or at least read it. You can read or play the audio of the case here. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1067

 

[CYGChickies]

This thread has stayed open for a long time because we've been mature and civil. Let's not get it shut down by throwing out hostile comments accusing people of being illiterate. Whether you say "I don't mean that in a mean way" or not, it doesn't excuse the level of patronization that is showing up here.

I also can't help but ask this. How is Google more reliable than an "armchair lawbook"?

I fully expect to get attacked but I'm just trying to suggest we all calm down before we're banned from discussing this.

CYG

 

[debilorrah]

Ms Bell has won round one. A judge agreed that she did in fact have her knowledge straight and she was grandfathered in under A-2 zoning and there is no limit on animals. She was raided by a "House" Rabbit Society and shelter people who did what they did because they believed her property to be R-1 Residential.

Her trial date is set for 9/21/11. Hopefully it will determine that this was an illegal search and seizure. Because it was.

It has also come out that several of the photos posted in various articles that are supposed to be her rabbits are NOT in fact, hers. She was trying to take photos as they took the animals and was told she would be arrested if she did not stop.