Terry Cullen raided

Quote:

---

WITI-TV, MILWAUKEE - It's a job that's going to take more than 24 hours to complete. Experts from animal control in Milwaukee, the DNR, Racine Zoo and fire and police officials are all taking part in the removal of hundreds of exotic animals from a building near 13th and Lincoln on the city's south side.

---

http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-100...,6418101.story

http://www.fox6now.com/videobeta/baf...Milwaukee-home

No charges? Poor Tibetan Mastiffs...

If that's the treatment the dogs got, I'm not real hopeful for the rest of the animals.

I don't understand why they are seizing all of his animals if there are no charges against him? That news broadcast is horrible, making it seem like the animals inside could at any time kill an innocent person. The ignorance of people makes me sick.

Yea i would of posted it but i chose not to as last time i posted something with dogs getting shot in raids i got infracted lol. I seen this on rtbs forums.

From what i understand the dogs were "running loose" so they had to kill em?


Edit:

"They did shoot 2 dogs that were running through because they were concerned for their safety" from the reporter

wow poor dogs. well hopefully the animals will have good homes from here on out. i saw that a zoo was involved in that raid, they'll probly take the alligators & the "500 lb" snake that was mentioned.

This is absolutely horrendous! No charges, no explanation on the warrant, he's a reptile expert that they have used many times in the past... Makes no sense at all. They cant legally keep those animals from him. Saying plastic tubs and water trough like its a bad thing. So he was keeping his animals in a correct and safe way, and the public, which is completely ignorant and has no knowledge of proper housing for reptiles, is being made to think he was doing something wrong??? Chinese alligators stay very small and docile. It shocks me that he has helped so many people and animals, doing things the right way, and they are being taken from him with no explanation. I'm utterly disgusted. :mad:

Very very sad...

did a quick google and found this,lets hope the politicians in wa dont try to use this to try to pass more legislation against us.
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/93697954.html

no saying y the raid happened n why the search warrant. two dogs dead. a neighborhood confused and scared for no reason. the police, game warden, chief, and everyone else involved should be investigated.

two dogs are dead because officers "feared for their safety", do u see them raiding and collecting dogs? NO!

I have been to iraq and i've been Army for a long time now. and for what? so the people i work for can come take my beloved pets. HA good luck!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by f4n70m

Yea i would of posted it but i chose not to as last time i posted something with dogs getting shot in raids i got infracted lol. I seen this on rtbs forums.

---

At least tell the entire truth when trying to garner sympathy. You got infracted for in-appropriate language contained within the video that you posted. :rolleyes:

Wow this is just terrible! Granted I do not know the whole story but it amazes me that you can serve a warrant for some type of sexual offense (that you are innocent of until proven guilty) and end up with 2 dead dogs and loosing all of your reptiles. And his partner was arrested for animal neglect...again wow. Let this be a warning to all of us ...even on the small scale. They can take our animals at anytime ...clearly for anything. Apparently it is abusive to house snakes in our racks. :colbert:

Anything can be misconstrued when it comes to our reptiles. I have a 9 year old...plus I have TONS of kids over here everyday that help me to take care of them. I can see the news now....she had over 10 animals....housed improperly....could get out at anytime and attack these poor little children. Heaven forefend if they come in prior to me cleaning one of the lizards daily poos. Then it would be...they were sitting in their own feces. UGHHHHHHHHHH

Holy cow he was at the Tinley show :O.The idiots thinking the reptiles were going to kill the neighborhood kids at any time :mad:.

This is OUTRAGEOUS! These people who are carting away the animals probably have no idea what they are except "turtle, snake, alligator or croc" are you kidding me?!?! This guy works closely with endangered species and I believe he owns some as educational animals. I really hope that no harm falls to the animals they are (probably illegally) removing from his facility.

The following is the city code for milwauke as you can see the wording is pretty loose on what is considered a "dangerous" animal. But while there are restrictions on the number of cats and dogs you can have there are none for reptiles.


ANIMAL CONTROL

Various Animal control activities including licensing dog and cats, reporting dangerous animals dog and cats at large, farm animals in the city, pet shops and fanciers. Animal Bites, Dog/Cat Licensing, Animal Fancier, Animal Noise, Wild Animal Capture, Dangerous Animals, Dogs/Cats running at large and littering, Farm Animals in the City, Pet Shops, Pet Grooming, Kennels, Stables, Animal Keeper Fees and Prohibited Dangerous Animals Wild/Exotic Animals brought into the City

Action to take for Animal Bites.pdf-A guide to help determine the best course of action after an animal bite. Test your knowledge of rabies and how to avoid a greater risk of becoming infected.


[Return to top of Page]



ANIMAL BITES
(excluding birds, reptiles, or small rodents)

Any time an animal, residing in the City of Milwaukee, bites or scratches resulting in the skin being broken, the bite/scratch should be reported to the Department of Neighborhood Services at 286-2268. After normal business hours, contact the Milwaukee Police Department 933-4444. The person reporting the bite/scratch should have the following information available:

Address of Animal, Name and Phone Number of Animal Owner (if known)

Name, Address, Age and Phone Number of Victim

Location of Wound (i.e. hand, leg, face, etc.)

Circumstances surrounding the bite/scratch

Once the inspector receives the bite report, a visit will be made to the animal owner's home. The animal will be quarantined in the home for 10-14 days starting the date of the bite. After this period of time, the inspector will release the animal from quarantine by making another visit to the animal owner's home. At each visit, the animal must be observed by the inspector. During a quarantine period, no animal shall be taken for walks, left unattended outdoors, or be allowed to leave its premises for any reason. All animals are normally quarantined in their home unless the owner requests that the animal be taken to MADACC for quarantine, the animal was loose at the time of bite and apprehended by either the Police, Humane Officers or Health Officers, or the animal's owner does not obey quarantine restrictions and this is brought to the Department of Neighborhood Service's attention.

[Return to top of Section]

ANIMAL FANCIER

Any complaints regarding the number of animal residing in a dwelling unit can be sent to the Department of Neighborhood Services' Environmental Health and Nuisance Control Section at 286-2268.

No more than 3 adult dogs and/or cats are allowed in any one dwelling unit. In single and 2-family dwelling units, a fourth or fifth dog and/or cat can reside if the owner/tenant has an animal fancier permit obtained through our office. There is a cost to obtain the Fancier Permit and an annual inspection of the dwelling unit is required. More frequent inspections may be allowed on a complaint basis. Animal fancier permits are not allowed in multiple dwelling units. Anyone violating this will be subject to prosecution. For a current list of fees for animals, go to www.city.milwaukee.gov/animalfees

[Return to top of Section]

BARKING DOGS OR OTHER ANIMAL NOISES



All animal noise complaints should be referred to the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS). A letter stating the animal's address, the complainant's name, address and phone number and a general description of the problem must be sent to DNS–Nuisance and Environmental Health Division, 4001 S. 6th St., Milwaukee, WI 53221. After the DNS verifies both addresses, a warning letter will be typed. The letter will be mailed to the animal owner’s home along with literature and a copy of the applicable ordinance. The landlord will also be notified if necessary. The complainant will then be sent a follow-up letter informing him/her of what was sent to the animal owner along with a petition for commencement of prosecution. If the noise problem continues after the complainant receives the petition, the complainant must document dates and times that it is occurring and return it to DNS. He/she should also try to get at least one person from another household, who is bothered by the noise, to sign the petition. Once DNS receives the petition a citation will be issued. A CITATION WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE COMPLAINANT IS WILLING TO APPEAR IN COURT. To make further complaints call DNS at 286-2268.



[Return to top of Section]


PROHIBITED AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS (s. 78-23)

Any animal which, when unprovoked, bites or inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet or animal on public or private property can be declared dangerous. Any animal which chases or approaches a person in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack without provocation upon the streets, sidewalks or any public grounds or on private property without the permission of the owner or person in lawful control of the property can be declared dangerous. An animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury to, or to otherwise threaten the safety of humans or other domestic pets or animals can be declared dangerous. (An animal shall not be deemed dangerous if it bites defending its owner or caretaker, protecting its young or another animal, defends itself against any person or animal which has tormented, assaulted or abused it, or is defending it's owner or caretaker's property against trespassers.) When an animal has been declared dangerous by the Department of Neighborhood Services, a Dangerous Animal Order will be issued to the animal owner or caretaker. Within 7 days, the owner has two options: 1) to comply with Sections 78-23-1 through 7 and 10 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances, or 2) have the animal destroyed by MADACC or a licensed veterinarian as pursuant to Section 78-23-11 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances. Sections 78-23-1 through 7 and 10 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances are as follows: Whenever an owner or caretaker wishes to contest an order, he or she shall, within 72 hours after receipt of the order, deliver to DNS a written objection to the order. The Department of Neighborhood Services then convenes the dangerous animal hearing panel.

Special rules for owners of pit bulls and ROTTWEILER have recently been exacted in the City of Milwaukee. Learn more about this ordinance here ->Pit bull Brochure DNS-360.pdf

[Return to top of Section]

DOG/CAT LICENSING

All dogs and cats over the age of 5 months, residing in the City of Milwaukee, must be licensed annually. Lack of a dog/cat license for your pet could result in you receiving a citation for each unlicensed pet. Anyone interested in obtaining a dog/cat license should call the Milwaukee Area Domestic Animal Control Commission (MADACC) 414-649-8640. For a current list of fees for animals, go to www.city.milwaukee.gov/animalfees

Dog and Cat License fees page.

[Return to top of Section]

WILD ANIMAL OR STRAYS CAPTURE

The City no Longer performs animal capture services. All requests for capture of nuisance animals such as skunks, raccoons, stray dogs or cats, etc. should be referred to an animal control service or pest control service. Stray dogs or cats, etc. should be referred to the new Milwaukee Area Domestic Animal Control Commission MADACC. It can be reached at 414-649-8640.

[Return to top of Section]

DOGS/CATS RUNNING AT LARGE AND LITTERING

All complaints regarding dogs and cats running at large and littering should be phoned in to 286-2268. The exact address of the violating animal and the complainant's name, address and phone number will be needed. After the addresses have been verified by the clerk, a warning letter mailed to the animal owner's home. The complainant will then be mailed a follow-up letter and a petition for commencement of prosecution. If the problem persists after the complainant receives the petition, the complainant must document dates and time get it to DNS. He/she should try to get at least one person from another household bothered by the problem to sign the petition. Once DNS receives the petition a citation will be issued. A CITATION WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE COMPLAINANT IS WILLING TO APPEAR IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. To make further complaints call DNS at 286-2268.

If a stray animal is running loose at the present time, call MADACC at 649-8640 or call your local Police District.

[Return to top of Section]

FARM ANIMALS IN THE CITY

The following animals are prohibited within the city either temporarily or permanently: live bees, fowl, cows, cattle, horses, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese or any other domesticated livestock. Exceptions are places approved by the Commissioner of Health for slaughtering, educational purposes, research purposes and for circuses or similar recreational events.

[Return to top of Section]

PET SHOPS, GROOMING ESTABLISHMENTS, KENNELS, STABLES

Any complaints regarding the above listed establishments should be directed to the Department of Neighborhood Services' Environmental Health and Nuisance Control Section at 286-2268. The above establishments are subject to yearly inspections, or more frequent inspections on a complaint basis. For a current list of fees for animals, go to www.city.milwaukee.gov/animalfees

[Return to top of Section]

ANIMAL KEEPER FEES

For a current list of fees for animals, go to www.city.milwaukee.gov/animalfees

[Return to top of Section]


PROHIBITED DANGEROUS ANIMAL (s.78-25)

An animal that is determined to be a prohibited dangerous animal under s. 78-25 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances include:

Any animal that kills a domestic pet or animal without provocation while off of the owner or caretaker's property.

Any animal that inflicts substantial bodily harm on a person without provocation on public or private property.

Any animal brought into Milwaukee from another Wisconsin city, village, town or county in which it has been declared dangerous or vicious, has been banished from the city, village, town or county or has been ordered to be destroyed.

Any dog that is subject to being destroyed under s. 174.02(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes.

Any dog trained, owned or harbored for the purpose of dog fighting.

When an animal has been declared a prohibited dangerous animal, a Prohibited Dangerous Animal Order will be issued on the animal owner. The animal must either be removed from the City of Milwaukee within 7 days of receipt of order or destroyed. The order may be appealed in writing within 72 hours of receipt of order to the Department of Neighborhood Services.

[Return to top of Section]

WILD/EXOTIC ANIMALS BROUGHT INTO CITY

Any person wanting to bring a horse, cow, wild cat, etc. into the city for a private party, special event, petting zoo, festival, etc. shall submit in writing to the Department of Neighborhood Services' Environmental Health and Nuisance Control Section a letter providing the following information:

How will the animal(s) be brought into the City and who will bring them in?

Where is the animal(s) usually kept?

How long will the animal(s) be here?

How will the animal(s) be held?

How will they take the animal(s) back?

When is the animal to enter and leave the City Limits?

They must guarantee us that the animal(s) will have food, water and shelter. Animal(s) must be kept 100 feet from a food service area or where food is being prepared. Feces must be picked up routinely, kept in covered containers and disposed of properly. If the animal bites, the bite must be reported to Environmental Health Section of DNS and also to the jurisdiction of where the animal resides. For more information call the Department of Neighborhood Services at 286-2268.

[Return to top of Section]


[Return to top of Page]



PEST CONTROL

The Department of Neighborhood Services can provide information, assistance and enforcement on pest issues.


* Commercial Pesticide Applicator Registration
* Migrating Roaches
* Pigeons
* Rats

[Return to Top of Page]


COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPLICATOR REGISTRATION

Any person who applies pesticides within the City of Milwaukee for profit must be registered with the Department of Neighborhood Services' Nuisance and Environmental Health Section. There is an annual registration of $55 plus a $27 late fee per person, if applicable. For more information or for a pre-application call 286-2268. Anyone caught applying pesticides in the City of Milwaukee without the City of Milwaukee's Commercial Pesticide Applicator Registration Certificate will be issued a municipal citation.

Click here and go to the FORMS page of the DNS website to download the Preapplication form for Commercial Pesticide Applicator.


Return to Top of Section

MIGRATING ROACHES

Migrating roach complaints should be directed to the Department of Neighborhood Service' Nuisance and Environmental Health Section at 286-2268. Migrating roaches are roaches seen moving from one home to another. An exact address must be given to the receptionist at the time of the complaint. The inspector will investigate and if confirmed, a one-time pesticide application will be made to the exterior of the property.

Return to Top of Section

PIGEONS

All pigeon complaints should be referred to the Department of Neighborhood Services' Nuisance and Environmental Health Section at 286-2268. For information on how to prevent pigeons from roosting on your own property, an instructional pamphlet is available for city of Milwaukee residents. For neighboring problems with roosting pigeons, an exact address is needed before the inspector can investigate and if necessary issue orders to pigeon proof the home. The Department of Neighborhood Services does not abate pigeons.

PROBLEMS WITH PIGEONS?-DNS-305.pdf A review of what problems pigeons create, how they breed, roost and spread other potential problems. Contains diagrams on how to protect your property from the birds, locate bird feeders, and how to minimize their negative impact. Also included is the code about creating harborages for nuisance animals.
RATS

All complaints about exterior rat activity should be called in to the Department of Neighborhood Services at 286-2268. An exact address must be given to the receptionist at the time of the complaint. An inspector will look for active rat infestations at that location and issue an order on the property owner if an infestation is found. The order instructs the property owner to either abate the nuisance themselves or hire an exterminator. When the inspector re-inspects 7 days later, if no abatement has been started, the inspector will place bait. The inspector will continue to place bait until there is no longer any acceptance. The cost of the abatement will then be placed on the property owner's tax bill at the end of the year.

Rats on the interior will be handled by the Residential Building Code Complaint section by calling 286-2268.

well good thing they excluded reptiles in the scratching thing...lol....my beardie and skink would be in a world of trouble....lol....:cool:

The question I have is what are they going to do with the seized animals? Does anyone whom is now responsible to look after them know how to do so correctly? There must have been a vast infrastructure to maintain proper habitats for them did they take that too? I bet that they will kill a whole bunch of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kellysballs

PROHIBITED AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS (s. 78-23)

Any animal which, when unprovoked, bites or inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet or animal on public or private property can be declared dangerous. Any animal which chases or approaches a person in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack without provocation upon the streets, sidewalks or any public grounds or on private property without the permission of the owner or person in lawful control of the property can be declared dangerous. An animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury to, or to otherwise threaten the safety of humans or other domestic pets or animals can be declared dangerous. (An animal shall not be deemed dangerous if it bites defending its owner or caretaker, protecting its young or another animal, defends itself against any person or animal which has tormented, assaulted or abused it, or is defending it's owner or caretaker's property against trespassers.) When an animal has been declared dangerous by the Department of Neighborhood Services, a Dangerous Animal Order will be issued to the animal owner or caretaker. Within 7 days, the owner has two options: 1) to comply with Sections 78-23-1 through 7 and 10 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances, or 2) have the animal destroyed by MADACC or a licensed veterinarian as pursuant to Section 78-23-11 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances. Sections 78-23-1 through 7 and 10 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances are as follows: Whenever an owner or caretaker wishes to contest an order, he or she shall, within 72 hours after receipt of the order, deliver to DNS a written objection to the order. The Department of Neighborhood Services then convenes the dangerous animal hearing panel.

---

Charges should be brought against the officers that shot those dogs due to the above underlined statement in red. What a shame.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunoheart

Charges should be brought against the officers that shot those dogs due to the above underlined statement in red. What a shame.....

---

agreed my lawyer would be on there ass like a fly on poop

I agree as it states right there. I was just downstairs thinking about this and thought.....couldn't they of tasered the dogs instead of shooting them....I mean really. And what does the animals have to do with sexual charges?? Maybe I am wrong but when you serve a search warrant aren't you suppose to only take stuff that is pertinent to the case???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPelizabeth

I agree as it states right there. I was just downstairs thinking about this and thought.....couldn't they of tasered the dogs instead of shooting them....I mean really. And what does the animals have to do with sexual charges?? Maybe I am wrong but when you serve a search warrant aren't you suppose to only take stuff that is pertinent to the case???

---

I can understand the potential need to shoot before tazer, generally they probably have guns in hands and tazers would take time to reach for. That said, they had to have known there were dogs on the property before hand. Why wasnt animal control called to come and remove the dogs properly? Why werent tazers ready when they opened the doors as Im sure the dogs had to be barking up a storm once they did the obligatory knock before barreling in.
Id also have to agree that while Im not a cop, I have never heard of staging a raid on a building because someone was accused of sexual assault. Theres alot more to this than we're being told. Im trying to reserve anger till all the facts are out, but the news reporters twittering their mock concern for the crowd about all the "dangerous animals" made me want to rage all over that station.
There was something said about considerations for possible animal neglect and federal charges about animals being shipped across state lines? which is the reason Im assuming they excused themselves to remove all the animals, but Im willing to bet someone with a widely known reputation like Mr Cullen hasn't been moving exotics illegally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sariel

but Im willing to bet someone with a widely known reputation like Mr Cullen hasn't been moving exotics illegally.

---

right there with you on that one......and someone well known for working with rescues I am willing to bet had his ducks in a row with licensing.

WOW i feel for his pets and family and they shot his:cens0r:TBM for what sad case my lawer would eat that case up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPelizabeth

right there with you on that one......and someone well known for working with rescues I am willing to bet had his ducks in a row with licensing.

---

Im going to watch how this unfolds now that I know about it. Im interested in seeing what the details are and who is really at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPelizabeth

right there with you on that one......and someone well known for working with rescues I am willing to bet had his ducks in a row with licensing.

---

Hopefully.

Until more facts are available though, well, it's just speculation. My roses are speculated enough for now.

Wow...that is just so sad... :( :(

I don't even know what to say.

The police were serving a warrant for a sexual assault according to this article
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...ssault_pro.php

Also I asked a friend who is a police officer and he said during a warrant raid it is pretty much standard ops that any dog doing anything except lying on the couch is going to get shot dead. They take absolutely no chance of an officer being injured.

It sounds like they served a warrant for one thing and found other law violations relating to the reptiles not that they went in looking for reptiles. Be interesting to hear both sides of the story. In there somewhere is the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsd13

Also I asked a friend who is a police officer and he said during a warrant raid it is pretty much standard ops that any dog doing anything except lying on the couch is going to get shot dead. They take absolutely no chance of an officer being injured.

---

See i dont agree with that. When a cop executes a no knock search warrant idc how much u trained your dog to not bark/growl when some1 knocks on the door but when they BUST down ur door its the dogs nature to bark or growl. I dont agree with they "HEY THAT DOG IS MOVING SHOOT IT!!!"

This is sad and just goes to show you the country we really live in.

Those poor dogs.. Not to mention those "dangerous animals" are going to be mis handled and you can BET a good percentage of them will be dead within a month or two.

Does anyone know Terry personally or people he is close too? I cant wait to hear more.

I hope he did nothing wrong so he can sue the [****ens] out of those cops.

Actually the "dangerous animals" thing is to DEFINE a dangerous animal, it doesn't mean the police cannot shoot a dog that is behaving in a threatening manner. It means that if said dog does bite someone while defending it's owner's home, you cannot classify it as "dangerous" and have it impounded.

If any animal is threatening an officer, they are well within their rights to shoot it. Tasering a dog is usually not reccomended by any agency. So if they went in on a legitimate warrent(which it seems they did) then they are within their rights to shoot the dogs if they were threatening, which they very well could have been, being mastiffs in their own territory.

I have no ideas of why the police would seize the animals though. Is there a law or ordinace against keeping those species, keeping any certain number of animals, or running a business in that particular space?

If they just saw all the animals, assumed that they were not legal, and took them... then I would hope the animals would be returned. It's really stressful on the animals to be moved and who knows what sort of place they are being held in, and what care they are getting. I hope that the people who seized them had some sort of legitimate reason or that the animals are returned quickly so that they can get proper care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlue56

This is sad and just goes to show you the country we really live in.

Those poor dogs.. Not to mention those "dangerous animals" are going to be mis handled and you can BET a good percentage of them will be dead within a month or two.

Does anyone know Terry personally or people he is close too? I cant wait to hear more.

I hope he did nothing wrong so he can sue the [****ens] out of those cops.

---

What's he going to sue the cops for? Doing their jobs? Officers don't have the luxury of sitting around the squad room debating the merits of a warrant. They are told to serve it and they do. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't agree with shooting the dogs. Don't agree at all. But the fact is someone did something that gave a court a reason to issue a warrant sending them to that location. If no law had been broken, no warrant, no dead dogs.

There's more news coming out of this:

Quote:

---

Hundreds of mice and rats blanketed the basement floor of a building on Milwaukee's south side where an estimated 200 exotic animals were housed, according to a police document released Friday.

Many of the animals - ranging from alligators and crocodiles to snakes and turtles - were unable to turn around because the containers in which they were kept were too small and filled with waste, the arrest report says.

Jane E. Flint, who told police she lived in the building at 2323 S. 13th St., was arrested Wednesday and is in custody at the Milwaukee County Jail. She is being held on suspicion of mistreating animals and violating regulations regarding endangered or threatened species, according to the arrest report.

Source - and continues

---

It's also worth noting that they haven't found Terry Cullen yet. Surely he's heard about this by now...

He's that guy that's in on all the Chinese Alligator conservation, right?

Whatever happened, I feel bad. I'm not gonna jump to conclusions without knowing the exact situation.

I do have to say that I would be surprised to find out that he mistreated his animals. However, it wouldn't be the first that I've been surprised, so who knows.

So it's implied by the media that there was violations of endangered or threatened species and that animals were mistreated.

Maybe-so, maybe-no. Were the "endangered species" the crocs he owned legitmitately and the people doing the raid assumed they were an endangered species? Were the animals mistreated by being kept in appropriately sized housing, or the cages might have had some waste in them, rather than being stuffed into a small box full of poo?

We don't know. We weren't there. We don't have pics.

I distrust the media reports in general. After all, we've all seen the articles about the "5 foot ball python that could have eaten the owner" or the "20 foot venomous cornsnake". Not to mention the 100,000 burmese that are all released pets in the everglades from irresponsible owners that drove all the way to the tip of florida strictly to turn their venomous people-eating ecological disasters loose so they can invade michigan during winter.

Waiting to hear, and hoping there will be a good outcome of some sort.

BTW, I haven't found where the actual charges were stated... is that somewhere, or is it vague?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

BTW, I haven't found where the actual charges were stated... is that somewhere, or is it vague?

---

According to police statements it was a search warrant in conjunction with a sexual abuse investigation. The accusation of animal abuse is a result of the execution of that search warrant. Not the reason for it.

I dont trust the media either. But in regards to the shooting of dogs by police issuing a warrant. I dug up this article stating your 4th amendment rights. Since dogs are considered property. they vary from state by state.
Here is a small snippet and a link to the full thing
III. FOURTH AMENDMENT SEIZURES/TAKINGS

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seizures, shall not be violated . . .


U.S. CONST. Amend. 4

All too often incidents involving shooting of pets occur when police are executing search warrants, which bring them directly onto the property or into the homes of the pet owners. Direct confrontations with pets can occur and the pets are usually the losers when they are injured or killed by the officers. This brings us to the question of whether the injury or destruction of a pet can be classified as an unlawful seizure in violation of the pet owners’ rights to be free from unreasonable seizures of their property under the Fourth Amendment.

Pets are classified as personal property under state statutes; however, a reading of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment does not include the term "personal property." Does this mean that seizures of personal property are not covered? Luckily for the pet owner, the answer is no. The Supreme Court has held that personal property is considered an “effect” for purposes of being considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has stated:

. . . [I]n the context of personal property . . . our cases reveal some general principles regarding seizures. In the ordinary case, the Court has viewed a seizure of personal property as per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless it is accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly describing the items to be seized.

United States v. Place, 469 U.S. 696, 701 (1983). Further, the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that a seizure of personal property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). The destruction of property is considered “meaningful interference” constituting a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because the destruction of property by state officials poses as much a threat, if not more, to people’s right to be “secure . . . in their effects” as does the physical taking of them. Id. at 124-5.

Another question to be asked – does the Fourth Amendment only cover seizures of personal property that occur during a criminal search? Again, the Supreme Court has clarified this issue and stated that the reason why an officer might enter onto a person’s property or into a person’s home does not vitiate the question of whether a seizure has occurred and whether the Fourth Amendment applies. The reason can be for searches and seizures relating to both criminal and civil issues. “In our view, the reason why an officer might enter a house or effectuate a seizure is wholly irrelevant to the threshold question whether the Amendment applies. What matters is the intrusion on the people’s security from governmental interference.” Sobal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 69 (1992)(emphasis added).

Generally speaking, destruction of property that is not necessary to a law official’s duties is considered an unreasonable seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment. The courts, based on the individual facts of the case, will determine whether the destruction of the property was reasonable. Although the courts will decide the reasonableness of a seizure on a case by case basis, the person considering filing a lawsuit for a pet’s death must have a general idea of whether the officer’s conduct in their particular case was unreasonable. Addressing the issues relating to immunity can accomplish this.

IV. IMMUNITY

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A. Municipal Immunity


Common practice when filing a lawsuit against a police officer is to also name as co-defendants the police departments and the municipality employing the officer. Although these entities are not immune from having suits filed against them, they are initially immune from liability unless that immunity can be defeated -- defeating that immunity is an extremely tough hurdle to clear. Only “if there is a direct casual link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation” can municipality immunity be defeated. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989).

The primary case regarding municipality immunity is Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) which disallowed suits filed against a municipality on a respondent superior theory but allowed suits where the government has established a policy or permitted a custom which deprives individuals of their rights. The Supreme Court has clarified in later cases that this does not mean that a municipality cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only that the municipality would not be liable unless a policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. A jury must be able to conclude that the actions arose from at least an informal governmental custom.

Unfortunately, there are currently no cases relating to the shooting of pets where municipality immunity has been successfully defeated. Although the issue of improper training has been raised in several cases involving pet shootings, under Canton only when “failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact” can immunity be defeated. Canton, 489 U.S. at 388. Deliberate indifference means that the municipality must make a deliberate or conscious choice to ignore people’s constitutional rights. Errors or intentional behaviors on the part of an officer do not elevate to the deliberate indifference threshold for the municipality to have its immunity defeated.

It should be noted that while a municipality will probably have immunity for liability in the case of a pet shooting, it does not automatically follow that the individual officer(s) involved in the shooting will also have immunity.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/d...ootingpets.htm

So with all the legal speach....
Officers when executing a legal warrant can indeed shoot the dogs. The owner can choose to sue for the value of the dogs, but it is not a given that they will be awarded anything by the judge.
Which to my mind is absolutely reasonable. If police are doing their job in trying to execute a warrant(whether a search warrant, seizure warrant, or arrest warrant) they should be able to protect themselves from aggressive animals. With the laws interpeted as that article says, the owner can sue for the value of the animals should they be killed, but the judge will be able to say yea or nay about whether the officers were in the right or the owner deserves recompenses in each individual case.

Reading legalese gives me headaches, but that's what it seems to say for real life incidents.

Of course, anyone can sue anyone for any reason whatsoever. That's a given. It's whether they have a chance of winning, or if the case will be dismissed immediately as unlawful or frivialous by the judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christine

I dont trust the media either. But in regards to the shooting of dogs by police issuing a warrant. I dug up this article stating your 4th amendment rights. Since dogs are considered property. they vary from state by state.
Here is a small snippet and a link to the full thing

It should be noted that while a municipality will probably have immunity for liability in the case of a pet shooting, it does not automatically follow that the individual officer(s) involved in the shooting will also have immunity.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/d...ootingpets.htm

---

What's really sad is that the individual officers are probably the only ones who should have immunity, not the municipality. The officers are doing what they've been told to do and trained to do and then the municipalities hang them out to dry.

I can see it looking something like this:

Quote:

---

"We never told Officer Smith to kill any dogs"

"But you did review and approve the police departments use of force guidelines concerning household pets, right?"

"Yes, but..."

"And Officer Smith was following those guidelines, right?"

"Yes, but..."

"Which means that Officer Smith was carrying out the duties she was assigned in the manner your town said was appropriate, right?"

"Yes, but we have immunity..."

---

Actually Wisconsin either has, or is in the process of removing pets from the "personal property status".

Just did a quick check and AB793 and SB580 are not passed yet. Its written by the HSUS too, go figure.

Oh my god! The reptiles were is plastic tubs?!? Thats sounds terrible! He was keeping animals that are not normally found in Milwaukee? That monster!
Thank goodness that Milwaukee police and animal control sprung into action and saved the lives of hundreds of the children in the neighborhood from the scary reptiles and dogs!


But seriously. if no one knew that the animals had been there for decades wouldn't that mean he has been taking proper care of them and not letting them escape?
I for one am hoping he gets a good lawsuit against the city for this ridiculousness.

AR groups want pets removed from "personal property" so that they can sue on the 'pet's behalf. Think that's far-fetched? Overseas somewhere a AR group is sueing a fisherman on behalf of the FISH... because he took "overly long" to land the fish resulting in what they termed inhumane treatment.

I'm kind of hoping it's in England, they have a lot of wacky stuff that seems to be reported over there that never morphs into real life issues.

Well, I'm just trying to remain open minded for someone who has helped many exotic's in the past. I do wish things like this were video taped for legal and media purposes. Much of the time when someone says enclosures were too small or full of feces they are exaggerating (SP?). When it comes to reptiles that is. The general public has no idea how to properly house and care for these animals. Our "plastic boxes" and tubs would seem wrong to many simply due to their ignorance of the animal in question.

I have wondered while reading all of this if he actually did neglect the animals. I have wondered if he actually did commit a sex crime. Both are possible. I have also wondered if someone set him up. If the organizations trying to get the snake bans passed are releasing snakes and then reporting it to gain more negative press for us, whats stopping them from going further? You have to wonder if someone who is a part of the HSUS/PETA crew knew he had all these animals and came up with a way to get him in trouble and have him and the hobby negativly plastered all over the media.

I personally hope this man is not the bad guy they are trying to make him out to be. If it turns out he did commit a crime thats terrible news for all of us. The worst part is that no one would know who this guy was if it weren't for the animals. It would have been on the local news of that area and that would be that. The animals makes it all of our problem. The media will make sure of that. In the meantime, I don't believe we will ever know the truth about the conditions the animals were being kept. If the conditions were good they would never say it. That would look bad for their criminal case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent73

But seriously. if no one knew that the animals had been there for decades wouldn't that mean he has been taking proper care of them and not letting them escape?
I for one am hoping he gets a good lawsuit against the city for this ridiculousness.

---

I doubt the city would be taking up thousands of man hours to remove those animals from the property if there wasn't a reason.

As far as a lawsuit, for what? Taking his animals out of his care? He's not even there. According to the news reports the police are looking for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bsd13

I doubt the city would be taking up thousands of man hours to remove those animals from the property if there wasn't a reason.

As far as a lawsuit, for what? Taking his animals out of his care? He's not even there. According to the news reports the police are looking for him.

---

So just because no one was in the building its ok to remove his reptiles? You had better never leave your home then :rolleyes:.It would not be the first time these type of people over exaggerated things :mad:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joepythons

So just because no one was in the building its ok to remove his reptiles? You had better never leave your home then :rolleyes:.It would not be the first time these type of people over exaggerated things :mad:.

---

No. It's ok to remove the reptiles if they were being kept in poor conditions. I'm assuming experts have, for reasons as yet unannounced, decided that the conditions are poor. I don't get the impression that the police decided that the animals had to be removed, but rather people who know something about animals and husbandry. Even the zoo is involved. If anyone has an idea of what is and isn't suitable conditions for reptiles to live in it's the zoo.

The news report said a "search warrant". So what was the reason behind the search warrant? Where is the report of the sexual abuse warrant? Has any police or official report been released as to what charges this stems from?

Just because he wasn't there, doesn't mean that the animals were not being cared for. After seeing the video(it's finally working for me), I've seen him at shows. Seemed like a very nice man, very much caring for the chinese alligators and conservation. Since it was a house, it could be they were not zoned for certain species.. we just don't know, because no one has released information that I've seen yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

The news report said a "search warrant". So what was the reason behind the search warrant? Where is the report of the sexual abuse warrant? Has any police or official report been released as to what charges this stems from?

Just because he wasn't there, doesn't mean that the animals were not being cared for. After seeing the video(it's finally working for me), I've seen him at shows. Seemed like a very nice man, very much caring for the chinese alligators and conservation. Since it was a house, it could be they were not zoned for certain species.. we just don't know, because no one has released information that I've seen yet.

---

2nd to last paragraph. Source

Exact details haven't been made public that I've been able to find.

Quote:

---

Police discovered the animals at the house while executing a search warrant as part of an investigation into a sexual assault complaint, police said. Police have not publicly identified the target of the sexual assault allegation.

---

Other sources:
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...ssault_pro.php
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...tiles/19478050

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37134245/


This is the latest I can find on the matter, posted 13hours ago.
It still says no charges have been filed and the sexual assault charge is not only alleged, but no one will confirm that Mr Cullen is even the one accused.

I find it interesting that they felt the need to invade his home and his residence on this charge. I know he also has property in FL so its possible thats where he is while all this is happening.

I hate to be so caught up in something that doesn't really involve me, but considering the potential impact on our industry I just cant help it. Im also interested in the potential for bias profiling causing all of this. The media certainly isnt being very friendly towards him, I love the fact that the word hoarder is coming up again in this. Its all so exhausting :/.

Something about this whole warrant thing doesnt fit.. It was an alleged sex crime warrant? Not a drug or illegal firearm warrant? Since when do the police break into your home on a sex warrant? They pick you up at work, in your car, when you are at home etc.. There would have been nothing in his home to sieze unless it was connected to a computer sex crime. Then they would take the computer. Something is missing here. In any other case we would have more info.

To me, it seems weird that they would confiscate ALL of the animals that he kept, if the problem was only with the endangered ones that he allegedly was keeping without proper permits?

This whole thing is bothering me, too. Really just because I've seen a lot of videos of Cullen prior to this and he seemed to have a true passion and care for the animals, so like I said I would be surprised to hear that he was indeed mistreating them. However, some people do surprise you so I guess you never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foschi Exotic Serpents

Something about this whole warrant thing doesnt fit.. It was an alleged sex crime warrant? Not a drug or illegal firearm warrant? Since when do the police break into your home on a sex warrant? They pick you up at work, in your car, when you are at home etc.. There would have been nothing in his home to sieze unless it was connected to a computer sex crime. Then they would take the computer. Something is missing here. In any other case we would have more info.

---

I agree, this sexual abuse warrant has me a bit baffled too. Especially because I believe it's been made clear that no one was actually charged with sexual abuse, it was just 'alleged' which to me sounds like they were just investigating it. In which case, why in the world would they issue a search warrant of the facility for that?

I don't want to jump to conclusions but I would not be completely shocked if it turned out to be some sort of a set up.

Here's some of the city of Milwaukee's animal ordinances.
http://www.milwaukee.gov/Env#Anchor-Various-49575

And here's another news story about it.
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/93816569.html

how big/long would a 500lb snake have to be??:rolleyes: