Terry Cullen raided

[alittleFREE]

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.

[wolfy-hound]

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?

[bsd13]

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.

[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
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

[wolfy-hound]

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.

[bsd13]

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:

"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..."

[Sariel]

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.

[Adam Chandler]

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.

[wolfy-hound]

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.

[Foschi Exotic Serpents]

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.