New York State Assembly Poised to Act on Bill
Holding Animal Owners Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Dog owner group calls on elected Albany representatives

to uphold state laws, challenges A9400 (Paulin) as illegal,

a direct violation of civil rights and misuse of public funds

March 12, 2009: The Dog Federation of New York (DFNY) today expressed deep concern regarding Assemblywoman Amy Paulin’s proposal regarding security bonds requirements in cases of animal cruelty allegations, placed on the agenda for the Assembly Agriculture meeting of March 16, 2009. A9400 expands on a highly questionable existing state law allowing pre-trial, permanent forfeiture of valuable animals—personal property—if defendants are unable to promptly post high cost security bonds to cover the maintenance of impounded animals pending resolution of charges.

Citing concerns of erroneous deprivation, a U. S. District Court in another jurisdiction struck down a substantially similar law on constitutional grounds in late 2009. Under existing New York law, defendants without the resources to post security bonds face immediate, permanent forfeiture of their animals to private impounding organizations before any action may be taken in their defense. Impounding organizations may then kill or sell off forfeited animals, retaining the proceeds for themselves.

In direct contradiction to existing state law, Paulin’s A9400 enhances forfeiture proceedings by requiring civil servants--district attorneys on the public payroll—to represent the interests of private corporations during security bond hearings. In addition to illegally requiring district attorneys, charged with defending the interests of the people of the State of New York, to represent private, not for profit corporations (impounding organizations), A9400 also violates state law by requiring district attorneys to act in civil matters such as the security bond hearings proposed by the bill.

“The members of the New York State Assembly have a duty to uphold the law. The Constitution of the State of New York and the U. S. Constitution protect the civil rights of all citizens, and the presumption of innocence, regardless of the nature of allegations, is fundamental,” said Mahlon Goer, Dog Federation of New York spokesperson. “We’d like to see Assemblywoman Paulin and the New York State Assembly uphold the law. Defendants cannot be assessed high financial penalties or face permanent loss of their animals—their personal property—before their trial even begins.”

Civil rights advocates also expressed concern that under the proposal defendants relying on public defenders must appear in court without the benefit of legal counsel during security bond hearings headed by district attorneys. Public defenders cannot act in civil matters in New York. A9400 requires defendants to cover the cost of maintaining animals no longer in their custody. New York State’s Criminal Procedure Law § 690.55 clearly places the responsibility for maintaining seized property on law enforcement personnel pending resolution of charges.

“We believe that all responsible owners of animals share a concern for the well being of pets and livestock, “ Goer continued. “Under the law, we are explicitly required to provide for their welfare and should be held accountable if we fail. However, our concerns cannot drive us to surrender the protection of our civil rights. We are innocent until proven guilty.”

S3155, Senator Craig Johnson’s companion bill to A9400, remains with the New York Senate Committee on Agriculture.

About the Dog Federation of New York

The Dog Federation of New York is a statewide coalition of dog clubs, organizations and individual dog owners that serves the public interest by educating citizens and public officials on responsible dog ownership. DFNY advocates for dog-friendly, dog-safe communities for all New Yorkers, and strong, and humane dog-related legislation. DFNY is committed to working with public officials to address the concerns we all share.

What you can do to stop A9400

Immediately, and on Monday, March 15 at the latest, telephone, fax or email the Chair of the NYS Assembly Committee on Agriculture, Assemblyman Bill Magee. For the reasons described above, please urge Asy. Magee to hold Assembly bill A9400 in committee.

Contact info for Assemblyman Bill Magee:
Tel in Oneida 315-361-4125
Tel in Albany 518-455-4807
Tel in Oneonta 607-432-1484
fax: 518 455-5237
email: MageeW@assembly.state.ny.us

New York State Assembly Passes Bill

Attacking Presumption of Innocence

DFNY calls on elected Albany representatives to uphold state laws,
challenges A3765 (Englebright) as direct violation of civil rights and misuse of public funds

The Dog Federation of New York expresses deep concern over the recent passage of Assemblyman Steven Englebright’s proposal to allow petitions for security bonds to be made by district attorneys on the public payroll when defendants are arraigned following allegations of cruelty to animals. Under existing state law, defendants unable to promptly post costly security bonds face immediate, permanent forfeiture of their animals to private impounding organizations before any action may be taken in their defense.

In direct contradiction to existing state law, A3765 authorizes district attorneys, charged with defending the interests of the people of the State of New York, to represent private, not for profit corporations (impounding organizations). Existing state law also prohibits district attorneys from acting in civil matters, such as the petitions for security bonds covered by Asy. Englebright’s bill.

“The members of the New York State Assembly have a duty to uphold the law, the Constitution of the State of New York and the U. S. Constitution, and to protect the civil rights of all its citizens. The presumption of innocence, regardless of the nature of allegations made against a defendant, is one of our most basic, most cherished values”, said Mahlon Goer, Dog Federation of New York spokesperson. “We’d like to see Assemblyman Englebright and the New York State legislature uphold the law. Defendants cannot be assessed high financial penalties or permanent loss of their animals—their personal property—before their trial even begins.”

Civil rights advocates also expressed concern that defendants relying on public defenders must appear in court without the benefit of legal counsel during security bond hearings. Public defenders cannot act in civil matters in New York.

Under Assemblyman Englebright’s A3765 defendants are required to cover the cost of maintaining valuable animals no longer in their custody, or permanently forfeit them to a private corporation. The private corporation is then free to either kill the animals or sell them off and retain the proceeds, in contradiction to New York State’s Criminal Procedure Law § 690.55 which clearly places the responsibility for maintaining seized property on publicly employed law enforcement personnel pending resolution of charges.

“We believe that all responsible owners of animals share a concern for the well being of pets and livestock, “ Goer continued. “Under the law, we are explicitly required to provide for their welfare and should be held accountable if we fail. However, our concerns cannot drive us to surrender the protection of our civil rights. We are innocent until proven guilty.”

S5479, the Senate companion bill to A3765 sponsored by Senator Jeffrey Klein, remains with the New York Senate Committee on Agriculture.

Help preserve civil rights in New York! Stop A3765 and S5479 !

You can make a difference!

DFNY prepared talking points and an analysis of A3765/S5479 and A9400/S3155 -- two other nearly identical proposals before the NYS legislature on pre-trial animal forfeiture provisions. The proposals are nearly identical in their negative impact on civil rights in New York.

For talking points an analysis of Senate proposals, click here.

For talking points and analysis of the remaining Assembly proposal, click here.

Please immediately telephone or email the Chair of the NYS Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senator Darrel Aubertine, and ask him to stand up for civil rights in New York by holding Senate bills S5479 and S3155 in committee. Phone calls are best!

In Watertown 315-782-3418
In Albany 518-455-2761
In Oswego 315-312-3106
email: aubertin@senate.state.ny.us

Please also immediately telephone or email the Chair of the NYS Assembly Committee on Agriculture, Assemblyman Bill Magee, and ask him to stand up for civil rights in New York by holding Assembly bill A9400 in committee. Phone calls are best!

In Oneida 315-361-4125
In Albany 518-455-4807
In Oneonta 607-432-1484
email: MageeW@assembly.state.ny.us

Our concerns about the welfare of animals cannot drive us to surrender our hard fought civil rights! Ask Senator Aubertine and Assemblyman Magee to uphold the law!

Local Hunters Receive Commendations for Rescuing Dog in Desperate Need

Dog Federation Of New York salutes trio of Saratoga-area men who saved Daisy’s life

Albany, NY – November 16, 2009 - The Dog Federation of New York (DFNY) today issued letters of commendation and thanks to Ed Dandaraw, Tom Peters and Kevin McCauliffe, the Saratoga-area deer hunters whose quick response to a pet’s dire distress saved her life. Dandaraw was hunting on his property with his two companions when he came across the cruelly taped and bound beagle. Daisy had been covered with duct tape, wrapped in a plastic garbage bag, and left to die in a swampy, remote area on Dandaraw’s property. She had been missing from home for two weeks.

Because of the difficult terrain, the men needed to use a four-wheeler to get the dog to safety. A former beagle owner himself, Dandaraw took the dog to his own veterinarian and was prepared to provide Daisy with a new home if her owners could not be located. Happily, the dog’s distraught family was quickly identified and Daisy is back home, responding well to treatment and gaining weight steadily.

“On behalf of dog lovers everywhere, we want to express our gratitude to Ed Dandaraw, Tom Peter and Kevin McCauliffe,” commented DFNY spokesperson Mahlon Goer. “Without their quick thinking and commitment to saving her life, Daisy would have died.”

A confirmed animal lover who owns goats, chickens and a cat, Dandaraw describes himself and his hunting companions as “regular people” who didn’t hesitate when help was needed. “The day we rescued that little dog was one of the best days of my life.”

The Saratoga County Sheriff's Department is in charge of the investigation of the crime, and persons with information are asked to contact the Department at (518) 885-6761. Because Daisy’s veterinary needs have been addressed and she is recuperating well, the Dog Federation of New York suggests that dog and animal lovers wishing to make a contribution consider a donation to the local animal shelter of their choice.

About the Dog Federation of New YorkThe Dog Federation of New York is a statewide coalition of dog clubs and organizations that serves the public interest by educating citizens and legislators on responsible dog ownership and advocating for strong, and humane dog-related legislation. The Dog Federation of New York welcomes all dog owners and dog-related organizations in New York. On the web at http://www.dogfederationofnewyork.org/

Recent federal decision suggests defects
in New York Ag. & Mkts. law

Provisions similar to NY law found unconstitutional

In early October, 2009 the U. S. District Court Western District in Louisville, Kentucky, struck down parts of a municipal ordinance which were substantially similar to existing New York law governing forfeiture of animals in animal cruelty cases. The federal court enjoined the City of Louisville from enforcement of §91.101 of Metro Louisville’s controversial “Animal Ordinance”, because the forfeiture provision “threatens to deprive pet owners of their property rights without a finding of guilt (emphasis added).”

A copy of Judge Simpson’s entire Order and Memorandum Opinion is available here. To quote his discussion of the section of the Louisville ordinance allowing animals to be seized and forfeited prior to adjudication of charges if the defendant fails to post a security bond to guarantee the cost of maintaining the animal(s) during proceedings, the court reasoned:

“It is perfectly possible for a judge to find probable cause that a person has committed an offense, but for the person to later be found innocent. Under the scheme set up [in Louisville] if a person was unable to put up $450 immediately upon the probable cause finding, his pet is forfeit and he has no apparent recourse for its recovery, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. There is thus a high risk of erroneous deprivation.” (emphasis added)

Does New York law support erroneous deprivation?

As was the case in Louisville, existing New York State law allows similar onerous financial requirements to be placed upon defendants at arraignment by the filing of civil petitions for security bonds requesting the cost of maintaining animals seized while charges are pending.

The relevant section of Agriculture and Markets Law Article 26, §373(6)(a), setting out seizure and subsequent forfeiture proceedings reads:

. . .[U]pon arraignment of charges the duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, pound, animal shelter or any authorized agents thereof, hereinafter referred to for the purposes of this section as the "impounding organization", may file a petition with the court requesting that the person from whom an animal is seized or the owner of the animal be ordered to post a security.

Note that in New York, unlike Louisville, beneficiary impounding organizations are private, not for profit corporations or authorized agents, and not a municipal agency. Forfeited property (animals) goes to the private impounding organization, not the State of New York.

Agriculture and Markets Article 26, §373(6)(b)(2) continues:

"If the court orders the posting of a security, the security shall be posted with the clerk of the Court within five business days of the hearing provided for in subparagraph one of this paragraph. The court may order the immediate forfeiture of the seized animal to the impounding organization if the person ordered to post the security fails to do so. Any animal forfeited shall be made available for adoption or euthanized subject to subdivision seven-a of section one hundred eighteen of this chapter or section three hundred seventy-four of this article.” (emphasis added)

These provisions mean that if the defendant has the money to pay the bond (often thousands and tens of thousands of dollars per month), the animal owner is disbursing money prior to discovery, pre-trial motion hearings, prior to trial, and obviously, prior to a verdict on the alleged charges.

Conversely, if the defendant does not have the finances to pay the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars per month, he will immediately forfeit his animals - his property – prior to any action being taken in his defense.

Equally disturbing is that security bond petitions are civil matters; defendants relying on a publically-provided attorney will not have the benefit of counsel during the security bond hearing, a civil matter. Public defenders represent defendants in criminal matters in New York.

Disposition of seized property in New York

Estimated costs to be born by an impounding organization with custody of seized animals are cited as justification for security bonds. In essence, New York’s forfeiture provisions make the defendant responsible for preserving the evidence – the seized animals (property). This provision is antithetical to the provisions of state law, which clearly places the onus for maintaining seized property on the courts and the agencies which have custody.

Criminal procedure law reads (emphasis added):

§ 690.55 Search warrants; disposition of seized property.
1. Upon receiving property seized pursuant to a search warrant, the court must either:

(a) Retain it in the custody of the court pending further disposition thereof pursuant to subdivision two or some other provision of law; or

(b) Direct that it be held in the custody of the person who applied for the warrant, or of the police officer who executed it, or of the governmental or official agency or department by which either such public servant is employed, upon condition that upon order of such court such property be returned thereto or delivered to another court.

Under this section of the law, the court, the search warrant applicant, police officer that executed the search warrant or the government or official agency that employs that public servant are responsible for the care of evidence once seized and in its custody. Period.

Defendants cannot be divested of their property -- property no longer in their possession -- because the cost of maintaining evidence is not being covered by the courts. This is a clear violation of the defendant’s right to due process. It is unconstitutional and must be repealed.

As an alternative to costly seizures and impoundments, Agriculture & Markets Law provides for what can be referred to as a “seize in place.” AML § 373(7) provides that animals may be left in the care of the owner, with court-ordered supervision by authorities to guarantee their welfare, pending adjudication of charges against the owner.

Erroneous deprivation here and now

Private, not-for-profit corporations acting as complainants, and ultimately as impounding organizations, benefit through their participation in New York’s pre-adjudication forfeiture proceedings because they receive either the monies from the security bonds , or the valuable animals forfeited. Such animals are transferred to the impounding organization almost immediately following the defendant’s arrest and, with little or no monetary investment from the organization, may soon be sold by the organization.

These are clear financial incentives to seizure and subsequent forfeiture of animals in New York. Consequently the troubling, corrupt pattern of pre-adjudication forfeiture is well established.

Louisville and you

In Louisville, Judge Simpson wrote that “we must hold that the portion of [the Louisville ordinance] that would permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt, is unconstitutional.”

We believe that all responsible owners of animals share a concern for the well being of pets and livestock. Under the law, we are explicitly required to provide for their welfare and should be held accountable if we fail. However, our concerns cannot drive us to surrender the protections of our civil liberties that the U. S. and New York Constitutions afford.

We are innocent until proven guilty.

New York's "Puppymill Proposals"

Puppies! What would the world be without 'em?

Some New Yorkers may not realize it, but many proposed revisions to state law -- marketed by proponents pushing a national extremist agenda -- are based on misinformation, myth and fear-mongering.

Many proposals would make the breeding and care of puppies in the homes and kennels of hobby breeders, and sportsmen and women impossible.

Here's a careful, point-by-point analysis of Assemblywoman Amy Paulin's A7983 and State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer's S4961, proposals placing numerous, cumbersome and inappropriate restrictions on New York's home and hobby breeders.

DFNY's members don't want to live in a world without puppies. We believe New Yorkers should
have a range of choices when selecting a new dog for their home because no option is right for everyone.

A locally-bred, locally-raised dog from a home or hobby breeder is an excellent decision for many families, and legislation that would make such pups unavailable to most New Yorkers just isn't fair.

DFNY Joins New York Farm Bureau to Oppose
Proposed Limit Laws on Dog and Cat Ownership

A 7285, S 5392 and S 4690 contribute nothing to animal well-being

These proposals allow for the seizure of animals if any person or business "has in its care"more than 50 intact dogs or cats over the age of 4 months, without the slightest regard to the health of the animals or the conditions of care provided to them.

In fact, proposals like S5392 do not offer a single protection to dogs and cats over and above existing, comprehensive, New York State laws on cruelty to animals and regulations for pet dealers.

Seized animals may be sold off or killed by the impounding agency if security bond requirements are not met within five days.

S 5392 is on the NY Senate Agriculture committee agenda for June 2, 2009. Please join the Dog Federation of New York in opposing it, and immediately write or phone NY Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Darrel Aubertine and Senate Agriculture committee members to express your concern regarding extremist proposals.

If enacted, a law like S 5392 would devastate lawful, humane hobbyists, pet breeders and sports enthusiasts.

For more information on the many defects and problems in these proposals, see DFNY's position paper.

Read the New York Farm Bureau's opposition statement here.

The Dog Federation of New York believes that one abused animal is one too many. We stand for strong and humane animal-related legislation. . . not numbers games.

We urge the consistent enforcement of reasonable, effective animal cruelty laws. We reject proposals which would shut down lawful, humanely operated kennels and businesses while doing nothing to protect the animals we love.

New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)
Bans dogs based on breed and size

One pet per home, no intact dogs or cats


DFNY joins stunned residents of New York City's more than 178,000 public housing units--home to more than 400,000 people--in opposing a newly implemented policy banning dogs based on breed or type (no "pit bulls," Rottweilers or Dobermans), and size (no dogs over 25 lbs.). The new rules took effect on May 1, 2009, and apply to any pets not "grandfathered in" prior to May 1.

NYCHA rules also limit public housing residents to one dog or cat, and requires that the pets be surgically sterilized.

DFNY members vigorously oppose breed specific measures, which are based on negative stereotypes of both dogs and dog owners. No credible expert on community safety and dog bite prevention supports breed profiling, and breed specific public policies are opposed by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Veterinary Medicine Association.

New York State law clearly prohibits breed specific laws and New York courts have repeatedly struck down breed specific dangerous dog laws.

In addition, we are deeply disappointed to learn that residents of New York City's vast public housing system are limited to a single dog that cannot exceed a specific weight, and are required to submit their dogs to surgical sterilization in order to avoid eviction.

The Dog Federation of New York is committed to helping elected officials and public agencies respond appropriately to the concerns we all share: protecting the health and safety of the citizens of New York, and helping New York remain a dog-friendly, dog-safe place to live. Our letter calling on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to use his good offices to bring about a change in NYCHA policy may be read here.

We join the American Kennel Club in opposing NYCHA's pet policy. A copy of the AKC letter to NYCHA is available here.

What you can do:

Advocacy groups for public housing residents such as GOLES are working to organize opposition to NYCHA's pet policy, and they need the help of concerned pet lovers everywhere.

Download and circulate this petition ! Signed petitions should be returned to: GOLES, 169 Avenue B, New York, NY 10009

Write to Mayor Bloomberg ! NYCHA's Board of Directors is appointed by the Mayor.

Snail mail: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, City Hall, New York, NY 10007

FAX (212) 312-0700

E-MAIL:http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html

Mark your calendars ! The public will have the opportunity to comment on NYCHA policy during a hearing on on June 23. Be there!

Tuesday, June 23, 2009
from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at:
The Manhattan Center
Grand Ballroom
311 West 34th Street
New York, New York