Couple claims Humane Society lacked legal authority to seize their dogs
A Humane Society investigator acted beyond the scope of his authority when he executed a search warrant in April at a Superior Township home and seized 30 dogs, a couple is alleging in a recent lawsuit.
Ralph Hart and Melinda Hart are suing the Humane Society of Huron Valley and Matt Schaecher, who is an animal cruelty investigator there, seeking an unspecified amount of money and the return of 13 dogs.
The Humane Society of Huron Valley is located at 3100 Cherry Hill Rd., Ann Arbor.
On April 12, Schaecher, following up on an animal cruelty complaint, executed a search warrant signed by Chief 14A District Judge Kirk Tabbey at the couple’s home on North Harris Road. Schaecher seized 30 dogs — the vast majority of which were cocker spaniels. Seventeen were returned.
After the raid, the couple signed an agreement with HSHV to surrender 13 dogs, obtain licenses for the dogs that were returned and obtain a kennel license.
Under that agreement, HSHV officials reportedly told the couple charges would not be filed and they would be spared paying thousands of dollars to defend the case. The suit also claims HSHV lacked legal authority to enter into such an agreement.
“The actions of Schaecher and HSHV are tantamount to vigilantism,” the suit claims.
According to the lawsuit, the couple has never abused dogs, but takes care of neglected dogs as part of their involvement with the Detroit Cocker Spaniel Club.
Schaecher said he is a sworn law enforcement officer and is deputized by the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office. He said he could not elaborate on the animal cruelty complaint made prior to the search warrant being executed. Schaecher said many of the dogs seized were not licensed. When the search warrant was executed, he said, county sheriff's deputies were with him.
The suit claims the sheriff's department was not involved in the investigation and had officials at the home merely for civil standby. Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office spokesman Derrick Jackson could not be reached for comment.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Vincent, said the suit speaks for itself and he's prepared to take the case to trial, if necessary.
“Prior to filing this lawsuit, attempts were made to resolve issues presented in the lawsuit,” Vincent said.
Attorney Susan Kornfield, who represents the Humane Society, could not be reached for comment.
Until the legal issues are resolved, the couple has asked Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Archie Brown to issue an order preventing the Humane Society from adopting the dogs out.
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com.
Comments
Grace
Thu, Dec 6, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.
I adopted one of the cocker spaniels from this group. She was underweight and most of her teeth had to be removed because of the years of neglect. Today she is a very happy and healthy dog. She gets lots of love and attention and has blossomed in the year and a half I've had her. Taking her out of the bad conditions she lived in and letting her be adopted by someone who is crazy about her and can give her everything she needs and wants is the best thing HSHV could have done!
pseudo
Thu, Mar 29, 2012 : 9 p.m.
so, a question on this old article. How does this issue with all these cocker spaniels relate to the dumping of cocker spaniels around this same time not all that far away? http://www.annarbor.com/news/additional-cocker-spaniels-found-dumped-in-salem-township-during-the-weekend/ just seems like is was all of a sudden - raining cocker spaniels
chopper
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
i have been to there house many times ,and know that all there dogs get treated better than most people treat there kids. the dog have there own building when not in the house that is air condition in the summer and heated in the winter. i wounder how many of you on here talking down on them keep your dogs in the back yard on a chain rain shine or snow
aquileyendo
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.
I'll bring up animal cops like someone else did. The show frequently shows humane society giving back SOME of the dogs they siezed, or letting a few stay at the home in the first place. THis is usually the number of dogs they determine based on space etc. that the family can handle and give proper care. Then the rest they take with them to find other homes. It looks to me like thats exactly what HSHV did.
Arnold R.
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.
If the warrant was for abuse, cruelty or neglect why were seventeen dogs given back? If the warrant was for unlicensed dogs why were only seventeen dogs given back? It does not make any sense. What did the Harts sign? It seems like was you take the deal (the seventeen dogs) or nothing. As a dog owner that is a terrible position to put a person/family in. The whole ordeal had to be very stressful for the Harts. And then being told that if they did not sign the agreement they would incur thousands of dollars in legal and court costs... Almost if they were under duress when they signed the "agreement". As for licensing, under Michigan law all dogs are required to be licensed. The Harts dogs unfortunately were not. Under the law the dogs can be seized. But taking dogs that are seemingly well cared for (seventeen dogs were given back) is quite over the top. As for unlicensed dogs, Superior Township allows for three days to remedy the licensing situation in order to reclaim the dogs. It does not seem from the article that the Harts were given that option. Or was that what was meant by: "Prior to filing this lawsuit, attempts were made to resolve issues presented in the lawsuit," Vincent said. Michigan state law does not require a kennel license: "Any person who keeps or operates a kennel may, in lieu of individual license required under this act, apply to the county treasurer for a kennel license entitling him to keep or operate a kennel." So, State law states that "in lieu of" paying for each individual dog license someone operating a kennel (3 or more dogs are confined and kept for sale, boarding, breeding or training purposes, for remuneration) the state offers the owner the cheaper option of getting a kennel license from the county. Still cannot figure it out. Why go to all the trouble of a seizure when a simple ticket would have saved us all (tax payers) money and HSHV and the Harts the frustration and bad press of a lawsuit.
RJA
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 4:04 a.m.
Although I couldn't resist adopting a little albino kitten from HVHS, I now prefer to adopt or purchase from a private family. My little guy was sick when I got him. After spending many bucks for my Vet to fix him (had to put him to sleep to un-clog his colon) he is wonderful now, he can hear but not see well. He and my puppy are best buddies. I learned the hard way, when his eyes are red, back up. Cat bites are serious! He sent me to the ER twice. He is 14 months now, and very loving even when his eyes are red.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
Although I have had mostly good experiences with the HVHS, I can't say that every experience has been good. They are a big enough organization to not be perfect all of the time. I, for one, am glad that we have a court system to sort out things like this. If these people really aren't being cruel to the dogs, a judge can order that the dogs be returned. If they were being cruel to the dogs or don't have adequate space, their claim will be denied.
grimmk
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:59 p.m.
I'll never get tired of defending the Humane Society. I've volunteered countless hours for them and bought two of my cats from there. I believe in what they do and what they stand for. These Hart people have the right to defend themselves if they feel their rights have been violated. But I hope it gets laughed out of court. Everyone is always saying how the Humane Society sticks their noses in other people's business or has no right to tell them how to take care of their pets. But guess what? They do! Without them there would be many more cases of neglected and abused animals. Bottomline: Search Warrant. Cruelty Investigator. lacking licensees. Signed agreement. And now they are crying wolf.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 10:39 p.m.
pest, the possibility of a lack of sufficient space would make sense. I wish it was mentioned in the story as the reason.
Elaine F. Owsley
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.
The Humane Society speaks for the animals. It their care and condition and treatment that the Society defends, even if it has to do it in court.
pest
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
Craig - the most likely reason would be that the Hart's didn't have enough space or capacity to house the dogs properly. How many kennels? Do they have a dog run? Why didn't they have a kennel permit to begin with? They are supposedly breeders and should know that it's required. The protection of the animals is why the Humane Society exists. Too often "back yard" breeders mistreat or neglect the animals. Also, hoarding is not uncommon and ultimately harms the animals. The people often mean well, but ultimately harm the animals.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
why would the Humane society agree to take 13 animals and give back 17. Thats what I'm trying to wrap my head around. I want to understand the why of that.
obviouscomment
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:26 p.m.
"takes care of neglected dogs as part of their involvement with the Detroit Cocker Spaniel Club" "Until the legal issues are resolved, the couple has asked Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Archie Brown to issue an order preventing the Humane Society from adopting the dogs out." So these are neglected dogs that need homes, yet they can't let the humane society provide this for them if it becomes available? Sounds a little selfish to me.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 10:11 p.m.
As far as I can tell from the article and from their website, these people breed and show cocker spaniels *and* are involved in some kind of cocker spaniel rescue. It wasn't clear that all of the seized dogs are the dogs that they had as part of the rescue operation. They may well not want some of their show dogs being adopted out. That would be a nice detail for the AA.com staff to include if they update this story.
Elaine F. Owsley
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:33 p.m.
Hate to bring up Animal Cops again, but in those incidents, no animals are adopted out until the Humane Society has been given legal ownership - i.e. the owner signs a contract giving them to the Society, or there is a court hearing where a judge awards the Society ownership for cause.
ViSHa
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.
good point.
Mick52
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
These folks who filed a lawsuit on this should get a second and maybe a third legal opinion. I can see this backfiring on them. Seventeen of 30 dogs being returned makes me wonder what the issue is with the other 13.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.
I didn't mention evil John B you did. I mentioned a possible dollars a cents business decision.
John B.
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:48 p.m.
Good God, if you think HSHV is that evil, you're a complete nutter.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:56 p.m.
Mick52@ One poster in here who claims some credentials with respect to both parties said ...."Why did they just return those that were not "adaptable"? That would seem to suggest that Raissa Hinman the poster I am quoting thinks they kept dogs they could sell back to the public. One could further imagine that if an animal has a short turn around the price they bring might well exceed their costs and thus they can help defray the cost of most animals that stay much longer and don't "pay for their keep"
johnnya2
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.
"After the raid, the couple signed an agreement with HSHV to surrender 13 dogs, obtain licenses for the dogs that were returned and obtain a kennel license. Under that agreement, HSHV officials reportedly told the couple charges would not be filed and they would be spared paying thousands of dollars to defend the case. The suit also claims HSHV lacked legal authority to enter into such an agreement." This is everything you need to know about the case,. They are operating a kennel without a license. I wonder how people would feel if a bar was operating without their liquor license. The Harts ADMITTED to these crimes. They made an agreement to spare themselves prosecution. This happens every day in the court system. I know cities that charge you with a parking meter violation in exchange for a guilty plea and payment instead of a moving violation. You can't pay it, then come back the next day and say, so sorry I didn't really mean it. IT IS A CONTRACT
johnnya2
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 9:05 p.m.
1. "Schaecher said he is a sworn law enforcement officer and is deputized by the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office." yes he is part of the justice system. 2. I sign contracts every day that do not require me to be a member of the justice or court system. It is no more extortion than a credit card company saying , we will charge you a late fee and put a negative mark on your credit report if you do not pay us on time, AND if you are in default if you do not come up with a payment plan we will sue you. 3. If a person hits my car. I tell them, I need $1000 or I am calling the cops to make a report, it is not extortion., It is a settlement offer. I am not required to make a report for things that happen to my property. Life is extortion and bribery. My boss extorts me every day. He says if I don't come to work he will no longer pay me or keep me employed.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:28 p.m.
The Humane Society isn't the court system. They are a private nonprofit organization. One could argue they essentially said give us 43% of your stock/inventory and we'll look the other way and not file a complaint you will have to defend. It smells a bit like extortion
Huron74
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.
I hope this whole incident is investigated fully. I support and have supported the HSHV for few decades now and I think they do good and necessary work. But they're not allowed to violate people's rights any more than any other government agency. I hope AA.com will keep us aware of how this whole situation resolves itself.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.
I agree
Terry Star21
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:59 p.m.
I have seen no mention of poor dogs condition, unfit conditions of the home, that the dogs weren't cared for, or whether they were dangerous or caused a threat to people. It is printed that the couple has abided to all requests of the Humane Society - even to license the dogs and obtain a kennel license. Unfortunately in our society it sometimes becomes necessary to submit a lawsuit to get the needed court attention to get things done. The Judge will do the right thing I believe - accepting the requests and conditions of the couple to have the 13 dogs returned, yet subject to an annual or semi-annual inspection required by law. On the other hand, a Judge will NOT allow monetary relief to the couple and should not. Remember, the HSHV is acting in the protection of animals and has seen many, many cases of abused animals. They had the right to inspect the animals and house on a complaint as they had no idea about what the would find. Remember, there are many couples operating kennels from their homes successfully - there is nothing printed here (maybe we don't know the full story) that would indicate this couple is unable to do this.
Raissa Hinman
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:49 p.m.
For as long as I have been in Ann Arbor, and that is over 20 years, I have contributed to the Humane Society of Huron Valley and volunteered there at times, helping to train the shelter dogs. I have assisted with classes there as well. After this incident with the Harts, who I also know, I will never give them another dime or minute of my time. All of the Hart's animals were removed on an anonymous cruelty complaint. Their one crime was not having licenses for their dogs. That does give the law the right to seize an animal, but it was in no one's best interest to do so in this case. I was once stopped, 15 years ago, for not having a dog license. I was told to get one and fined $75. No one took my dog. The bottom line is that the Hart's property was taken and put up for sale without any due process of law. The Humane Society has become a large business with large overhead. If they were just worried about the number of dogs the Hart's had, why did they not release the dogs to co owners of some of them? Why did they just return those that were not "adaptable"? Why, when they realized the dogs were not neglected or abused didn't they allow the Hart's to license their dogs? This entire situation is just plain un -American. A couple was visited at home by law enforcement officers who took their property based on an anonymous complaint, none of which has been verified as animals were certainly NOT neglected or abused. They still have not been allowed to confront their accusers. They were even told they were "too old" to have their dogs by the Sheriff's department. Again,no cruelty or neglect has been demonstrated. There was a licensing problem that was remedied. The Hart's were providing care and love for their animals. Think carefully about our constitution and your own rights before you think the Humane Society of Huron Valley can do no wrong. They certainly have gone astray in this situation.
eagleman
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 3:41 a.m.
Ms. Hinman obviously is biased and that should be taken into consideration when reading her comments. We don't know the full details of this case, so it would be wise to save judgment until all the facts come out.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.
"She has ACCUSED the Humane Society of illegal behavior,...." That's at the heart of the story. The whole point of the story is based on people claiming the Humane Society did something illegal.
johnnya2
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.
More speculation allowed by somebody who is their defender, when will this crap stop A2.com. She is speculating what caused the warrant. BU T YOU ALLOW IT. She has ACCUSED the Humane Society of illegal behavior, YET YOU ALLOW IT. Why do you let this go on?
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.
you seem to make some valid points.
julieswhimsies
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
There was no mention of the physical conditions of the seized dogs. There must be more to this story.
johnnya2
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:07 p.m.
More speculation that A2.com allows for these people who AGREED to give over at least 17 dogs. Why would they agree to that? Could it be they are not taking care of them or licensing them or fixing them. We all know there is a huge market for the Humane society yo LOOK for new dogs. There are hardly any there ever They could have one to court BEFORE signing the agreement. Why didnt they? Ask some questions of their lap dog lawyers and friends on here
Raissa Hinman
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
That's because the dogs were in good condition, groomed, vetted, fed, and generally well cared for.
John B.
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
@Kathy: Please tell us one single 'bad thing' that you've heard about HSHV. We're waiting.
Kathy
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.
@Eagleman....have you ever heard of "word of mouth" . I said that I've heard both good and bad about the HS, I was not "suggesting" unethical or illegal activity. I will not and do not have to "take back my comment.
eagleman
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 3:53 a.m.
You do, Kathy, if you suggest unethical or illegal activity by someone or group in the community. Either cite a specific incident or take back your comment.
Kathy
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:56 p.m.
I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else...keep waiting.......
Kathy
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:39 p.m.
Wow !! Just a week or so I was looking for a groomer for my black cocker spaniel and bookmarked Hartline Kennels. Their website looked fine to me and I was going to give them a call to see what they charge for grooming. I guess I'll stick with my groomer I use now. I don't think they are a puppymill. They seem legit to me. I used to breed cockers on a small basis and was always very careful to check out who wanted to adopt one of my babies. On their website they have forms that needed filled out before they would consider adopting out one of their cockers. Most puppy breeders could care less who adopted a dog, . I've heard both good and bad things about the HS in Ann Arbor, but I hope they had good reason to seize those dogs.
John B.
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:54 p.m.
How are they 'responsible breeders' if their whole operation was unlicensed and illegal?
Raissa Hinman
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
No need to do that. The Hart's are wonderful people. Your instincts about them are correct. They are responsible breeders who love their dogs and their breed. The Humane Society has certainly done some good, but they've really blown it on this one.
a2citizen
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
Ducks. Check. Geese. Check. Bear. Check. Goldfish. Check. Dogs. Check. Reads more like a manifest for Noah's Ark.
djm12652
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:56 p.m.
even though you removed my post, thank you for removing the other
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
wheres the love for Hamsters?
Haper
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.
Poor dogs. Sounds like a small puppymill to me. Why are these people allowed to have so many dogs anyway? Do they have a license to breed and sell dogs as is required by state law? Did anyone notice their clear admission of guilt in the newspaper?! There are laws around these things for a reason. Animals are not a commodity. They are feeling beings and they need us to speak up for them. Thank you, HSHV! At least someone is paying attention.
John B.
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.
They may mean well, but they can't just hoard dogs. Dogs are living creatures, not junk from yard sales. Thirty dogs is way out of control.
Raissa Hinman
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.
They are no puppy mill. That term is thrown around much too loosely. They are responsible breeders who also had a number of rescues they were caring for. Melinda hasn't even done a breeding in over 4 years.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
"Animals are not a commodity." dogs and cats aren't but, like it or not, cows and pigs certainly are. They are traded on the Chicago Mercantile every day.
eyeonthenews
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:39 p.m.
There was a previous story on AnnArbor.com. I'm pretty sure they gave reasons for why the dogs were taken into HSHV custody. If my memory serves me I think there were problems with the condition of these animals, not just the number of animals. Maybe an AnnArbor.com staff member can post a link to that story for review. Also, I visited the site: <a href="http://hartlinecockers.com/" rel='nofollow'>http://hartlinecockers.com/</a> which states being President of the Detroit Cocker Spaniel Club and President of the Ann Arbor Kennel Club. How can you be president of a kennel club and not have a kennel license which these people were made to get after the raid? Looks like the last update was 11/6/09. I'd just like to state that I've been taking my animals to the HSHV for years for their veterinary care. You can't find a better group of people dedicated to helping animals maintain a quailty life. I go to the clinic there so often that they know me by name when I walk in the door. I can't praise them enough for the work they are doing in Washtenaw County. It's a hard job these cruelty investigators have to do and they don't seem to get the support they deserve.
Faith Bulemore
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
Why would anybody have 30 dogs in a home? I have 2 and that is more than enough.
Jake C
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
For money, of course. Dog breeding can bring in big bucks.
jns131
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
I believe there is a limit to how many dogs you can own. Someone told me no more then I believe 10 unless you have a breeders permit. As for the search warrant? There has to be reasonable cause and reasonable doubt.
Macabre Sunset
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
I suppose Superior Township will now have to find a jury of 12 cocker spaniels who have no direct connection to any of the seized dogs.
julieswhimsies
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.
Huh?!
a2citizen
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
Reasonable doubt? Tell me you're joking. Please.
ViSHa
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
Why are all the comments/questions regarding breeding being taken off when they have a website with a sample purchasing contract that CB's ghost linked? Is it for legal purposes?
Arnold R.
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 12:53 p.m.
The property question is a zoning issue. It is not an animal abuse, cruelty neglect or licensing concern. That is a completely different topic. Zoning is a city or township concern. It is not an area that HSHV has authority.
ViSHa
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.
okay, thanks. is it within reason to ask/find out if the property in question was licensed to breed/sell animals?
Tony Dearing
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
For someone to link to that web site is appropriate, but there are many unanswered questions at this stage and we ask commenters not to speculate or make statements of fact that haven't been substantiated.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:23 p.m.
"After the raid, the couple signed an agreement with HSHV to surrender 13 dogs, obtain licenses for the dogs that were returned and obtain a kennel license. Under that agreement, HSHV officials reportedly told the couple charges would not be filed and they would be spared paying thousands of dollars to defend the case." That does a read a bit like a 3rd world/organized crime shake down. Why did the Humane Society deem 17 dogs "returnable" but not 13? If there was some sign of abuse or neglect why let them keep 17?
Jake C
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
Craig: For some reason, you have posted at least a dozen times in this article defending the Harts. Do you know them personally and have something to share, or do you simply enjoy playing Devil's Advocate? Maybe some people believe the Harts are the victims here fighting back against the system, and feel that everyone should be innocent until proven guilty (as is the standard in our justice system). I can understand that. But now in this case, the Humane Society are the defendants and the Harts are the Plaintiffs. People often choose to waive their right to a trial in order to get an expeditious settlement. That's their right as well -- plead guilty to a lesser offense, or drag out an expensive court case and possible get a much harsher sentence -- happens every day. I'm not sure why you feel the need to make the same "just asking questions" point to every person who makes a comment here... but hey, it is (still) a free country!
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.
Seriously when are you going to change the masthead to Ann Arbor Animals?
Tony Dearing
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
A comment was removed because of name-calling.
John B.
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.
'Neener, neener, neener!'
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.
somebody needs to step up to the plate and tweet about this. Ingrid Sheldon used to be the mayor, has anybody checked her tweeter?
John B.
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
If I may go retro on you, LOL!! Craig, I am agreeing with you quite a bit lately. Another sign of the apocalypse?
Jordan Miller
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
It would be very helpful if the story explained why the dogs were taken in the first place.
Raissa Hinman
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:58 p.m.
That's the thing. They have never been told why..........not yet anyway.
Margaret
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
I know the Harts. Although I haven't seen them for years. I did NOT read anything in this article refering to ABUSE. It said the amount of dogs was the concern. Please READ the article before you put a comment on here that has absolutely NOTHING to do with why the dogs were seized.
Major
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
I know the humane society, they don't just go willy nilly picking on people! They were there for a darn good reason...that much I can assure you! Guess it will all get resolved now that the courts are in it...I sure hope this doesn't cause a lot of monetary loss to the humane society, something tells me the suit will be thrown out quickly!
Indicat
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.
From the article, it appears that the dogs were not licensed, since they had to obtain licenses for the 13 dogs returned to them. Did all of the dogs have the appropriate veterinary care? Vaccinations? I can only assume there was probable cause for the investigation and for the judge to sign the warrant.
quetzalcoatl
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
There seems little doubt that these was the stuff of nightmares: A pack of 30 snarling, salivating trained attack cocker spaniels, cunning predators slyly seeking to escape and wreak havoc on an unprepared quiet college town. Best to lock them up at the Humane Society. Given the adoption history of such animal shelters, it's likely many of them will get the gas chamber, but it's better than the alternative. Isn't it?
julieswhimsies
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.
Obviously, some animals may need to be humanely "put down" by HSHV, if they are too injured or ill to survive.
Jake C
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 11:53 p.m.
free form: Good point, the whole idea of "no-kill" is kinda irrelevant. Either you only accept cute cuddly puppies and kittens which are 100% guaranteed to be adopted, or you offload your "undesirable" animals on another shelter, or you just let them sit around your facility until they die of old age. Cause eventually, everything dies. And I agree about the animal hoarder point, but the more I read into this story, the less it seems that is what was going on with the Harts. From their website posted in other comments, it looks like they're basically back-yard breeders who lacked the necessary permits and possibly did not have enough living space for the number of dogs they had. When the "vast majority" of the animals seized from your home are cocker spaniels, it means you are quite possibly just running a for-profit breeding operation and not a kind-hearted rescue operation.
free form
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.
No... actually, HSHV is not a "No-Kill" shelter. Being a "No-Kill" shelter means you only accept healthy, young and easily adoptable animals. The HSHV is an open admission shelter, meaning they take in all animals left in their care without limitations. bedrog is right, though, that HSHV has worked very hard to increase the number of animals that they adopt out and their success rate is VERY high compared to most other shelters. If the people at HSHV thought this was a necessary measure, I am not going to question their judgement. Most animal hoarders start out as "rescuers" taking in animals for the right reasons. Over time, the situations tend to deteriorate and become unhealthy for the animals. It certainly sounds like this is the case with the Harts.
julieswhimsies
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
Bedrog is correct. The HSHV is is a "no-kill" facility.
bedrog
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:19 p.m.
very cute...but totally frivolous and offbase. This particular humane society is the best in the state, has a'no-kill' policy ( which is never 100% ,given the state of some of the animals it deals with, but is close to 80% in terms of adoption. If they put up a red flag in this case it was probably well deserved...and ive actually seen some of the dogs involved.
Wolf's Bane
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1 p.m.
It is precisely because of people like Ralph Hart and Melinda Hart that Humane Society of Huron Valley exists. To sue the Humane Society of Huron Valley is just spiteful. It is time to take responsibility for your actions and how you treat animals.
djm12652
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
how is this post being allowed? If not character assassination, then what does the moderator call the remarks?
Raissa Hinman
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:59 p.m.
Not true. The Harts have helped the Humane Society with rescue efforts over the years. They are responsible for the animals they breed and do not neglect or abuse them.
Gloria
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
"these " people are hard working kind people who raise champion dogs They are active members of local kennel clubs. Check your facts before making slanderous statements
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.
your probably right . But an alternative might be : "It is precisely because of the draconian actions of organizations like the Humane Society of Huron Valley that the courts exist. " I'm just suggesting the possibility that the Humane Society on occasion makes a mistake. They do seem at brief glance to operate under a bit of a "guilty till proven innocent policy.
Margaret
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 12:58 p.m.
This is the second family I have heard of this happening to since January. I just sent the first family an email containing this article. Also, I am shocked !!! This couple are / were friends with cousins of mine years ago. I also kept my horse at their home briefly while my fencing was being repaired. These people NEVER did anything even questionable as far as treatment of their animals. As a matter of fact they would rescue animals. This is absolutely crazy. Of all the animals I have seen "dumped" in Superior Township, 1 of which is a cat that I rescued that the HSHV failed to thoroughly examine upon the cats initial exam & is now 3 months later on an antibiotic for teeth & gum problems for an infection, that her wicked breath brought to my attention & the vet that examined her, who I alerted to this failed to catch in her examination. I now have put $300.00 into this animal & will be putting even more into her when she goes in for teeth extraction & any surgical repair of her gums she requires. There are people like the Harts & myself that step up to the plate for animals. Then there's the other family that had some AKC Chihuahuas seized & they also had to go to court & pay however much for what I believe was "having too many dogs" . These dogs were NEVER returned to the family. & children of this family were extremely upset. I fear that there is something very wrong with the steps that are in place to resolve the issue of "owning too many animals", or worse. The fact that I know 2 families that this has happened to is a huge concern to me. One family lives in the "country" & the other in the "city." What is wrong with this picture & the steps that were or were NOT followed in these cases.........................................
Jake C
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
"These people NEVER did anything even questionable as far as treatment of their animals. As a matter of fact they would rescue animals." Every time I read a news story or see something on TV where too many animals are living in dangerous conditions, it always seems to be a nice person or family who just wanted to help rescue and care for abandoned animals. But hey, maybe conditions were fine at the Hart's place. Considering they were given most of their animals back, I'd guess things weren't that bad. But just because a family loves animals and wouldn't intentionally harm them, it doesn't mean they have the proper licenses or facilities for the number of animals they had.
Jack Gladney
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
Did the dogs have nasty beast breath, and they go near someone's child?
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.
If i remember correctly Michael Vincent was an Ypsi cop for many years. I wonder how often he viewed himself as on "civil standby" while he was on the clock.
Arnold R.
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 3:42 a.m.
I do not understand. If cruelty was the "probable cause" why were seventeen of the dogs given back? That does not make any sense. If cruelty was the "probable cause" why were the dog seized when the only infraction sited was unlicensed dogs. If the "probable cause" shifted to a licensing infraction after the fact why were seventeen dogs release to the Harts with the instructions to get them licensed. Under Michigan law all dogs are required to be licensed. That was the only infraction sited. Under Superior Township ordinances the Harts are/were allowed three days to license and reclaim their dogs. They did that. All the dogs should have been returned. Under Michigan law if you own a number of dogs, in lieu of individually licensing each dog the State allows for a kennel license to be purchased. Under Michigan law a kennel license is not required. It is only an option offered by the State to save the owner of a number of dogs some money.
a2citizen
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
Craig, here is some info on search warrants: <a href="http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=102" rel='nofollow'>http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=102</a>
johnnya2
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
Steve, The deputy is still acting in their role as a deputy officer. The reason they are there does not matter. it would be akin to saying that if a deputy doing crowd control during art fair and a fight breaks out, that he is not authorized to make and arrest.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
except in this case a search warrant is being served. How often does a search warrant get issued for a "civil matter"? Doesn't a search warrant get issued on the reasonable expectation that a crime has occurred and there is possible evidence of a crime where the warrant is served? I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the Internet so I am asking. Does a search warrant have the specific name of who is allowed to conduct the search when it is issued?
Steve Pepple
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
Craig, "civil standby" is a term used by police to describe when an officer is serving as a "peace officer" - standing by to keep the peace in a civil matter, such as a spouse moving out of a house under tense conditions. No crime has been committed and the officer is there to ensure that the peace is kept.
Elaine F. Owsley
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 11:47 a.m.
Anyone who watches Animal Cops shows on Animal Planet understands that what was done in this case was the Humane Society and its representative following form. The shows present such seizures in Phoenix, Huston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami and other places around the country and their procedures are exactly what the Humane Society did in this case through its representative, Mr. Schaecher..
WalkingJoe
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 11:44 a.m.
We have three dogs all adopted from the Humane Society. The people there have always been kind , helpful and professional. The judge who signed the warrant for Mr. Schaecher must have known who he was and if it was legal or not. In my opinion this is just another case of somebody suing just because they can.
aquileyendo
Tue, Jul 12, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.
@Raissa And you are so sure of that because..........?
Raissa Hinman
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 6 p.m.
Though the Humane Society has done a lot of good, believe me they are very wrong in this case. Even the well intended can make some serious mistakes.
Ranaa Ali
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 11:27 a.m.
I have always thought that it would be a problem having the ability to enforce law without an animal control department. To my knowledge, when an animal humane organization acts on animal cruelty cases etc., they act along side of most animal control departments. In my opinion, you can not enforce law without a Legal Entity such as animal control to enforce it. Obviously the animal cruelty investigator could not get a warrant from a judge without being a sworn officer of the court and having probable cause. I believe this is not going to be the only case of people questioning the law if they don't get an animal control department to answer these types of complaints county wide officially.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 11:11 a.m.
"Schaecher said he is a sworn law enforcement officer and is deputized by the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office." I think that would pretty much legitimize it. "one dog seized was a family pet" What are the other 29, then? Livestock? Good Night and Good Grief
Oscar Lavista
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 5:08 p.m.
Voting up every time for your handle and sign-off!
ViSHa
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 12:40 p.m.
Now I am confused, do they take care of neglected cockers or are they running a dog-breeding business? Would be helpful to have interviewed neighbors to get their take on it.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.
You're right. Here's their Web site: <a href="http://hartlinecockers.com/" rel='nofollow'>http://hartlinecockers.com/</a> Good Night and Good Grief
Moxi
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 11:09 a.m.
The HSHV is put in place to help make sure the HUMANE treatment of animals. If you have ever visited, volunteered or donated to them you would see the awesome facility and people that work there. At any given time they are over run with dogs, cats etc. I'm sure the home that was raided was not because they were in need of animals to care for or adopt out. If they were there, there must have been a problem, someone reported it.
a2citizen
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.
Davidian, if the search were illegal then why wasn't the investigator arrested by the deputies that accompanied him?
jns131
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
There has to be just cause to execute a search warrant. A phone call does make a search warrant valid. There had to be other factors involved. Who knows what the HS and ASPCA came up with. As long at the animals are happy in the new home great.
Davidian
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 12:03 p.m.
All that doesn't matter. If the Schaecher really is a civilian without the authority to perform the search, it was illegal.
Craig Lounsbury
Mon, Jul 11, 2011 : 10:51 a.m.
"The suit, filed June 27 in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, says Schaecher is a "mere civilian" "Schaecher said he is a sworn law enforcement officer and is deputized by the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Office." It seems that shouldn't be hard to verify one way or another. "When the search warrant was executed, he said, county sheriff's deputies were with him." "The suit claims the sheriff's department was not involved in the investigation and had officials at the home merely for civil standby" Civil standby? Is that some sort of "legal term"? Cause if a cop is on duty he/she is pretty much acting as a cop as far as I'm concerned.