An Analysis of the Law in the Matter of Lila Petersons Case - Research Paper Example

Student’s Name> An Analysis of the Law In The Matter Of Lila Peterson’s Case Petitioner Appellant Vs State Of Dakota Respondent Apelle 2009 Introduction The Lila Peterson case is an Appeal from a decision of the District Court of Burleigh County. This is found in the South Central Judicial District of North Dakota. The matter was heard on Appeal in 2009 .The Petitioner and Appellant is Lila Peterson. The Respondent and Appellee is the State of North Dakota. The case deals with the issues of Law on whether under the Law there was lack of care of the dogs by Lila. Secondly, the case seeks to find whether there was probable cause to confiscate the dogs. The following is an analysis of the case. The analysis looks at the issues of Law raised by both Statutory and Case Law. The Facts of the Case The County Deputy Sheriff James Hulm on the 7th of February 2008 together with his deputies answered a veterinarian’s call to carry out an investigation concerning possible lack of care of some animals. The Sherriff on the 1st of March 2008 together with other animal shelter employees evacuated 47 dogs. The Deputy Sheriff testified that the place was too cramped with no food and water. The Director of the animal shelter one, Sue Bucholtz gave evidence that the chihuahua were dehydrated and there was an underfed cocker spaniel. They had to provide medical care for the puppies. The President of the Bismarck Kennel Club, William Nieland, was not sure whether the food and water found on the day the dogs were taken was sufficient for them. He had earlier on checked the premises in March 2009 and found them to be adequate for the Chihuahuas. They then gave Lila Peterson forms to fill in duplicate. The forms were to be signed by her. One was to voluntarily give up the animals. The other was to aver that they were confiscated. Peterson, on the 6th of March 2008, sent a letter asking for the release of the dogs or in lieu thereof a hearing to be held. This was to be based on the confiscation notice she had signed. The matter proceeded before the District Court for hearing on the 11th of March. The State did give evidence to show the voluntary relinquishing form she had signed. The Court then proceeded to cancel the hearing. The Supreme Court heard an Appeal on dismissal of the case. They found the Lower Court had erred and proceeded to have the case put for another hearing. The Supreme Court heard the matter on Appeal and reaffirmed the Lower Courts decision (North Western Reporter 25). The Issues and application of the Law The issues of Law covered are as follows. The first issue regards as to whether Lila Peterson was able to care for the dogs. The Law covering the issue of care is under N.D.C.C. § 36-21.1-06(1) (NDLA2003) .This gives authority to officers under the act to seize any animal and care for it. This is where the animal is malnourished, dehydrated and exposed to harsh weather. Evidence was given by Deputy Hum to the effect that they did visit Peterson’s residence on February 7th 2008. He gave evidence that there was a foul smell that hit one as they entered the house. The smell became stronger as one proceeded to the lower rooms. The basement had a utility room that had been changed to a dog kernel. There was a newspaper completely soiled by the dogs. There was a water dish and food all over the floor. Peterson, when asked how many dogs were there replied that there were 60 in the two kernels. The two kernels were so packed that one could hardly see the food or the dogs. The owner had gotten ridden of some of the dogs. This meant she had probably had over a hundred dogs before. The Deputy Sherriff had taken pictures and this was presented in court as evidence. Deputy Quam who was present gave evidence of the fact that he did not feel the dogs were exposed to cold. There was also no evidence to show lack of proper food or water. The evidence given by Sue, the Shelter Director for the Central Dakota Humane Society was that the chihuahuas were dehydrated and that the puppies needed feeding. The facility basement was poorly lit with no electricity. The only light which was present came from a small basement window. Peterson gave evidence that she kept 75 dogs at the time of the Sheriff’s visit. The photos taken by the Sherriff was a true reflection of the basement at that time. She however testified that this was not the norm except that day due to her busy schedule. She cleaned and changed food three times a day. The dogs were confined inside during winter and released during summer. Peterson gave evidence attesting to the fact that she thought that the dogs were being tested then returned. William the President of the Bismarck Kennel Club testified that in March 2009, he had found the premises satisfactory. However, he could not agree that the premises were big enough for the dogs. Based on the evidence of Sue, the Supreme Court felt that the place was too small for the number of dogs. The place was also found not to be clean. The court was of the opinion that Peterson was not capable of providing care for the dogs. The dogs were to remain in the custody of the State. The Law in N.D.C.C. § 36-21.1- 06(1) defines probable cause as when authorized officers under the Act are in cognizance of facts and situations that lead to an honest opinion that an animal is being exposed to vulgaries of weather or malnutrition and dehydration (NDLA 2003). The court further explained the case law as stated in Seela vs. Moore on the meaning of probable cause (University of California 2000). This was the case that set the precedent on what probable cause is. The facts were that the Director of Transport North Dakota had appealed against the District Court decision to reverse the suspensions of one Gerald Seela driving license. This was on the grounds of driving when drunk. The Court was of the opinion that there was probable cause to arrest the offender. The judgment was reversed and the license suspension as upheld. Reasonable cause is when the facts as to what has transpired are within the knowledge of the arresting officer. They should make a reasonable person make the conclusion that an offence has taken place or is about to take place. There was enough evidence given by Hulm and Sue to convince the court that the dogs were not well taken care of. Their feeding as well as water intake was inadequate (North Dakota Legislative Assembly 25). The Law under the Statue N.D.C.C. § 36-21.1-06(1) came into operation and gave the authority to the State to confiscate the dogs. The Law under N.D.C.C. § 36-21.1-06(1), provides that the State confiscates an animal for lack of proper care; it must bring the seizure to the attention of the owner. The Law allows the State to dispose of or sell if the owner does not pick them up within five days of the seizure. The Statute N.D.C.C. § 36-21.1-06(3) provides that, when the owner wants to take back the animals, the court must be satisfied that the animals will be well taken care of. The Court gives a time period of ten days. The Court found that the appellant was not able to take care of them and the animals were to be held by the State. The next issue of Law addressed by the Court was whether the Supreme Court can reverse the Districts Courts decision. The Court clarified that it is only allowed to do so when the Court’s decision of fact is wrong. This is as per the precedent set in the decision in Aasmundstad v. State. The Court explained the Law and stated that, where the judgment is erroneous and there was no jury, the test as stated in the case of N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) is the one to be used. The test states that the findings of fact are wrong if they are based on the wrong view of the Law, there is no evidence to support it and finally the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the Court erred. The Court further stated that the fact that the District Court made a decision based on the choice of two views does not make its desicion wrong. The Supreme Court may have in its own opinion chosen a different one and this does not entitle it to reverse the District Courts decision of fact. The Court agreed with Peterson assertion that under N.D.C.C. §36-21.1-06(8), the Court only needs to determine whether the owner can cater for the animals sufficiently and not whether the owner had actually done so. The Court however did not feel the use of present tense in the Statute stopped it from looking at the owner’s past lack of care of the animals. The application of the law was sufficient to meet the legal issues raised (McCulloh and Catagnera 12). Conclusion The Law in this case is found in r N.D. Cent. Code § 36-21.1-06(1) (NDLA2003) The Court found that there was probable cause established to seize Peterson’s dogs. The Supreme Court concurred with the District Court’s descision that Peterson could not take care of her dogs. The District Court decision was upheld. The decision was made by a five Judge bench and was a unanimous one. There was no dissenting opinion. Works Cited McCulloh, Kenneth, and James Catagnera. Termination of employment: employer and employee rights. London: West Group, 1984. Print. North Dakota Legislative Assembly. North Dakota century code: comprising statutes of a general and permanent nature including those enacted by the Thirty-sixth Legislative Assembly. North Dakota: A. Smith Co., 2003. Print. North Western Reporter. Cases argued and determined in the courts of Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin. Carlifornia: University of Carlifornia, 2000. Print. Read More