DANIEL ROHRER v. HUMANE SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
Court of Appeals of Maryland, McDonald, June 27, 2017,
CR 10-615 – Seizure of an animal for its protection under CR 10-615 is a temporary fix, not a permanent disposition.
CR 10-615 allows an “authorized agent of a humane society, or a police officer or other public official required to protect animals” to seize an animal “if necessary to protect the animal from cruelty” or in the case of neglect “if removal is necessary for the health of the animal.”
Facts:
In 2014, the Humane Society of Washington County accompanied law-enforcement on a search & seizure warrant at the farm of Daniel Rohrer due to allegations of animal abuse and neglect. Nearly 100 animals were seized under the warrant as well as under CR 10-615.
Rohrer petitioned the District Court for the return of his animals, but his petition was denied.
Rohrer was found guilty of five misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty and granted probation before judgment on the condition that he implement a farm management plan supervised by the Humane Society.
The District Court released the animals seized by the warrant, but they were still held by the Humane Society under CR 10-615.
Rohrer appealed to the Circuit Court, which denied his appeal.
Rohrer then appealed to the Court of Appeals, claiming that the Humane Society’s actions in keeping and seizing the animals was inappropriate.
Held:
Animal Abuse- Humane Societies- “Humane Society” is defined as “a society or association incorporated in Maryland for the prevention of cruelty to animals.”
Animal Abuse- Authority to Arrest- An officer of a humane society is given the authority to make a warrantless arrest if they see “a person committing a misdemeanor that involves cruelty to an animal.”
Animal Abuse- While not explicitly stated in every case, the Court holds that “the statute requires notice to a known owner or custodian any time an officer takes possession of a mistreated animal under CR ยง10-615 in order to protect the animal.”
Animal Abuse- An animal seized under CR 10-615 is considered a stray if its owner is given notice that the animal was seized and does not file for its return within 10 days of notification of removal.
Animal Abuse- After a petition by the owner for return of the animal, the burden is on the State or Humane Society to justify why the seizure remains necessary.
CR 10-615– The Court specifically stayed away from any Fourth Amendment questions regarding searches and seizures conducted under CR 10-615
Search Warrants- Evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant “is not subject to interference in another proceeding.”
Search Warrants- An individual seeking the return of items seized pursuant to a search warrant must follow the requirements of CP 1-203 and file an application with the court that authorized the search warrant
Animal Abuse- CR 10-615– A humane society officer may, while an animal is in State custody pursuant to a search and seizure warrant, notify the owner or prior custodian of the animal of an intent to take possession of the animal upon its release from State custody under the warrant.
Animal Abuse- Time to Seize- Evidence justifying a seizure under CR 10-615 may grow stale depending on the amount of time that has passed, the type of activity involved, the length of the activity, and the nature of the animals involved.
Animal Abuse- Return of Animals Seized- While seizure of an animal might be initially justified to protect the animal, on a petition to return the animal it must be shown that the seizure is still justified as of the time of the hearing