Youngstown Daily Legal News

Owners of 20 abused animals ordered to wait for criminal proceedings before appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 17, 2015

Recently, the 11th District Court of Appeals ruled that the Portage County Municipal Court’s finding of probable cause in an animal cruelty case was not a final appealable order.

The ruling resulted in the dismissal of the appeal of Keith and Kathy Beck, who had 20 animals seized from their property after they were suspected of subjecting dogs and cats to cruelty and abandoning them.

According to the appellate court’s summary, the case against the Becks began with a complaint received by the Portage County Animal Protective League regarding the conditions of 15 to 20 dogs being kept on the Becks’ property.

Kathy Cordaro, a humane officer with the APL, responded to the property on March 1, 2014 and observed 15 dogs in a pen that was “full of mud and feces.”

According to Cordaro, the dogs did not have clean or adequate water or any food.

She suspected that three of the Huskies were subjected to animal cruelty due to their immediate need for veterinary care; they were weak and had a low body condition score of one out of nine, with five being a normal score.

Five days later, Cordaro returned to the property to execute a search warrant.

At that time, she saw 12 Huskies who were dehydrated, underweight and infested with whipworms. Some had wounds.

Five other small dogs were found in a wooden store front on the Becks’ property. Two cats were found in a camper and three other Huskies were found in a trailer.

In all three structures, Cordaro found piles of trash and animal waste.

However, the doors of the structures were locked so she was unable to remove the animals.

The next day, the Becks’ attorney called Cordaro and said Kathy, the dog owner, would surrender the Huskies to the APL.

One month later, Kathy agreed to meet Cordaro in order to hand over three dogs. The meeting did not happen, however, after Kathy failed to appear.

On that same date, Cordaro saw the three Huskies in a trailer that was littered with trash that she estimated was about 18 inches deep.

The dogs were “bounding from one pile of trash to another to avoid sinking into the trash,” according to court documents.

Cordaro also stated that the smell of ammonia in the trailer was overwhelming, despite the fact that she was wearing a mask.

Between April 7 and May 1, 2014, Cordaro and the APL’s special prosecutor attempted to gain permission to enter the property in order to retrieve the dogs, but the Becks never responded.

“As of May 1, 2014, the dogs continued to live in filthy conditions and had not received any veterinary treatment,” Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice wrote in her summary of the case.

Three days prior, the APL advised the Becks’ counsel that the APL would seek another warrant unless the Becks promptly responded.

That response never came and, on May 3, Cordaro executed a search warrant and impounded three Husky dogs, 10 other dogs and seven cats due to suspected animal cruelty.

On the property, she left a copy of the warrant along with a copy of the receipt and inventory listing of the 20 seized animals.

On May 8, the state filed a notice of seizure of the animals, alleging that the humane officer had probable cause to believe that the animals were subjected to cruelty.

The next day, the Becks were advised of an impending hearing to determine if there was, in fact, probable cause.

Cordaro posted the notice of the hearing on the Becks’ property and the court mailed a notice to the residence.

At the hearing, which was set for 9 a.m. on May 12, the trial court waited for 45 minutes, but the Becks never appeared.

Two days later, the court entered judgment. It found that, based on the evidence, Cordaro had probable cause to believe that the animals she seized were subjected to animal cruelty, in violation of R.C. 959.131.

The trial court also found that no one was present to claim ownership or possession of the animals, as a result of which, they were deemed abandoned and it ruled that the APL could put them up for adoption “or otherwise dispose of them as deemed appropriate.”

Two weeks later, the Becks decided, for the first time, to take part in the proceedings against them.

They filed a motion to reconsider the trial court’s finding of probable cause and abandonment.

That motion was denied and the Becks took their issue to the 11th District court.

“However, in their brief, they do not assert any assignments of error,” Rice wrote.

In any case, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s judgment was not a final appealable order because the Becks could still get their animals back.

“An officer may seize a companion animal when he has probable cause to believe the animal has been subjected to cruelty or neglect,” Rice wrote. “The court then holds a hearing, at which the court will determine if there was probable cause to seize the animal. If probable cause exists, the criminal case shall continue and the court will determine the amount of bond necessary for the animal’s care pending resolution of the case.”

The reviewing court ruled that the trial court’s judgment was a provisional remedy because it simply determined the preliminary issue of probable cause and deemed the animals abandoned while the criminal case was pending.

“If appellants are acquitted, the trial court will be required to immediately order that the animals be returned to them or, if they cannot be returned, the court will be required to order the agency to pay appellants the fair market value of the animals,” Rice wrote.

Since the Becks still have a criminal case to get through, the court of appeals dismissed their appeal for lack of a final appealable order.

Presiding Judge Timothy Cannon and Judge Diane Grendell concurred.

The case is cited State v. Beck, et al., 2015-Ohio-1069.

[Back]