Youngstown Daily Legal News

Proposed bill would remove Humane Society's prosecutorial powers

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 11, 2015

On its face, Rep. Steve Hambley says House Bill 198 may seem like an animal abuse issue.

However, Hambley, R-Cuyahoga Falls, says the proposed legislation is more of a basic law and order issue that primarily deals with the structure of local government.

HB 198 would abolish the Humane Society’s authority to employ an attorney to prosecute certain violations of law dealing with animal cruelty or acts involving mistreatment or nonsupport of children.

The measure is jointly sponsored by Hambley and Rep. Greta Johnson, D-Akron, and had its first hearing before the House Judiciary Committee this week.

“This legislation would move oversight of the prosecution of animal cruelty cases from a private prosecutor appointed by a non-profit Humane Society to county and municipal prosecutors,” Hambley said, adding that most people have forgotten why the current code exists.

The lawmaker said the section of law that would be repealed, ORC2931.18, is like the appendix of the Ohio Revised Code.

“It doesn’t really function like it may have at one time and getting rid of it shouldn’t really affect much of the existing functions of local government. However, like the human appendix, if something goes wrong with it, it can go wrong very badly.”

Current law states that a Humane Society or its agent may employ an attorney, and may also employ one or more assistant attorneys to prosecute violations of law relating to prevention of cruelty to animals or children; abandonment, nonsupport, or ill-treatment of a child by its parent; employment of a child under 14 years of age in public exhibitions or vocations injurious to health, life or morals or which cause or permit such child to suffer unnecessary physical or mental pain; and neglect or refusal of an adult to support a destitute parent.

Such attorneys shall be paid out of the county treasury in an amount approved as just and reasonable by the board of county commissioners of that county.

“Immediately, you can see the archaic nature of this part of the code,” Hambley said.

“Does it make sense to have private prosecutors appointed by a Humane Society, which primarily deals with the care of animals, also able to prosecute cases related to child or elder abuse?”

In the decades since the statute was created, Hambley said lawmakers have significantly addressed child and elder abuse.

“We have entire agencies devoted to these issues at both the state and local levels, and criminal cases are properly adjudicated in the courts. I’m not aware of any circumstances in which a Humane Society private prosecutor has used this section for anything but (alleged animal cruelty), but the fact that the rest of it exists goes to show the out-of-date nature of this entire section,” he said.

The passage of law, last amended 30 years ago, may exist because animal issues were considered a public nuisance issue.

“They were so far below the level of everyday concern that it was considered a step forward to outsource the issue to the Humane Societies,” Hambley said.

“Fortunately, in the decades since, we have recognized the repugnance of animal abuse as a concern in its own right. Likewise the linkage between animal abuse at an early age and the potential for criminality later in life is fairly well established.”

Hambley said enacting HB 198 is long overdue.

“In no other area, at least at the local level, do we allow a non-profit agency, whose board is not subject to oversight by elected officials, to represent both the law enforcement and prosecution side of criminal matters,” he said.

“Humane Societies currently appoint humane agents, who act in an official law enforcement capacity. Humane agent appointments are subject to confirmation by the county probate judge. However, when Humane Societies appoint private special prosecutors, there is no public oversight of that appointment whatsoever.”

Additionally, Hambley said there is no mechanism to remove a Humane Society special private prosecutor in the event that something like that would be needed.

In campaigning for the bill’s passage, Hambley explained how he became familiar with what he calls a “lack of checks and balances as well as due process.”

“I was a commissioner for 18 years in Medina County. Late in 2013, a number of residents came to me to complain about the actions of the humane agent working for the local Humane Society, as well as the private prosecutor hired by the Humane Society,” he said.

“Aside from the concerns that there was an inherent conflict of interest because the private attorney hired by the Humane Society had served on their board of trustees, as well as his wife who is also is his law partner, the residents made a number of allegations.”

Hambley says he began to sort through the situation with county officials.

“One of the most troubling concerns originating from the various complaints, as well as uncovered by the investigation, was the use of non-prosecution agreements by the Humane Society under extra-legal powers exercised by the humane officer and the private prosecutor,” he said.

“Several of the residents mentioned these NPAs but stated that they were afraid to produce copies for fear that they would be formally prosecuted as retribution.”

One complainant did turn over his document showing that, in order to avoid prosecution, the animal owner was required to pay the local humane society $20 per month.

“The humane officer personally collected that $20 per month from the owner in cash without a receipt which presumably was conveyed to the treasury of the Humane Society,” Hambley said.

“I don’t know of any public law enforcement official or county prosecutor that thinks this collection of cash as part of a non-prosecution agreement is appropriate handling of what some might consider to be public funds.”

While there is a penalty section in the applicable passage of state law, Hambley said the statute does not grant the authority to divert an offender through an alternative sentencing program.

“Nowhere in the ORC does it say that these individuals should be subject to provisional alternative private agreements for not being presented before our judicial system for committing offenses against domestic animals,” he said.

“Maybe this particular agreement was a fair settlement of the case against this owner. Maybe the cash fees imposed upon the owner covered the costs of veterinarian services that were required to euthanize the owner’s dog, as the Humane Society’s private attorney has claimed. But, maybe not.”

Hambley said the situation does not appear to be an isolated incident.

“I believe that by bringing the prosecution of humane issues fully under the oversight of public officials and separating it from the law enforcement powers that a Humane Society has, we will actually be able to more confidently assess penalties for animal cruelty in the Revised Code,” he said.

HB 198 has been backed by the County Commissioners Association of Ohio and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

[Back]