United States Park Police Refuses to Help Find James Patock's Dog

[Chicagocanine]

Originally Posted by Rerun

An officer here did that once and it came back to bite her in the butt big time. The dog was in the backyard (I can't remember now if it was tied up, loose, or in a yard with no fence sorry) in one of the worst neighborhoods in town. Turns out, the owner had witnesses that saw the officer take the dog.

I don't think she took dogs like that, I think she usually talked the owner into giving her the dog or it abandoned like that poor dog tied to the trunk of the car (he was a really nice dog too!) I don't think she took any to animal control and waited for a stray hold to be up though; the reason she took them was to keep them out of animal control. I am sure she wasn't following policy but she never got in trouble, unfortunately even when she had dogs causing trouble (barking, getting loose from her yard, etc) she did not get in trouble when people complained.

[Zisso]

Originally Posted by krystyne73

another reason not to harm my husband

For me, it is another good reason to remain single

[selzer]

Originally Posted by DFrost

Often times, officers are doing nothing more than following policy. Most officers I know are not going to let someone that needed arrested go, just because they have a dog. I've had tractor trailers full of cattle seized and the cattle taken to a stock yard (they wouldn't fit in the boarding kennel). At any rate there are policies to handle such incidents. What I find amusing are those that have so many run-ins with the police they are lucky they had their dog so they wouldn't get in trouble. ha ha. I mean how often does the average citizen had a negative run in with police. ha ha.

DFrost

I live near a very small town (a village) with a police department. They do not actually roll the sidewalks up at 10PM, but if you have the audacity to walk on them later than that you have a good chance of being stopped and interrogated.

[sit,stay]

It is SOP here to call animal control if someone is arrested with a pet(s) in hand. If there is another adult in the home and they are willing to take responsibility, then the pet(s) stay in the home and all is good. However, if someone is arrested driving drunk (for instance) and they have a dog in the car with them, the dog goes with animal control. I once saw two 10'+ snakes seized in the course of a traffic stop.

Unless the animal(s) are part of evidence, they are held as a stray and put up for adoption or euthanized as unadoptable once the usual hold period is up. I can't imagine any jurisdiction turning over adopter information to a former owner in a situation like that.
Sheilah

[AbbyK9]

Unless the animal(s) are part of evidence, they are held as a stray and put up for adoption or euthanized as unadoptable once the usual hold period is up. I can't imagine any jurisdiction turning over adopter information to a former owner in a situation like that.

^ This was also my understanding of how jurisdictions generally handle pets if their owner is arrested and jailed if there isn't anyone available to take the pet(s) and care for them at the time of the arrest, like a nearby relative or friend.

In the case linked above, James Patock (the person who was arrested and whose dog was subsequently rehomed by a rescue while he was in jail) is trying to sue both the police and the rescue, claiming that they did not follow DC law and that he is still the legal owner of the dog. He links the following law, bolding mine -

Michie's Legal Resources

When any person arrested is, at the time of such arrest, in charge of any animal, or of any vehicle drawn by any animal, or containing any animal, any agent of said society may take charge of such animal and such vehicle and its contents and deposit the same in a place of safe custody or deliver the same into the possession of the police authorities, who shall assume the custody thereof; and all necessary expenses incurred in taking charge of such property shall be a lien thereon.

I sometimes have a difficult time deciphering legalese, but it sounds to me like DC would require that the dog would be taken to a "place of safe custody" and that the pet's owner would become responsible for expenses for taking care of the pet? It doesn't specify whether they are required to hold the pet indefinitely or what, which makes this (to me) a bit confusing.

Can someone clarify?

[Rerun]

Ok, so from the police side neither of us had any idea what happened to the dog (it's usually a dog) after animal control takes possession of it in the event of an arrest.

I shot an email to one of the head honchos at our local animal control that I know well and posed the question to him. He said that here, the animal is only held for the 4 day hold (I thought it was 5 but it turns out it's apparently only 4) and if the owner doesn't arrange to have the dog (or other animal) claimed during that time period, the owner loses ownership of the dog and the city can adopt it out, euth it, or place it with a rescue.

There is no option for the owner to pay the city to take care of the dog, which I figured but given the above post I went ahead and asked. The only option in that event would be private boarding at the owners expense. The owner would have to arrange this, or have someone do it.

[AbbyK9]

Thanks, Rerun, that definitely helps. I will be interested to see how this case turns out in the end.

I think what happened with the dog was more than reasonable. The dog was seized and, instead of having it sit in the local pound or being put to sleep, it was pulled by a reputable rescue and rehomed to a good home.

As far as I'm concerned, the guy has no claim toward the dog, nor are police or the rescue required to give him information about the dog or who adopted it. He should be glad the dog went to a good home instead of being put to sleep.