BOB

BOB’S LUV-A-PET ( a thankfully fictional case study of Law & Justice)

Bob’s Luv-A-Pet was a popular pet store in Greensboro, North Carolina, specializing in puppies and kittens. It was so popular, in fact, that sales reached the hundred-thousand-dollar mark in live animals alone for the past three years running—a feat which made the store the #1 retailer nationally among members of the American Pet Industry Retailers Association, of which Bob’s was a charter member.

Unfortunately, questions emerged about the raising of Bob’s puppies and kittens in recent years, as numerous animals that went to loving adoptive homes developed a series of severe medical conditions— including some chronic respiratory and pulmonary problems, latent physical deformities and some cancers that put the store under suspicion about the way their “lovingly home-raised” animals were actually being raised. Greensboro animal welfare authorities began investigating the business. After noting the presence of a series of “troubling” non-compliance issues with state health codes in the back of the store, investigators went to Bob’s farm nearby, where his puppies and kittens were allegedly lovingly home-raised.

What they found at Bob’s farm was anything but “lovingly.” In the rear acreage of the farm, far from adequate shelter, was a large fenced pen that was stuffed with breeding animals and their offspring, and in many cases the dogs and cats were lumped together to fend for themselves. Dead bodies of many animals were found upon inspection, and a nearby pit provided evidence that cats and dogs regularly died at the facility and were tossed into it when they did so. The only shelter was a small piece of corrugated aluminum wired over a rotting and roach-infested wooden structure, which investigators estimated would provide minimal and unsanitary cover for approximately 20-25 tightly-packed animals— not the 100-120 dogs and puppies and 90-100 cats and kittens that inhabited the pen. All of the animals showed signs of stress and flea/tick infestation; many had open wounds of various types as well. Food was virtually non-existent in the pen, and unclean water was provided by a rain gutter that spilled into two haphazardly-placed bowls for the entire pen—if and only when it rained, that is. A cosmetic studio inside the main house apparently allowed Bob to “clean up” the animals he took into his store temporarily; with the sales rates for these animals, however, it was clear that no puppy or kitten was likely to spend more than about 3 days up for sale before it went to a buyer’s home.

Bob was charged with violation of North Carolina’s Cruelty to Animals statute, N.C.G.S. 14-360-363.2, which makes it a Class I (that is "i,"

the letter) misdemeanor to “intentionally overdrive, overload, wound, torment, kill or deprive any animal of necessary sustenance.” Prosecutors

did not have enough evidence to charge Bob with the stronger Class I felony for maliciously torturing, mutilating or maiming an animal. Under

North Carolina’s structured sentencing guidelines for misdemeanors, Bob was sentenced by the court to the maximum penalty for a defendant

with no previous convictions—45 days of community punishment, which included working supervised and with no pay full-time for a local

registered animal shelter. At the conclusion of the 45-day period, Bob slipped back into oblivion, with Bob’s Luv-A-Pet now widely discredited

within the community. Rumor has it, however, that he is engaged in a new puppy/kitten mill operation somewhere in the vicinity of Wilmington, and

he is now wholesaling his animals to a large national chain rather than selling them himself.

Issues

Was the law served adequately by this outcome? Was justice served adequately by this outcome? What is your central point of reference

in answering these questions-- is it on Bob, Bob's customers, the animals, someone/something else?

Did the criminal law provide an adequate remedy for "the people" in this case? What is the purpose of law in a case like this-- is it to

rehabilitate... or to punish... or maybe both? What's the deal with charging Bob with the Class I misdemeanor rather than the Class I

felony (maximum punishment for which, assuming Bob had no prior criminal record, would have only been 4-6 months of community-

based punishment like he received in being forced to work for the animal shelter)? Should we make a distinction between intentional and

malicious conduct, and punish them accordingly and separately?

What civil or administrative remedies are available to punish Bob further, if at all? How effective might these remedies be, and who or what might

be able to bring them?

References

Federal Animal Welfare Act-- Summary of Registration Requirements: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/awlicreg/awlicreg.html

ASPCA Summary of NC Animal Welfare Laws: http://www.aspca.org/cgi-bin/aspca_state_laws2k5.cgi

Michigan State University College of Law Animal Legal & Historical Center, Summary of NC Animal Laws:

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/statestatutes/stusncset.htm

The Status of Challenges to the Common Law Conception of Animals as Personal Property:

http://www.the-aps.org/publications/tphys/2004html/DecTPhys/michael.htm

"The Domestic Cat and the Law: A Guide to Available Resources"-- making the point that cats (and other domesticated animals) are considered

personal property at common law. Also includes good research links to other legal and historical sources of information:

http://www.llrx.com/features/catlaw.htm

"We don't care what your laws say about being personal property. Remember-- we were sacred

in ancient Egypt. Now shut up and go get us more food. Oh, yeah, and bring back another one of those little catnip-doused rubber mouse thingies.

The last one's a little...er... shredded."