Virgin Islands. In most states, the possession of dogs for the purpose of fighting is also a felony offense. Being a spectator at a dogfight is also illegal in all states. Laws and penalties vary widely by state. On the federal side, the Animal Welfare Act of prohibits certain animal fighting-related activities when they have involved more than one state or interstate mail services, including the U. Postal Service. The Act amended the Animal Welfare Act and provides felony penalties for interstate commerce, import and export relating to commerce in dogs abused for profit, roosters who are forced to fight and cockfighting paraphernalia.
This provision makes attending an animal fight anywhere in the U. Dogfighting is a violent and highly secretive enterprise that is extremely difficult for law enforcement and investigative professionals to infiltrate. A dogfight investigation requires many of the same skills and resources as a major undercover narcotics investigation, and challenges the resources of any agency that seeks to respond to it.
An additional complication is that the evidence likely to be seized in a raid includes the dogs—living creatures who must be taken care of and maintained while the judicial process unfolds.
Most prosecutors would be happy to take on every dogfighting case they could, but they are limited by the human and animal care resources available to them. You are here Investigations and Rescue Dogfighting. There are several compelling reasons for this. Because dogfighting yields such large profits, the penalties associated with misdemeanor convictions are much too weak to act as a sufficient deterrent and are simply seen as the cost of doing business. Those involved in dogfighting go to extensive lengths to avoid detection by law enforcement, so investigations can be difficult, dangerous and expensive.
Making dogfighting a felony means law enforcement officials are able to put in the effort needed to properly investigate. The Humane Society of the United States supports felony charges for spectators of dogfights. Spectators provide much of the profit associated with dogfighting and, with it, the motivation to continue the cruel practice. They are willing participants who support a criminal activity through their paid admission and attendance.
Thankfully, many states have realized that felony charges for spectators can help crack down on dogfighting, but more legislation is still needed. Learn how to spot the signs of dogfighting. Dog fighting is secretive and operates deep underground. Our professional investigators work tirelessly to raise awareness and bring those involved to justice.
Often this means working in difficult and dangerous situations. Many indicators show that dog fighting continues to be a significant animal welfare issue in the UK. Figures from the RSPCA show a steady number of calls relating to dog fighting over the last ten years. We work collaboratively with the public, rescue centres, veterinarians, community groups, law enforcement and politicians to raise awareness, to help communities tackle it and of course to support the animals that have been rescued from this living hell.
Despite the failure to introduce a ban on fox hunting , Northern Ireland has led the way in tackling other forms of animal cruelty. The public and political outcry that followed, as well as lobbying from the League and others, led to the Justice Act , which increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty to five years imprisonment, and included provision for unduly lenient sentences to be appealed.
Despite these successes, the League continues to work to raise awareness of animal cruelty across Northern Ireland, and that these new maximum sentences are used by judges where appropriate. Dog fighting is a horrendous animal welfare issue. In one case we identified an organised crime group involved in dog fighting who were also involved in firearms, trafficking class A drugs, modern day slavery, money laundering and prostitution.
Most jurisdictions have statutes that encompass all levels of participation in dogfighting, so failure to establish ownership is generally not a bar to a successful dogfighting prosecution. Many statutes simply prohibit "causing or allowing a dog to fight another dog for sport or gaming purposes. In Rogers v. State [ ] , the State was not required to establish that the defendants owned the dogs. Under Texas law, [ ] "[a] person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses or permits another to use any real estate, building, room, tent, arena, or other property for dog fighting.
The relevant legal issue was whether the property was hers, not whether the dogs were, or whether she had caused them to fight. Beam , [ ] the court found that the owner of fighting dogs could be held criminally liable under M. Once the dogs have been confiscated, several legal and constitutional issues arise regarding their post-confiscation care and custody.
Generally, there is a significant amount of time between the seizure of the dogs and the disposition of the criminal charges against the defendant. It is exceedingly difficult for animal shelters to house large numbers of confiscated dogs pending a trial.
The animals must be individually housed and cared for by individuals that are trained in handling fighting dogs. The costs to maintain the animals for several months pending a trial can be very high, and in some areas, the dogs may usurp an inordinate amount of shelter space, thereby rendering a shelter unable to accommodate other animals. In most instances, it is most practical and humane to euthanize or re-home the confiscated animals prior to the trial.
Some states require the conviction of an individual prior to the forfeiture of objects used in the commission of the crime, in this case, the dogs. Other states do not require a conviction as a prerequisite to forfeiture proceedings. Although the ownership of the dog may not be a serious hurdle for the prosecution to overcome in a criminal dog-fighting conviction, it may become much more relevant when the courts must determine the final disposition of the dogs.
An individual that seeks to challenge the forfeiture of property, in this case, the dogs, has the burden of establishing a property interest. Even where the defendant claims ownership of the dogs, he still has the burden of establishing ownership during the forfeiture proceedings. In some instances, claiming ownership of the dogs may implicate an individual in criminal proceedings, so the counsel for the defendant must apply for a stay of civil forfeiture proceedings pending the completion of the criminal proceedings.
If the defense does not do so, it loses the right to raise this due process issue on appeal. The final disposition of the dogs may be further complicated by the fact that they are sentient property, protected by anti-cruelty statutes.
Thus, an owner may legally be able to recover seized property under the relevant rules of civil procedure, but may not be able to recover the dogs under an anti-cruelty statute that proscribes the return of the dogs.
Some courts have broadly interpreted statutes allowing for the forfeiture and euthanasia of seized animals to include forfeiture and euthanasia of fighting dogs that are wounded or deemed dangerous.
Mens Rea Requirement: Intentional vs. Unintentional Fight. Defendants will often deny culpability by maintaining that their injured or scarred dogs broke loose and fought on their own, were too aggressive during breeding, were attacked by stray dogs, or were injured while in the custody of another. Most statutes therefore make otherwise innocent conduct criminal by including an intent requirement. Much of the recent case law on dog-fighting has probed a variety of constitutional issues.
Typically, constitutional issues arise in two different contexts: 1 Constitutionality of the Statute; 2 Due Process Taking. Appellants often challenge the constitutionality of the dogfighting statute under which they were convicted. Generally, appellants argue that the statutes are unconstitutionally vague, or overbroad.
Such arguments are routinely rejected by the appellate courts. Void for Vagueness Doctrine: [ ]. In State v. Gaines , [ ] the appellant, who was convicted of promoting or engaging in dogfighting and the sale, purchase, possession or training of a dog for dogfighting, challenged the constitutionality of Ohio Rev.
Code Ann. The court, relying on State v. Similarly, in Hargrove v. State , [ ] the appellants, who were convicted of dogfighting, gambling, and commercial gambling, challenged the constitutionality of O. Parker, et al. According to the appellants, such punishment of innocent behavior would violate the overbreadth doctrine. Similarly, in State v. Gaines , [ ] The appellant, who was convicted of promoting or engaging in dogfighting and the sale, purchase, possession or training of a dog for dogfighting, challenged the constitutionality of Ohio Rev.
The second context under which constitutional issues often arise is the seizure and subsequent forfeiture of fighting dogs. When analyzing such procedural due process claims, the United States Supreme Court employs a two-step analysis.
In the context of state seizure and forfeiture of fighting dogs, which are considered a property interest, the first step of the analysis would be satisfied. The second prong of the inquiry would be to determine whether the entity responsible for the alleged deprivation instituted constitutionally sufficient procedural protections. Gonzalez , [ ] the court determined that the provisions of Pennsylvania's animal cruelty statute, 18 Pa.
In that case, the defendant was charged with and convicted of 23 counts of animal cruelty under the statute for cockfighting. The roosters were confiscated and destroyed pending the trial; however the court found that the defendant was unconstitutionally deprived of an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation. Most jurisdictions have statutes that impose criminal liability for being a spectator at a dogfight. See, Chart of Dog-Fighting Laws for specific laws by jurisdiction.
The statutes all include a knowledge requirement, such that an individual must intentionally engage in wrongful conduct, and cannot be held criminally liable for accidentally witnessing or unintentionally encountering a dogfighting exhibition. Individuals charged under the criminal spectator statutes often deny any intentional participation in the dogfight.
Several investigative techniques may be utilized to refute such claims. Officers should look for evidence linking the defendant to the exhibition, such as entrance fees paid to attend, wagers placed on the dogs, verbal instigation of the fights. Sometimes photographic or video evidence gathered at the scene may include footage of the defendant attending that or other fights as a spectator.
Typically the constitutional challenges to the spectator statutes are the same as those to the general dogfighting statutes. Defendants often appeal their criminal convictions by arguing that the statutes are either unconstitutionally vague such that a person of ordinary intelligence could not determine what behaviors the statute proscribes or overbroad, such that the statute criminalizes innocent or constitutionally protected actions.
In Commonwealth v. A "spectator" is "an observer of an event. Overbreadth Doctrine: [ ]. In Moody v. State , [ ] the fifty-nine appellants, who were indicted for dogfighting in violation of O. For example, they asserted that under the statute, one who negligently allowed his dog to roam which resulted in a fight could be found guilty of dogfighting, thus criminalizing innocent conduct.
Weeks , [ ] however, the court did find that an animal fighting statute contained a provision that was impermissibly overbroad. The court determined that the provision could be interpreted to outlaw such lawful assembly in violation of the First Amendment.
It is much more common for law enforcement agents to encounter pit bulls kept for fighting than it is for them to happen upon a fight in progress. Although it is much easier to gather evidence of dogfighting when the defendants are attending or coordinating a fight in progress, law enforcement agents do have legal recourse when dogs are being kept for fighting. Many jurisdictions prohibit the keeping or possession of dogs trained or used for fighting. As such, criminal liability attaches for simply harboring the fighting dogs rather than for coordination of or attendance at a dogfight.
In Ash v. In that case, the defendant knew that her husband fought dogs, knew that a structure was built on her property to house the fighting dogs and included a pit to be used as a forum for the fights, and knew that large numbers of people came to her property occasionally and brought their pit bulls. She denied any knowledge of fights occurring on her property but admitted that she saw nothing wrong with dogfighting or with her 12 year old son attending the dogfights.
In fact, she conceded that she and her husband had moved from California to Arkansas because dogfighting had been outlawed in California. Likewise, in State v. Scott , [ ] the appellant had been charged with and pled guilty to animal fighting, cruelty to animals, and the keeping of unvaccinated dogs, although the State had no evidence of the defendant actually attending any dogfights. Instead, the State presented evidence that the appellant trained dogs on his property with a treadmill and a carousel, and that the dogs that were confiscated from his property had scars and wounds that were consistent with dogfighting.
Finally, the State showed that the appellant had business cards advertising himself as a dog fighter and that he kept a notebook listing the people who owed him money. We are in the midst of a dog fighting epidemic in America.
We are in the midst of a violent crime epidemic as well; the correlation is not a difficult one to draw. In recent years social, political, and legal forces have effectuated remarkable changes in their perception of and reaction to the blood sport.
The clandestine culture of dog fighting is no longer shrouded in ignorance and apathy, and law enforcement and legal advocates are equipped with stringent laws to protect the victims and to prevent the indoctrination of future generations of criminals into the culture of dogfighting.
Where only a few decades ago, dog fighting prosecutions were literally unheard of, there is now a growing body of case law to assist prosecutors in building and presenting their cases and judges are becoming more cognizant of the gravity of this type of violent crime.
National efforts are currently underway to strengthen federal anti-dogfighting legislation, through the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of Progressive law enforcement agencies throughout the nation have identified the overwhelming correlation between dog fighting and other criminal activity and many have developed specially trained units to aggressively combating dog fighting.
The commitment of agency resources to the apprehension of dog fighters is not a sacrifice of those resources from other areas of law enforcement. On the contrary, the individuals that are apprehended by dog fighting units are the same gang members, drug-dealers, robbers, and violent criminals that the vice, narcotics, and gang units actively seek to apprehend.
Dog fighting raids tend to result in mass arrests for multiple offenses whereby serious and habitual criminals, that may otherwise be unattainable, are easily and efficiently apprehended. Additionally, dog fighting search warrants inevitably result in the discovery of evidence of other criminal activity that would often not be detected without costly investigations and surveillance.
Furthermore, as most urban youth are routinely exposed to dog fighting and its peripheral crimes, they are desensitized to violence and suffering and ultimately become criminalized. Without dedicated law enforcement intervention, these children would grow up to be the next generation of social deviants that compromise community safety and drain resources from an already drastically under funded penal system.
As many law enforcement agencies have already discovered, preventing their exposure to violence early on ultimately prevents the desensitization and future criminalization of children and saves future law enforcement resources. Many local, state, and national agencies have implemented well designed, sophisticated task forces [ ] utilizing local and regional law enforcement bureaus, including special agents, organized crime units, SWAT teams, drug enforcement agents, animal control officers, and child protective services.
Legal institutions and individual attorneys are vital components of the task forces as well; they contribute legal expertise in prosecuting the dog-fighting cases and in developing public policies and legislative initiatives to combat dog fighting. Community based government, social and educational organizations assist the task forces through community outreach, education, intelligence gathering, and animal rescue.
Many major cities have prominent officials that have developed and implemented dog-fighting initiatives; the prodigious success has garnered nationwide attention and spurred regional and state wide initiatives:. In Chicago designated an emergency code for animal fighting and in , the city received and responded to animal-fighting complaints. Dunford, is considered a national model in progressive law enforcement.
Dog Tag dispatches teams of city police officers, animal control officers, and armed special agents to dog-fights. With the support and guidance of the L.
From an institutional perspective, the combined efforts of the legal and law enforcement community to eradicate the culture of dogfighting are significant, success is inevitable. The reality however, is that society is merely beginning to confront the violent culture of dog fighting that has infiltrated every facet of American life for generations.
For the victims, the people and animals that live in the communities that are scarred by the unfettered growth of blood sport, the situation remains desperate.
Despite weekly reports of dog fighting raids and prosecutions from around the country, countless dog fights occur every night and go unnoticed, unreported, uninvestigated or unprosecuted. It will take years, perhaps decades for the current efforts to eradicate dog-fighting to have any tangible impact in the communities that are most afflicted.
In the mean time, the legal, political, and law enforcement communities have the formidable task of preventing another generation from being indoctrinated into the violent underworld of dog fighting. Youth Outlook Vol. RULE 1: Size of pit, optional; to be square with sides 2 feet high, scratch line 12 feet apart. RULE 2: Referee to be chosen before the dogs are weighed in or washed and referee to conduct the contest according to these rules and his decision to be final. RULE 3: Referee to see the dogs weighed at time agreed on and if either dog is over top weight agreed on he loses the forfeit money.
RULE 4: Parties to toss coin to see who shall wash first, each party to furnish two clean towels and a blanket. RULE 5: If requested to do so the referee shall search the person named to wash the dogs and then have him bare his arm to the elbow and wash both dogs in the same warm water and rinse them each in his half of the warm clean water provided for that purpose.
RULE 6: As the dogs are washed clean and dried they shall be turned over to their handlers and at once taken to their corners of the pit as designated by the referee and the referee must search handlers for means of foul play and see that he bares his arms to the elbow before he receives his dog and must keep his arms bare in such a manner during the contest.
RULE 7: The dog's owner or his representative shall be allowed at all times to be near his dog and watch to see that no harm is done him, and each owner shall be allowed to name a man or himself watch his opponent's dog and handler at all times to see he is given no unfair advantage.
RULE 8: Either dog's owner, handler, or watcher if he sees anything wrong must at once appeal to the referee and get his decision. And if any handler, watcher or owner violates any of these rules and thereby favors either dog the dog so favored must at once be declared the loser. RULE The dogs are placed in their corners of the pit, opposite corners, faces turned from each other and only the dogs and their handlers inside the pit.
Then the referee shall say, "Face you dogs". Each handler must always show his dog full head and shoulders between his legs. The referee says, "Let go", but the handlers must never push or shove their dogs and handlers shall not leave their corners until the dogs are together.
RULE Now when one of the dogs turns his head and shoulders away from his opponent after the fight is on it is a turn, whether they are in holds or free, and the handler must claim the turn and the referee must allow the claim if he believes it is a turn or the referee must call the first fair turn he sees whether the handler claims it or not and when the referee calls a turn he shall say, "Handle your dogs", and each handler must pick up his dog as soon as he can without breaking a hold.
Handlers carry their dogs to their respective corners the referee shall say, "Face your dogs". Then the handlers must show their dog's head and shoulders between their legs, facing the center of the pit. The dog that turned first must scratch first. In five seconds more the referee shall say; "Let go", then the dog that made the first turn must be turned loose by his handler and this dog must go across and mouth the other dog. If, when he is turned loose he refuses to start at once or is he stops on the way over, or if he fails to reach his opponent must declare his opponent the winner.
A handler is allowed to release his dog at anytime he sees fit after the dog whose turn it is to cross has started over. He must turn him loose when the dogs touch each other. He is not compelled to until then. RULE a If neither dog has made a turn and they cease to fight after 60 seconds of no action the down dog is to scratch first, if he makes his scratch the fight is on and they shall scratch in turns until the contest is decided.
If he fails to scratch the contest shall be declared a draw by the referee. RULE After the dogs are together this time either handler is allowed to pick up his dog when they are not in holds, if ordered by referee. If he tries for a pick up and either dog has a hold he must turn him loose at once.
If he catches his dog up free both handlers must handle their dogs at once. Take their dogs to their corners and proceed same as at the first turn, except this time the dog which went across before is allowed to remain in his corner while his opponent makes a scratch, or goes across, and they alternate or take it turn about in this manner until one of them is declared the winner under these rules.
The referee pays no attention to the turns after the first scratch. RULE If one of the dogs fangs himself, that is, if he gets his teeth hung in his own lip, his handler is allowed to unfang him.
If the dogs have to be separated for this they are turned loose again, both at the same time within two feet of each other in the center of the pit.
0コメント