Representative Jim Butler, Chair

House Judiciary Committee

Columbus, OH
Dear Representative Butler and Members of the Committee:
I am writing to express my opposition to HR 198 in its current one sentence form. I
believe this legislation is unnecessary and will hinder effective and vigorous
prosecution of animal cruelty cases. County humane societies are specifically
created with the objective to enforce state laws relating to animal cruelty and for
other purposes. Members of a county humane society have authority by statute
(R.C. 1717.09) to require county sheriffs and other police officers to arrest
individuals for cruelty to animals and to require the sheriff and police to take
possession of animals. Existing law does not require humane agents to
obtain prior approval for such orders from any prosecuting attorney and
HR 198 will not change this. Existing practice for many local humane societies is
to investigate complaints, charge individuals, and take emergency possession of
endangered animals, often subject to an expedited hearing on possession, and often
without needing to involve other law enforcement agencies. That could change if
county and municipal prosecutors handle the cases and may increase the burden on
county and local law enforcement agencies as they become involved in these cases.
If increased resources are not provided to municipal and county prosecutors they
may deprioritize animal cruelty cases. Special prosecution by humane societies
definitely prioritizes these cases.
Specialization in the prosecution of animal cruelty cases leads to better
presentation of these cases in the court. Because humane society agents now often
work with an attorney with particularized knowledge and experience they are likely
to receive better and more timely advice on their authority to deal with situations as
they arise and on the issues and evidence required in prosecuting these cases. If
humane societies are receiving the support they need from public
prosecutors, why are so many retaining private counsel to prosecute their
cases?
My experience in hearing animal cruelty cases during my 28 years on the municipal
bench and observing the work of attorneys retained by the local humane society
has given me a great appreciation for the intricacies of animal cruelty laws and the
skill of the privately retained attorneys who prosecute these cases. If this system
changes, I would suggest that municipal and county prosecutors who try
these cases be required to publicly report annually to the county
commissioners or appropriate legislative authority, and the local humane
society, on all prosecutions and what actions were taken on any
complaints not prosecuted.
The same constitutional requirements relating to probable cause and search
warrants apply to humane agents as to other law enforcement. Assertions to the
contrary are not correct. While county and township park districts do not have
separate criminal prosecutors, the Cleveland Metropolitan Park District does (but it
is subject to the political process of probate judge appointment of board members).

County and municipal prosecutors make private, non-prosecution agreements with

criminal defendants all the time. These agreements may require restitution to
private entities and/or for costs incurred by police agencies. If there is concern over
such non-prosecution agreements, by humane societies or generally by elected
prosecutors, one possible resolution is to require judicial approval of all
such agreements by the court which would have jurisdiction of the
underlying offense similar to current requirements for criminal diversion
programs. This would bring these actions into the light of day for the
community to be properly educated about them.
If the current system continues then a method of removing or supervising privately
retained attorneys is needed. R.C. Section 309.05 does not grant such authority.
This authority could perhaps be assigned to the probate judge who now approves
humane agents, but should require a known standard and a public hearing for
removal or other supervisory action.
It is possible to preserve the existing system and provide elected official
accountability with even more public oversight by allowing the probate
judge, an elected official, to approve the appointment of the private
attorney for a specified term, and require a public hearing prior to any
appointment or reappointment.
The existing authority for a humane society to act in cases not involving animals
should be reviewed.
Thank you for the opportunity to have input on this proposal.
Judge Dale H. Chase