Jeremy and Katherine Medlen lost their dog, Avery, after he was picked up by Fort Worth animal control officials.

FORT WORTH, TEXAS — A landmark local court decision last year allowing people for the first time to seek “sentimental value” damages for the loss of their pets has been appealed to the state’s highest court.

A petition was filed last week asking the Texas Supreme Court to review this ruling, which has drawn praise from pet owners and concern from veterinarians, kennels and dog sitters statewide who fear this opens the door for pet owners to sue them for sentimental value rather than market value if something happens to their dog.

“This sweeping change in animal law gives pet owners the potential for a greater damages recovery for the loss of their pets than is available for the loss of a relative or close human friend,” according to the appeal filed by Fort Worth attorney John Cayce, a retired 2nd Court of Appeals chief justice. “Although dogs are beloved companions, they should not be placed into this intimate familial category as a matter of public policy.

“While the Court may be understandably sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ loss of pet companionship, it should defer to the Texas Legislature to create a remedy for it.”

At the heart of this case is the death of Avery, an 8-year-old Labrador mix who belonged to Jeremy and Katherine Medlen and their children.

Two years ago, spooked by a late-night thunderstorm, Avery escaped from his family’s Fort Worth back yard and was picked up by city animal control. The Medlens found him at the shelter the next day, but through a series of slip-ups and errors — from not having enough cash on hand to take him home that day to having to wait until the vet could install a microchip in Avery’s ear — their dog was added to the euthanasia list and put to sleep. There had been a “hold for owner” tag on his cage.

The Medlens took their case to court, saying they hoped to prevent something like this from happening to anyone else’s pet.

In a groundbreaking court ruling in November, the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ruled that a pet’s value is greater than its price tag. The court overruled a 120-year-old case in which the Texas Supreme Court ruled that pet owners could recover only the market value of their pets.

“Dogs are unconditionally devoted to their owners,” according to the ruling. “We interpret timeworn Supreme Court law … to acknowledge that the special value of ‘man’s best friend’ should be protected.”

Randy Turner, the Fort Worth attorney who is representing the Medlen family in this case, said he’s disappointed that the case is being appealed.

“For the first time in Texas history there is a legal incentive for kennels, groomers, veterinarians and anyone else who cares for animals to take good care of them,” he said. “It will be interesting to see whether this ‘negative precedent’ out of the Fort Worth Court of Appeals that is currently binding on 12 counties in North Texas gets overturned, or if it is affirmed and becomes binding law on all Texas courts.”

He said he has heard that the legal bills for this appeal are being paid by special interest groups, such as veterinary medical associations, who hope to see the ruling overturned.

Cayce, who represents Carla Strickland, the former shelter worker named in the case, said that it would be inappropriate to comment on the case beyond what was filed in court and that, “like any other attorney-client communication, our fee arrangement with her is confidential.”

Elizabeth Choate, director of government relations and general counsel for the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, based in Austin, said she couldn’t comment on the pending litigation or fee arrangement. But she said the case concerns a lot of people, such as veterinarians, kennel workers, even dog sitters.

“We certainly sympathize with the plaintiffs in this case and understand how the family” would seek justice, Choate said. “But it’s easy to see how this case could impact a lot of people” and how “unintended consequences” could create problems for those in the animal business in Texas.

“We obviously don’t agree with this ruling,” she said.

Deputy Chief Adam Palmer played a graphic video of skateboarder Chris Evans smashing a Coast Mountain bus repeatedly with his skateboard, screaming profanities and breaking windows on the passenger side of the vehicle.

That led to a call to the police, who responded with a canine squad. In the ensuing arrest Evans suffered extensive injuries to his leg.

“We want to provide some context because at this point you’ve only heard one side of the story,” said Palmer.

Police recommended charges against Evans but the crown decided to stay them.

In a Province story last week, Evans said he knew he did wrong – but thinks the resulting police-dog attack was way out of line.

Evans says he lost his temper when three buses drove right by him and he smashed the last one with a skateboard – but the vicious attack he suffered was complete overkill.

“For a moment of losing my temper, it’s a huge price to pay,” said the a 33-year-old construction worker. “I lost my apartment, I lost my job and my leg doesn’t work. What I did was wrong, but the repercussions are ridiculous.”

Evans said he required about 100 staples to close his wounds after the attack.

“When the bus took off, I decided to skateboard home,” said Evans. “I didn’t even know there were police around. A police dog should never be the first responder.”

Meanwhile, the Pivot Legal Society is asking the Vancouver Police Department to probe what it calls a “really high” number of instances of police dogs biting suspects.

According to statistics from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner (OPCC), between March 2011 and January 2012, 46 per cent of the reportable injuries received from B.C. municipal forces came from police dog bites. The year before it was 48 per cent. A recent OPCC quarterly report states that “most reportable injuries are as a result of police dog bites.”

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND — A Baltimore County man is sentenced to prison time for his role in a dogfighting operation. The animals found in his care were dirty, malnourished and mutilated. Amazingly, some of them survived.

What was done to the dogs is horrible, but there is reason to be hopeful for their future.

Authorities say lovable animals Michelle, Bridgette and Shelly were used for sport and endured horrendous abuse at the hands of a dog fighter.

“They’re put into a machine to keep them steady while they are raped by the male dogs. It’s horrifying,” said Baltimore Humane Society Executive Director Jen Swanson.

Larry Alston, a 37-year-old Woodlawn man, was sentenced to three years in prison Monday by a Baltimore County Circuit Court judge. Police say when they arrested Alston in 2009, he had numerous dogs inside his home that were malnourished and scarred, living inside feces-covered cages. Prosecutors say those animals were used and bred for dogfighting.

“He did get three years today which is something of a miracle because oftentimes cases end up in appeals forever, such as the case with Phoenix the pit bull,” Swanson said.

The Baltimore Humane Society says they believe this case of animal abuse and dogfighting sends a clear message.

“That dogfighting is illegal and inhumane and will not be tolerated,” Swanson said.

Adam Lippe, the assistant state’s attorney for Baltimore County, released a statement saying, “The disrespect for the animals under his care was willful and deliberate, and hopefully the lesson is that the lives of animals mean something.”

Anyone interested in adopting the dogs can contact the Baltimore County Humane Society, which is located in Reisterstown.

Elena Zahkarova (right), holding her dog, Umka, with attorney Susan Chana Lask (left).

When Elena Zakharova looks into the eyes of her puppy as it suffers from bad knees and achy hips, she does not see a defective product to be returned to the store for a refund.

The New York City resident believes Umka, her 1-year-old Brussels Griffon, is a living soul who feels pain and emotion. Now her attorney aims to prove it in court.

Zakharova has filed a civil suit in a New York court against the Upper East Side pet store that sold her a puppy who went on to develop numerous medical complications. The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog’s pain and suffering, as well as its medical bills, as if it were a person rather than an inanimate product.

Under New York law, pets are considered “property,’’ but the complaint is trying to change that definition. The ultimate goal is to help shut down the puppy mills, many of them based in the Midwest, that often mass-produce the animals sold in boutique pet stores like Raising Rover, where Umka was purchased.

“Don’t call them property anymore,’’ Zakharova’s attorney, Susan Chana Lask, told TODAY.com. “They’re not inanimate objects. They’re not tables. They’re not chairs. You don’t just throw them out.’’

“Umka is a living soul with a heart,’’ the suit reads. “She feels love and pain.’’

The ownership of Raising Rover has changed since Zakharova purchased Umka.

“I know nothing about the sale [of Umka]. The prior owner has all the records. We are very careful about where we get our puppies,” Raising Rover owner Ben Logan told the New York Daily News, which first reported the story of Zakharova’s unusual complaint. Logan declined to provide any information about the prior owner.

Zakharova is seeking compensation for past and upcoming surgeries and other medical treatment involved with Umka, which totals at least $8,000. She also wants a full return of the dog’s sale price plus interest since the date of purchase in February of last year. If Zakharova is awarded the money, she will donate it to an animal charity or animal-rights program, Lask said.

New York state currently has a “Puppy Lemon Law’’ that allows buyers to return a sick animal to a pet store within 14 days for a full refund. One objective of that law is to slow down puppy mills’ mass production of dogs that end up having heart conditions and other ailments. However, in a case like Umka’s, the medical issues did not become apparent for months after Zakharova purchased the dog. The suit claims Umka will never walk or run properly again after several surgeries.

“Umka suffers a disorder causing her pain, her legs hurt, she cries when she is in pain, she drags herself with her front paws, [and] she cannot run like other puppies,” the suit reads.

“The Puppy Lemon Law doesn’t cut it,’’ Lask said.

If the definition of a pet is changed from that of property to an animate being with feelings, it could substantially change the amount of damages that could be awarded when an owner buys a defective dog born in a puppy mill, according to Lask. That could, in turn, have a chilling effect on pet stores buying animals from puppy mills out of fear of getting slammed with large payouts from lawsuits.

“It’s going to put a number on my dog’s broken hips that you created because you’re negligent, you’re greedy, and you’re mass-producing these puppies,’’ Lask said. “Right now, even if you return it, they just kill it, which is so inhumane.’’

Lask is an animal lover who owns a Chihuahua named Lincoln who was found to have a hole in his skull months after her purchase. That discovery led her to investigate the practices of shady puppy mills. She has waited six years to bring a case of this nature, fielding calls from other pet owners in the past, but felt Zakharova is the perfect client to help correct a larger issue.

“It’s much bigger than this case,’’ she said. “I am looking to shut down the puppy mill world.’’

The main issue will be proving to a judge that pets are living souls who experience feelings of pain and emotion.

“It’s a leap,’’ Lask said. “Human beings themselves have treated other humans as property in history before recognizing it was wrong. People will say this isn’t a human being, but they have a heart, so it’s not too much of a stretch to ask the courts to change the definition. Then we’ll see how quickly pet stores think twice before buying from puppy mills.”

“It’s already a felony to abuse an animal. If I kick my Chihuahua and beat it, I’m getting arrested, so that animal has rights. If they have criminal rights, why not put rights on a damaged leg or a heart condition? If we’re not equating [an animal] to a human being, and we’re not equating it to a table, there has to be something in the middle.’’

Whether the suit is successful or not, it brings to light the practices of puppy mills and their damaging effects on animals and their human owners, animal rights advocates say.

“I don’t know where this case is going to go, but it’s good that it brings awareness that pets are not just a commodity and that we have to take this seriously,’’ said Sandra DeFeo, executive director of The Humane Society of New York. “We feel that animals are living, breathing beings, not a piece of furniture or inanimate object. People develop relationships and bonds with these animals, and you see how distraught they are when the animals pass away.’’

A 2011 investigation by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that Raising Rover, where Umka was purchased, was one of 11 upscale pet stores that purchased animals from Midwestern puppy mills with horrendous conditions.

Retired Miami-Dade Narcotics Detector Dog, Franky.

MIAMI — Franky the drug dog’s supersensitive nose is at the heart of a question being put to the U.S. Supreme Court: Does a police dog’s sniff outside a house give officers the right to get a search warrant for illegal drugs, or is the sniff an unconstitutional search?

Florida’s highest state court has said Franky’s ability to detect marijuana growing inside a Miami-area house from outside a closed front door crossed the constitutional line. The state’s attorney general wants the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.

The justices could decide this month whether to take the case, the latest dispute about whether the use of dogs to find drugs, explosives and other illegal or dangerous substances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.

Many court watchers expect the justices will take up the case.

“The Florida Supreme Court adopted a very broad reading of the Fourth Amendment that is different from that applied by other courts. It’s an interpretation that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court will question,” said Tom Goldstein, who publishes the widely read SCOTUSblog website and teaches at the Harvard and Stanford law schools.

The case, Florida v. Jardines, is being closely monitored by law enforcement agencies nationwide, which depend on dogs for a wide range of law enforcement duties.

“Dogs can be a police officer’s best friend because they detect everything from marijuana or meth labs to explosives,” said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami now in private practice.

The 8-year-old Franky retired in June after a seven-year career with the Miami-Dade Police Department. He’s responsible for the seizure of more than 2.5 tons of marijuana and $4.9 million in drug-contaminated money. And because he’s an amiable chocolate Labrador, he was used extensively in airports, sports arenas and other places where people congregate.

“He’s a friendly, happy dog,” said his former handler, Detective Douglas Bartelt, who kept Franky after he retired. “People don’t have fear because of his appearance.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has approved drug dog sniffs in several other major cases. Two of those involved dogs that detected drugs during routine traffic stops. In another, a dog found drugs in airport luggage. A fourth involved a drug-laden package in transit.

The Florida case is different because it involves a private residence. The high court has repeatedly emphasized that a home is entitled to greater privacy than cars on the road or a suitcase in an airport. In another major ruling, the justices decided in 2001 that police could not use thermal imaging technology to detect heat from marijuana grow operations from outside a home because the equipment could also detect lawful activity.

“We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house,” the court ruled in that case, known as Kyllo v. United States. The justices added that the thermal devices could detect such intimate details as “at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath.”

It’s well-settled that law enforcement officials can walk up to a home and knock on the front door, in hopes that someone will open up and talk. But if a person inside refuses, the officers must get a search warrant — and for that they need evidence of a crime.

On the morning of Dec. 5, 2006, Miami-Dade police detectives and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents set up surveillance outside a house south of the city after getting an anonymous tip that it might contain a marijuana grow operation. Bartelt arrived with Franky. The dog quickly detected the odor of pot at the base of the front door and sat down as he was trained to do.

That sniff was used to get a search warrant from a judge. The house was searched and its lone occupant, Joelis Jardines, was arrested trying to escape out the back door. Officers pulled 179 live marijuana plants from the house, with an estimated street value of more than $700,000.

Jardines, now 39, was charged with marijuana trafficking and grand theft for stealing electricity needed to run the highly sophisticated operation. He pleaded not guilty and his attorney challenged the search, claiming Franky’s sniff outside the front door was an unconstitutional law enforcement intrusion into the home.

The trial judge agreed and threw out the evidence seized in the search, but that was reversed by an intermediate appeals court. In April a divided Florida Supreme Court sided with the original judge.

In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, state lawyers argue that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with numerous previous rulings that a dog sniff is not a search.

“A dog sniff of a house reveals only that the house contains drugs, not any other private information about the house or the persons in it,” wrote Carolyn Snurkowski, Florida associate deputy attorney general. “A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in illegal drugs.”

The criminal case against Jardines is on hold until the question involving Franky’s nose is settled. Meanwhile, Jardines is out on bail following a 2010 arrest for alleged armed robbery and aggravated assault. He pleaded not guilty in that one, as well, and trial is set for Feb. 21.

Two dogs that Patrick Caleb Land, 25, pleaded guilty to killing.

A 25-year-old man who pleaded guilty to beating and killing his girlfriend’s dogs last year was sentenced to five years and four months in state prison, District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis announced Friday.

Patrick Caleb Land pleaded guilty to three counts of animal cruelty in September after being arrested and extricated to San Diego from North Carolina, according to the District Attorney’s office.

The case centered on the death of three dogs owned by Land’s then-girlfriend, Natasha Strain, including, Jackie, a nine-year old white shepherd mix; Pikanik, a four-year old black and tan mixed breed; and Josh, a Great Pyrenees and golden retriever mix.

Land was said to have killed all three dogs on two separate incidents and on both occasions calling Strain at work to inform her he found the dogs dead in her bedroom.

Strain accepted Land’s claims after the first death of her dog Josh in September 2010 , reportedly concluding that the dog choked to death. However, she said she became suspicious once two more of her dogs, Jackie and Pikanik, died only a month later.

“My dogs were my babies,” Strain told Superior Court Judge Charles Rogers earlier this month. “Their happiness was my number one priority.”

According to a veterinarian who performed necropsies on the two dogs killed in October 2010, the animals appeared to have been wearing restraining devices on their heads to prevent them from biting or barking. Land’s DNA was also found under one dog’s nail.

A local veterinarian, who Strain brought Jackie and Pikanik to after their deaths, said the animal’s injuries were worse than ones sustained by car accidents.

“This is a particularly brutal and disturbing case of animal cruelty,” said Dumanis in a media release. “Our office takes these cases very seriously and the five-year prison sentence imposed today sends a strong message that animal abusers will be held accountable for their crimes.”

Earlier this month Strain told reporters that her six-month courtship with Land was waning when the dogs were killed. The pair met through mutual friends and had been living together in San Diego for a few months with Strain’s dogs.

Ralph Ullum, 68, faces misdemeanor charges including animal cruelty and attempted criminal damage to property for allegedly feeding drugs to the husky, a rival of another dog that his girlfriend had trained, the Chicago Sun-Times reports. The goal, DuPage County prosecutors say, was to weaken the husky so that Ullum’s girlfriend’s dog stood a better shot at winning the “best in show” award at the American Kennel Club show in Geneva, Ill., last December.

Two witnesses, Terri Meyers and Brandon Bish, say they saw Ullum put something into the cage of the husky, who was being handled by Jessica Plourde of New York. Meyers testified that the man “put something into her crate and she ate it,” while Bish also noted that he watched Ullum “shove something inside there,” the Daily Herald reports. Plourde also noticed the remnants of a crushed pill in her dog’s cage.

A veterinarian at the dog show said she examined the husky, induced it to vomit and found part of a pill she said was Protonix, an antacid. She said another pill was either Benadryl or acepromazine, a dog tranquilizer, according to the Daily Herald. Plourde denied that she herself gave her dog any of the drugs in question.

The husky was not hurt in the alleged drugging.

In response to the accusations, Ullum’s attorney, Edward Maloney, said, “The state’s case doesn’t have four legs to stand on,” the Chicago Tribune reports.

The bench trial is expected to continue through Wednesday. If convicted of the charges, Ullum could be sentenced to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Upon inspection of JJ Kennel, a commercial breeder facility owned by Julian, numerous violations of the law were uncovered. These violations include:

repeatedly refusing to allow Department of Agriculture inspections of her breeding facility;
failure to provide adequate veterinary care to animals who were in obvious medical distress;
failure to provide housing that protected the animals from injury;
failure to ensure that interior surfaces were free of excessive rust and that kennel doors were properly maintained;
failure to maintain adequate lighting, leaving some dogs in complete darkness;
failure to prevent excessive accumulation of feces and food waste in the primary housing enclosures and to provide uncontaminated, wholesome food to the dogs;
failure to have adequate employees to carry out the required level of husbandry practices, resulting in excessive feces throughout the outdoor runs; and
failure to pay a $100 re-inspection fee required in the case of repeat violations of the ACFA.

Koster is asking the court to issue injunctions and a temporary restraining order prohibiting Julian from any further violations of the Animal Care Facilities Act or the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act and from conducting any commercial breeding activity until further order of the court; assess a $100 ACFA license re-inspection fee; assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation of the Animal Care Facilities Act; and pay court costs.

The lawsuit marks the third case in which Koster is able to use the force and effect of the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act, sometimes called the Missouri Solution, which was approved by the Missouri legislature and signed into law by Governor Jay Nixon on April 27, 2011. The Act, the result of an agreement between the Missouri Department of Agriculture, commercial dog breeding and farming interests, and Missouri-based animal welfare organizations, strengthens standards for veterinary care and living conditions for dogs in commercial breeding facilities. The Act also gives the Attorney General’s Office the authority to file criminal charges for “canine cruelty,” the authority to seek civil penalties for offenders, and to seek enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.

“We have an obligation to protect the wellbeing of animals, and Missouri has recognized that obligation by passing laws outlining acceptable standards for pet breeders and commercial pet dealers,” Koster said. “This office will diligently continue to see that those laws are enforced.”

Story by Elaine Furst for Dog Files

Kimberly Nizato, a Bellflower, California resident accused of nearly starving her dog to death, was sentenced Monday to a misdemeanor count of animal cruelty.

Defense attorney Andrew Stein successfully argued to Judge Robert J. Higa that the District Attorney Office’s case did not meet the standard for a felony conviction.

Higa sentenced the 27-year-old to thirty days in county jail with two days suspended, three years of probation. She also will pay restitution of $2,034 and court fees.

“I make no excuse for what my client did,” Stein told the judge. “But I believe this was a crime of omission not commission.”

Nizato did not surrender to serve her time but instead was ordered by Higa to work on getting her restitution paid.

Ironically, Nizato was a full-time kennel assistant at an Irvine California veterinary hospital when she, with help from her sister, surrendered her severely emaciated dog to an acquaintance last spring. The 3-year-old German Shepherd weighed 37 pounds, and veterinarians said he had eaten dirt and rocks to survive.

Nizato was arrested April 16, 2010. She pleaded no contest to felony animal cruelty June 28.

German Shepherd Rescue of Orange County agreed to pay for the dog’s care and named him Courage. After weeks of round-the-clock care and constant feedings, the dog made a full recovery and now lives with Lisa Whiseant, the woman who took the dog to medical care last spring.

Whiseant, a Huntington Beach, California resident, submitted an impact statement to the court, which was read into evidence by Deputy District Attorney Jennifer Bainbridge.

“Courage has moved on. He is a healthy, joyous, 92-pound dog that spends his days playing with toys, his shepherd gal pal, and his wading pool. He harbors no ill effects and is now in perfect health,” Whiseant wrote. “His temperament is loving and forgiving.”

“He is loved, adored, protected and thankfully will have a happy life after returning from the brink of death.”

Stein was pleased with Higa’s decision to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor but said county jail would be a wakeup call for his client.

“I think it’s a good jolt,” he said.

Stein said the mystery of why his client let her dog go without food for so long would remain.

“We’ll never really know the why,” he said.

Story by Elaine Furst for Dog Files

“Family pets are used as tools to harm, to threaten, to intimidate and to control,” she said. “They tend to use the pet as an instrument of aggression, so many times what we see are pets being thrown from balconies, thrown from windows, thrown against the wall, stabbed, shot.”

In a recent case, Harris County Texas authorities say Nidra Billard threw a puppy that was barely a month old from a third-story balcony after a fight with her boyfriend.

According to court documents, Billard’s boyfriend left in the middle of an argument, so she threw his six-week-old Pit Bull out of a third-floor window. Thankfully, the puppy landed on a courtyard that was a mixture of grass and sidewalk and was taken to BARC for treatment.

“BARC sees a lot of despicable things, but to see an animal used as a tool to get back against someone you’re in a fight with shows a complete lack of any humanity,” said Chris Newport with BARC.

In another case a few years ago, a woman said the man sharing her home flew into a rage and killed her dog because it ate some food that had fallen on the floor.

“He just put his foot up and stomped its head, because the dog was licking on a little tiny piece of chicken. He said, ‘That’s my food,’” said BARC’s Diane Golden.

According to the American Humane Association, 71 percent of pet-owning women who enter shelters report their abusers had threatened, maimed or killed family pets out of revenge.

“Women stay in relationships where they are at risk of harm or death to protect their pets. We see it every day,” said Rebecca White with the Houston Area Women’s Center.

Experts say that happens about 75 percent of the time, and about a third of battered women report their children have hurt or killed animals themselves.

“They’re going to mimic that behavior,” White said. “They’re going to learn that behavior. Also the children themselves feel powerless, and this is a way for a child to feel like they can gain some power over someone else who is more powerless than they are.”

Story by Elaine Furst for Dog Files