From: N WAYNEE [mailto:nwaynee@q.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:06 AM
________________________________________
From: willob41@msn.com
To: raffp@aol.com
Sent: 10/22/2009 11:17:43 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim
Subj: Fw: Louisville Kennel Club Lawsuit Decided!
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:05 PM
Subject: Fw: Louisville Kennel Club Lawsuit Decided!
Permission to crosspost--A Major Victory
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela J. Waugh
To: 'WILLOUGHBY JONES'
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:33 AM
Subject: Fw: Louisville Kennel Club Lawsuit Decided!
**********************************************
> This past Friday, very late in the day, the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government.
>
> The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as here in Louisville, which was always part of our strategy. Below is the notice from LKC President, Donna Herzig, which clarifies some of the decision:
>
> "This is a great decision. Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional.
>
> "He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution] , and the requirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.
>
> "The judge issued an injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing these provisions.
>
> "With respect to the Fourth Amendment issue, the Court dismissed it because the city agreed with us. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that notwithstanding the ordinance seeming to allow for seizure without a warrant for tethering violations, for some cruelty issues and for any violation of the ordinance (a provision used by Meloche to seize animals for violations of his alleged Class A requirements) the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement so as to those seizures LMAS must obtain a warrant prior to seizure.
>
> "Moreover, while the Court did not strike down many of the definitions, it could have just left it at that. Instead the Court went point by point and clarified the statute as to what was permissible and what wasn't .
>
> "Notwithstanding the story in the Courier Journal--I am not sure that they read the same opinion--we had a major victory on the issues that matter on a national basis.
>
> "While Judge Simpson did not deal with the state issue, the veterinary issue which was the most important one, was addressed by a recent change in the state law which makes veterinary records confidential and does not permit release of them unless a court order is issued or the owner gives consent in writing.
>
> "Since we prevailed on our Sec. 1983 issues, we will file next week for attorney's fees which are mandatory under the statute. We are hopeful that we will receive a substantial reimbursement. "
>
> A big 'Thank you!' to every individual and every club that donated to our legal fund. This has been a great victory on the most substantive issues possible, and opens the door to citizens everywhere being able to sue for damages against similar ordinances.
>
> --Barbara Haines
