[00:00:15]
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE FEBRUARY 13TH, MUNICIPAL COURT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. THE TIME IS NOW 1:07 AND WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
CLERK, CAN YOU DO THE ROLL CALL. >>
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: CHAIR. >> CHAIR, WE HAVE A QUORUM. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: WONDERFUL,
[Approval of Minutes ]
THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. THE FIRST AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 29,2024. A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. APPROVED. MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANYONESIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
[Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: OKAY, THANK YOU. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TODAY'S AGENDA, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS FOR BRIEFING AND POSSIBLE ACTION. THE FIRST IS THE TIMELINE FOR INTERVIEWS OF MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE JUDGE HERE TO GIVE THE
PRESENTATION. >> OBLEDO: GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS AFTERNOON. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS. I DID WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE FULL-TIME AND THE PART-TIME JUDGES. IT IS BASICALLY THE SAME APPLICATION BECAUSE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO BOTH FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME APPLICANTS.
BUT TYPICALLY, UH, IT'S POSTED FOR ABOUT TWO WEEKS, AND I'M RECOMMENDING THROUGH MARCH 1ST.
AND THEN ABOUT THREE WEEKS FOR VETTING AND BACKGROUND CHECKS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
AND THEN, UM, I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE THIS COMMITTEE SOME TIME TO POSSIBLY MEET AND DECIDE WHO THEY WANT TO GRANT INTERVIEWS TO. AND THEN THERE'S ABOUT THREE WEEKS FOR INTERVIEWS THAT I AM PROPOSING. I KNOW THAT APRIL IS A DIFFICULT MONTH. IT IS TYPICALLY A SHORT MONTH BECAUSE OF FIESTA, BUT, UM, THERE'S THREE WEEKS TO WORK WITH THERE. AND I KNOW THAT AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, WE DO HAVE 10 FULL-TIME JUDGES AND NINE PART-TIME JUDGES.
SO I AM GUESSING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST 19 APPLICANTS FOR REAPPOINTMENTS WITH THE JUDGES. SO IN ADDITION TO ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS, SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST 19 INTERVIEWS DURING THAT PERIOD. AND THEIR TERM DOES EXPIRE APRIL 30TH AND I WAS HOPING TO BE ABLE TO BACK TO THE FULL COUNCIL ON MAY 2ND SO IT WOULD BE A DAY AFTER THE NEW TERM BEGINS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I ALSO WANTED TO, UM-- BECAUSE THIS IS -- AND -- AND I JUST WANTED TO SHARE SOME COURT EVENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING DURING THIS TIME AS WELL. WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS ALSO RECOMMENDING INTERVIEWS IN APRIL, BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE, UM, A SLOWER TIME AT THE COURT AS FAR AS COURT EVENTS. WE WILL STILL HAVE ALL OF OUR COURT DOCKETS, BUT AS FAR AS COURT EVENTS IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT SLOWER TIME. BEGINNING THIS WOKE, WE ARE WEEG TO HAVE THE SPAY/NEUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO COURT VISITORS BEGINNING THIS WEEK ON FEBRUARY 15TH. FEBRUARY 16TH, AND ALSO FEBRUARY 23RD. BOTH ACS AND SNAP WILL BE AT THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 27TH FOR WORLD SPAY DAY. AND ON FEBRUARY 29TH, SNIPSA, THE SPAY/NEUTER PROTECT SAN ANTONIO WILL BE TO HAND OUT RESOURCES TO COURT VISITORS ON. FRIDAY FEBRUARY 23RD WE WILL BE HOSTING OUR FIRST SENIOR SUMMIT "RISE TO GRADUATION." IT IS A PILOT INITIATIVE IN COLLABORATION WITH SAISD THAT IS DEDICATED TO SUPPORTING HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS FACING CHALLENGES IN COMPLETING THEIR EDUCATION. OVER 200 HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS HAVE BEEN INVITED FROM SIX DIFFERENT AREA HIGH SCHOOLS. THEY'VE BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE.
AND WE HAVE COMMUNITY PARTNERS THAT WILL BE THERE THAT WILL ADVISE SENIORS AND THEIR FAMILIES ABOUT SUPPORT SERVICES TO HELP GET THEM ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.
AND ALSO TO LET THEM KNOW ABOUT ANY POST-GRADUATE OPPORTUNITIES. WE WILL EVEN HAVE THERAPY DOGS THERE ON THAT DAY. AND, UM, WE REALLY FEEL AT THE COURT THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET STUDENTS KNOW THAT AS A COMMUNITY WE VALUE THEIR ACADEMIC SUCCESS.
[00:05:02]
IT NOT ONLY BENEFITS THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, BUT ALSO THEIR SUCCESS STRENGTHENS OUR COMMUNITY. AND WE PLAN TO EXPAND THIS PROGRAM NEXT SCHOOL YEAR AND& BEGIN IN THE FALL SEMESTER NEXT YEAR. ALSO AT THE END OF FEBRUARY, ON FEBRUARY 26TH, THE COURT WILL BN CAMPAIGN. INDIVIDUALS WITH OUTSTANDING CLASS-C WARRANTS WILL RECEIVE A POSTCARD, A TEXT MESSAGE OR EMAIL NOTIFICATION REMINDING THEM ABOUT THEIR OUTSTANDING CITATIONS AND THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WILL ALSO CONTAIN A LINK TO THE COURT. THE CAMPAIGN WILL GIVE INDIVIDUALS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON THEIR ABILITY TO RESOLVE THEIR CITATIONS PRIOR TO ARREST.AND IN ADDITION TO THE COURT'S REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AND ALL EXISTING PLATFORMS TO CONTACT THE COURT, WE WILL HAVE SPECIAL HOURS ON FRIDAY, MARCH 1ST. THE COURT WILL BE OPEN TO 8:00 P.M. AND ON SATURDAY, MARCH 16TH, WE WILL UPON OPEN FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M. AND WE'LL ALSO HAVE A DAILY VIRTUAL DOCKET FOR INDIVIDUALS WANTING TO DISCUSS THEIR CASES WITH THE JUDGE, BUT THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO APPEAR IN PERSON. AND WE'RE DOING THIS JUST TO IN APRIL WE HAVE "DISTRACTED DRIVING AWARENESS MONTH" AND WE'RE WORKING WITH ENGAGEMENT TO CREATE A PUBLIC SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT WITH THE DANGERS ABOUT DISTRACTED DRIVING.
AND THROUGHOUT THE SPRING, THE JUDGES WILL ALSO BE PARTICIPATING IN CAREER DAY EVENTS AT LOCAL SCHOOLS AND A SAFE DRIVING EVENT AT ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL ON MARCH 20TH.
AND I WILL GET BACK WITH YOU WITH MORE DETAILS ABOUT BICYCLE SAFETY MONTH IN MAY AND THE 100 DEADLIEST DAYS OF SUMMER WHICH, BEGINS THE DAY AFTER MEMORIAL DAY.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE COURT SCHEDULE LOOKS LIKE FOR -- THROUGH MAY.
SO -- ANY QUESTIONS? >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, JUDGE.
SO TODAY COMMENTS -- I'D LIKE FOR THIS ONE FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO KEEP COMMENTS ON -- THEY CAN BE ON THE ENTIRE APPLICATION PROCESS, ALL OF THAT THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AND ANY QUESTIONS OR THINGS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THAT TIME IN BETWEEN. THAT COULD INCLUDE METHOD OF OUTREACH, OUR JOB POSTING AND ALSO THE INTERVIEW PROCESS. I WILL NOTE THAT THE FULL COUNCIL VOTE IS ON MAY 2ND AFTER THE TERMS HAVE EXPIRED BUT THEY'LL BE IN CARRYOVER STATUS SO THAT'S OKAY. I KNOW LAST -- LAST MEETING WE TALKED ABOUT MARKETING, AND I KNOW THAT, ANDY, YOU MENTIONED THAT WE COULD USE SOME OF THE SAME MEANS THAT YOUR OFFICE USES TO MARKET TO ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD OUTREACH THAT WE
NORMALLY DO FOR THESE POSITIONS. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> SEGOVIA: THAT IS CORRECT, CHAIR. IN FACT, ONCE THE COMMITTEE SETTLES ON THE SCHEDULE, WE CAN GET THAT OUT TO OUR NORMAL ASSOCIATIONS THAT WE INTERACT WITH IN TERMS OF OUR OPENINGS, LIKE, THE SAN ANTONIO BAR ASSOCIATION. THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION. ETC. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: FOR SURE.
SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE TIME TO GO TO SEE THE JUDGES IN WORK AND SO I SUGGEST THAT OUR NEXT MEETING BE AT THE COURT WHERE WE CAN HOPEFULLY OBSERVE SOME OF THE JUDGES. I PREFER TO MEET WITH THEM BY APRIL 1ST AND WE MAY NOT SEE ALL OF THEM BUT WE CAN DELEGATE AND DESIGNATE A LITTLE BIT. AND I'D ALSO LIKE ANY COPIES OF THE EXISTING JUDGES' EVALUATIONS THAT YOU HAVE CONDUCTED AND I KNOW THAT LAST MEETING I ASKED FOR THEIR SCHEDULES. I DON'T THINK THAT I RECEIVED THEM YET, HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE
TO -- >> I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU THAT WANTED A GENERAL COURT SCHEDULE.
YOU WANT THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGES' SCHEDULE? >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: YES.
>> OBLEDO: I'M SO SORRY. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THAT'S OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO?
>> CASTILLO: IT'S EXCITING TO SEE THE FULL CALENDAR OF EVENTS THAT YOU HAVE SET UP AND ALWAYS EXCITED TO SEE WHEN YOUTH IN OUR HIGH SCHOOLS ARE INCLUDED AND BROUGHT TO MUNICIPAL COURT FOR GOOD REASONS. I DID NOTICE IN THE APPLICATION THAT THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE CERTAIN HOURS IN THE APPLICATION, CAN YOU HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT LANGUAGE WAS
REMOVED? >> OBLEDO: BECAUSE ALL JUDGES IN TEXAS ARE MAGISTRATES AND SINCE WE OPERATE A 24/7 FACILITY, ALL MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES ARE ALSO MAGISTRATES.
SO I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THEIR HOURS ARE STRICTLY 8:00 TO 5:00, WHEN WE RUN A 24/7 SITUATION. THEIR SCHEDULES ARE SET ON COURT NEED, AND BASED ON MY -- I SCHEDULE THEM BASED ON COURT NEED, AND I JUST DON'T WANT THERE TO BE THE IMPRESSION THAT THEIR SCHEDULE IS ONLY 8:00 TO 5:00. SO I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE -- WE CHANGED MY APPLICATION TO REFLECT THE SAME OPEN-ENDED HOURS AND I THINK THAT THEIRS
SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THE SAME OPEN-ENDED HOURS. >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU, THAT IS HELPFUL. AND WITH THE FULL-TIME MAGISTRATE FOR OVERNIGHT
[00:10:03]
POSITIONS, ABOUT HOW MANY PART-TIME JUDGES TYPICALLY COVER THAT?>> OBLEDO: UM, SO THERE ARE NINE PART-TIME JUDGES AND THERE ARE SOME JUDGES WHO PREFER THAT SCHEDULE. THAT IS, MMM... THERE'S ABOUT FIVE OF THEM THAT -- THAT ROTATE
THROUGH THE OVERNIGHT. >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JUDGE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, GREAT QUESTION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK? I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION --
THE RECOMMENDED TIMELINE. >> SO MOVED. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: WONDERFUL.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION APPROVED. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM IF YOU COULD READ, THE OVERVIEW OF THE DANGEROUS ANIMAL AND ANIMAL CRUELTY LEGAL FRAMEWORK. AND, ANDY, WILL YOU BE GIVING THAT PRESENTATION?
>> SEGOVIA: ACTUALLY, CHAIR, BUT I WILL MAKE THE INTRODUCTION. THE PROSECUTION TEAM, BARRETT MCKINNEY AND DAVID RODRIGUEZ WILL GIVE THE OVERVIEW. WITH THE FRAMEWORK WHICH WE PROSECUTE THE DANGEROUS ANIMAL CASES AND TO UNDERSCORE WHAT THE PROCESS IS IN TERMS OF HEARINGS, THE RIGHTS OF OWNERS, ETC., AND VICTIMS, SO THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE FRAMEWORK BECAUSE IT CAN GET COMPLEX BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER OF STATUTESTU THAT ADDRESS DANGEROUS ANIMALS. SO WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO BARRETT MCKINNEY FROM OUR
PROSECUTION TEAM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
I'M BARRETT MCKINNEY AND THIS IS DAVID GONZALEZ WITH THE CITY'S ATTORNEY OFFICE.
AND I HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. DURING THAT TIME, I HAVE DONE EXCLUSIVELY THE ANIMAL CASES. AS WELL AS THE NORMAL THINGS THAT THE CITY PROSECUTORS ARE TAXED WITH. THERE ARE ANIMAL CASES, ANIMAL STATUTES, THROUGHOUT THE LAW.
THE PARTS OF THE WILDLIFE CODE, THE GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
BUT THE NUMBER OF HEARINGS THAT WE CONDUCT EACH YEAR ARE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, OKAY? THOSE HEARINGS ARE THINGS LIKE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY CASES, CRUELTY TO ANIMAL CASES. APPEALS FROM DANGEROUS DOG DETERMINATIONS.
AND COMPLIANCE WITH DANGEROUS DOG REQUIREMENTS. WE ALSO, YOU KNOW, TRIED THE NORMAL THINGS THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FOR CLASS-C MISDEMEANORS DEALING WITH ANIMALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THOSE ARE JUST NORMAL [INDISCERNIBLE] AND IT'S IN THE FORMAT OF A HEARING. THEY'RE CIVIL IN NATURE.
THE TWO TYPES OF CASES WHICH WE HAVE MORE THAN ANY OTHER ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN INJURED BY ANIMALS, SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY TYPE CASES. AND CRUELTY TO ANIMAL TYPE CASES. THOSE COMPRICE OVER 70% OF THE TYPE OF HEARS THAT WE DO.
WE DID OVER 95 OF THOSE TYPE OF CASES LAST YEAR. THIS IS A DECIDED INCREASE FROM YEARS PAST. I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TYPE CASES. AND DAVID WILL TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CRUELTY CASES, OKAY? THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY SLIDES OF PEOPLE TORN UP OR CAGED ANIMALS OR TERRIBLE MUSIC OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OKAY, THIS IS VERY G-RATED, OKAY? ON THE SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY CASES, THESE ARE CIVIL IN NATURE OF THE ONLY OUTCOMES FOR THE ANIMALS IN THESE CASES -- THESE ARE ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY IS EITHER THE COURT ORDERS IT THAT THEY SEIZE THE ANIMAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF EUTHANIZING THE ANIMAL. OR THE ANIMAL IS SIMPLY GIVEN BACK AND THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND ON THESE TYPES OF CASES AT ALL. THERE ARE EMOTIONAL-TIME HEARINGS FOR THE VICTIMS AND THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES AND THE OWNERS OF THE ANIMALS IN MANY CASES.
SO AS WHAT WE HAVE DETERMINED TO BE SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY, THAT'S OUR STATUTES THAT WE WORK WITH THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. IT'S FAIRLY OPEN-ENDED. AND A CONDUCT THAT A REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON WOULD SEEK TREATMENT FROM A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AND WOULD REQUIRE HOSPITALIZATION, EVEN IF THEY DON'T DECIDE TO GO GET IT THEMSELVES.
SO IT'S NOT A HIGH BAR FOR US. AND YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE PENAL CODE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF DEATH OR CAUSES OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PERMANENT DISFIGUREMENT, IT'S A UPON HIGHER BAR UNDER THOSE CASES. SO WE'RE UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. IT'S NOT A REASONABLE DOUBT, IT IS A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND IT'S NOT A HIGH BAR FOR US AND WE'RE ALWAYS VERY SUCCESSFUL IN MEETING THAT PART OF IT. AS FAR AS THE JURISDICTION OF THESE CASES GOES, OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO YOU WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE FILED WITH THE SAN ANTONIO MUNICIPAL COURT. SINCE WE'RE IN THESE CASES THAT'S WHERE WE'LL BE, BUT FOR A LOT OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CASES IF WE'RE NOT THE MOVEMENT, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY
[00:15:01]
TO FILE THOSE CASES -- THE OTHER SIDE DOES -- IN COUNTY COURT, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS, OR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO COURTS. AND THAT HAPPENS MORE FREQUENTLY WHEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO ARE USUALLY DOING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. BUT FOR THESE TYPE OF CASES IT'S ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE UNDER THE SAN ANTONIO MUNICIPAL COURT. AS THE STATUTE SAYS THERE, THE INJURY HAS TO BE BY A DOG ATTACK, BITE OR MALLING THAT CAUSES SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH TO A PERSON.SO, YOU KNOW, TRIP OVER YOUR DOG IN THE HALLWAY AND YOU HURT YOURSELF, THAT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY COUNT. IT HAS TO BE AN ACTUAL ATTACK. SO TO GET THE BALL ROLLING ON THESE TYPES OF CASES, UM, ACS WILL TYPICALLY DO AN AFFIDAVIT. AND THE AFFIDAVIT IS THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT. IT'S GOT TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A MAGISTRATE TO DEDUCE FROM THAT AFFIDAVIT THAT SOMEONE HAS EITHER BEEN KILLED OR HAD SERIOUSLY BODILY INJURY BY SERIOUS ATTACKING OR MAULING.
JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SEARCH WARRANT, THE JUDGE CAN ONLY GO BY THE FOUR CORNERS OF THAT AFFIDAVIT AND THEY CAN'T QUESTION THE OFFICER TO TRY TO FIND OUT THE FACTS IN ANY OTHER MATTER. THEY HAVE TO GO WITH THAT AFFIDAVIT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD BE ISSUED FOR THE ANIMAL. SO THE QUESTION FOR THE JUDGE, OF COURSE, IS WHETHER THERE'S SERIOUS BODILY INJURY CAUSED -- OR DEATH.
IF IT'S A NO QUESTION, AS I SAID BEFORE, THE JUDGE SIMPLY DOESN'T ISSUE THE WARRANT.
IF IT'S YES, THE JUDGE ISSUES A SEARCH WARRANT AND THE ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY GOES OUT TO SEIZE THE ANIMAL. WHEN THEY DO THAT, THEY'RE NOT PEACE OFFICERS SO THEY HAVE TO TAKE SPCA OUT THERE IN ORDER TO EXECUTE THE WARRANT. THE -- WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN THEY GO OUT THERE -- WHAT TRIGGERS OUR HEARING IS THE ACTUAL EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT AND ONCE SIGNED IT'S DEEMED EXECUTED, SIGNED BY THE PEACE OFFICER.
PRIOR TO THAT, IF THE PERSON DECIDES TO GIVE UP OWNERSHIP OF THE ANIMALS IN ANOTHER WAY, SURRENDER THE ANIMALS, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL TO NOT TRY TO LEVERAGE ONE OF THOSE AGAINST THE OTHER. WE NORMALLY DON'T DO FORCED ENTRY ON THESE TYPE OF CASES.
IT'S VERY LOW KEY, THEY WILL BE THERE AND THEY MIGHT ORDER A LOCKSMITH IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS BUT IT'S NOT WHERE WE'LL KICK THE DOOR IN TYPE OF SITUATION THOUGH.
THE WARRANTS ARE GOOD FOR THREE DAYS, PLUS THE DAY OF ISSUANCE AND EXECUTION.
THE HEARING IS SET BY THE COURT BEFORE THEY EVEN GO OUT THERE, THE DATE FOR THE HEARING.
THERE'S A NOTICE OF THAT HEARING ATTACHED TO THE SEARCH WARRANT. THE COURT MUST -- IT'S ONLY 10 DAYS' NOTICE. SO FROM THE TIME THEY ISSUE THE SEARCH WARRANT AND THE ANIMAL IS SEIZED THEY HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING WITHIN 10 DAYS. THAT PROTECTS ACS TO HOLD ANIMALS FOR A LONG TIME IN FACILITIES THAT ARE ALREADY QUITE CROWDED AS YOU CAN IMAGINE. AND IT ALSO PROTECTS THE PERSON THAT YOU'RE SEIZING THE ANIMAL FROM AND THE FEES ARE ACCRUING DURING THAT TIME PERIOD THAT THE ANIMAL IS HELD AS WELL.
IT ALSO HELPS US IN THAT THE CODE PROVIDES THAT A PERSON THAT WE SEIZE THE ANIMAL FROM ALLOWS US TO -- WE CAN GIVE NOTICE TO THEM LATER ON. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THESE CASES TYPICALLY IS THAT YOU WILL HAVE SOMEONE WHO SAYS THAT'S MY SON'S DAUGHTER OR MY EX-WIFE'S DAUGHTER OR THE NEIGHBOR'S DOG OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY? SO IN ORDER TO KEEP TO HAVING TO RUN AROUND A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PLACES AND SEARCH NOTICE TO THIS, WHICH MAY BE OUT OF TOWN OR OTHER PLACES, WE'RE ABLE TO SERVE THE SAME PERSON THAT WE SEIZE THE ANIMAL FROM AT THE SAME PLACE. A LOT OF TIMES WE'LL ACTUALLY HAVE OUR ANIMAL IN QUARANTINE ALREADY AT OUR OFFICES AND WE'LL ACTUALLY SERVE THE WARRANT AT OUR ACS OFFICERS AS WELL. AS FAR AS WHO CAN ATTEND THESE HEARINGS, ANY INTERESTED PARTY CAN ATTEND THE HEARINGS. AGAIN, 10 DAYS' NOTICE. IT IS VERY QUICK.
WHEN WE WALK DOWN TO THE COURTROOM TO HAVE THE HEARING, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'LL FIND DOWN THERE. IT COULD BE SEVERAL ATTORNEYS IT COULD BE HALF A DOZEN PEOPLE WITH AN INTEREST AND IT COULD BE NOBODY. SO WHEN YOU WALK DOWN THERE YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND. IF NO ONE IS DOWN THERE, WE'LL PUT ON A PRIMA FASHY CASE AGAINST THE COURT AND OCCASIONALLY THERE'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND IF THERE'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES IT HAS TO BE THE OWNER AND THE VICTIM AND THE VICTIM'S FAMILY AND ACS AND EVERYBODY ELSE INVOLVED IN THE CASE TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THIS. BUT, REGARDLESS WHETHER THEY DECIDE TO HAVE THE ANIMAL DECLARED DANGEROUS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE'RE GOING TO STILL PUT ON THE HEARING AND ALL OF
[00:20:01]
THE EVIDENCE AND PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE. AND THE JUDGE WILL MAKE THE DECISION, REGARDLESS OF THE FEELINGS OF EVERYONE ELSE. SO WHEN WE WALK DOWN THERE, UM, AS I SAID, IT'S A CIVIL PROCESS. SO I HAVE BEEN A CRIMINAL ATTORNEY FOR -- 25 YEARS A CRIMINAL ATTORNEY. 10 YEARS AS A POLICE OFFICER. SO MY STANDARD IS REASONABLE DOUBT, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. SO THESE ARE CIVIL AND THESE ARE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS A MUCH, MUCH LOWER BAR IN THOSE TYPES OF CASES, OKAY? SO IT ALSO ALLOWS ME TO DO THINGS THAT I WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DO IN A CRIMINAL CASE, SUCH AS CALL THE OWNER OF THE ANIMAL OR THE OTHER SIDE'S WITNESSES UP THERE, AND ASK THEM QUESTIONS AND GET THEIR TAKE OR THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE. SO THAT I HAVE AN IDEA WHEN I PUT ON MY WITNESSES -- WHICH I CAN REBUT THOSE SAME ISSUES AND I DON'T HAVE TO CALL THEM BACK LATER ON IN ORDER TO DO THAT.TYPICALLY WITH A CASE YOU HAVE TO PUT ON YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND THE OTHER SIDE WILL PUT ON THEIR SIDE OF IT AND YOU HAVE TO RECALL YOUR PEOPLE TO REBUT WHAT THEY SAID.
THIS WAY WE CAN HEAR THEIR SIDE OF IT AND PUT ON OUR WITNESSES AFTER THAT.
SO PRIOR TO HEARING -- I HAD A LITTLE TIME TO CONFER WITH THE OTHER SIDE TO SEE IF THEY REALLY WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THE HEARING. REALLY THE ONLY DISINCENTIVES FOR THEM IS THAT WE CAN WAIVE THE FEE ON THE BOARD, THE UPKEEP FOR THE ANIMAL FOR THE 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. OR IF THEY HAVE -- IF THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS CASE AND SOMEONE BADLY INJURED, AND THERE'S -- THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME CRIMINAL CHARGE COMING OUT OF THIS LATER ON, YOU KNOW, MAYBE CLASS-A FELONY CHARGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND WE HAVE TO POINT OUT TO THEM WHEN WE HAVE THIS HEARING THAT THEY'LL BE ONE OF THE FIRST THAT WE'LL CALL AS A WITNESS. ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE THEY DON'T HAVE TO TESTIFY AT ALL.
WE CAN'T COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT TESTIFY. HOWEVER, IN THESE SITUATIONS THEY'LL GET UP THERE AND WE'LL START ASKING QUESTIONS. EVEN AS SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY DOG WILL SCREW THEM UP ON THE CRIMINAL CASE VERY BADLY.
THEY COULD TAKE THE FIFTH, EVEN ON THIS TYPE OF A CASE, BUT WHEN THEY DO THAT, UNLIKE A CRIMINAL CASE, WE CAN COMMENT ON IT. WE CAN KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS AND SEE WHAT THEY ANSWER AND WHAT THEY DON'T ANSWER. SO IT'S A VERY BIG DISINCENTIVE TO GET ON THE HEARING IF THEY HAVE POSSIBLE CIVIL LITIGATION COMING DOWN LATER ON. TYPICALLY THE ATTORNEY WILL NOT LET THEM GET UP THERE AND THEY DON'T DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
AND OF COURSE A LOT OF THESE CASES OF COURSE YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN BIT BY AN ANIMAL AND YOU HAVE A PERSONAL INJURY-TYPE ATTORNEY ARE RUNNING DOWN AROUND THERE.
THAT'S ANOTHER DISINCENTIVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THOSE THINGS AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS SO EASIER FOR US IN THESE TYPES OF CASES. SO IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE ANIMAL CAUSED -- I'M SORRY -- I WENT PAST -- CAUSED DEATH, THEN THE COURT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO ORDER THE ANIMAL TO BE DESTROYED IN THESE TYPE OF HEARINGS.
THERE'S NO OTHER WAY WHATSOEVER. IF IT SAYS SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TYPE OF CASE THEY CAN STILL GIVE THE ANIMAL BACK. THEY DON'T HAVE TO. IT'S VERY RARE THAT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE ALLOWS. IF THAT HAPPENS, WE'LL ALREADY HAVE PAPERWORK READY TO GO THAT DECLARES THE ANIMAL DANGEROUS IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO IF THE ANIMAL IS NOT RELEASED FROM ARCH CS BACK TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S CUSTODY THEY'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HOOPS OF GETTING A PROPER KENNEL AND MUZZLES AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS BEFORE WE'LL LET THE ANIMAL GO. OFTENTIMES THEY DON'T EVEN MEET THAT BAR ANYWAY.
THERE ARE A FEW EXCEPTIONS ON THESE TYPES OF CASES. WHICH YOU WOULD EXPECT.
IF THE ANIMAL IS IN ITS OWN YARD AND USED FOR PERSONAL PROTECTION OR PROTECTION OF PROPERTY, OR IN ITS ENENCLO ENCLOSURE AND SOMEOS TRESPASSING AND THERE'S FOUR OR FIVE EXCEPTIONS AND IT'S A -- AND IF YOU CLIMB THE FENCE AND YOU HAPPEN TO GET BITTEN, IT'S ON YOU AND NOT THE ANIMAL, OKAY? THERE'S NO WAY TO APPEAL ON THESE CASES. SO ONCE THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE MAKES THE RULING, THAT'S IT. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED ON THAT. IT CAN VERY WELL BE A DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT THERE, BUT SO FAR WE HAVEN'T HAD ONE. AND SO ONCE IT'S DONE THERE AT THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND THE COURT RULES ON IT, THAT'S THE END OF IT. AND I WILL LET DAVID TALK TO YOU
[00:25:02]
ABOUT THE ANIMAL CRUELTY CASES AND WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS FROM YOU GUYS AFTER THAT, OKAY?>> THANK YOU, BARRETT. AGAIN MY NAME IS DAVID GONZALEZ AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THE PORTIONS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH CRUELLY TREATED ANIMALS. OF COURSE, WHEN IT COMES TO ANIMALS, YOU KNOW, AS AN ANIMAL OWNER AND A PET OWNER, THERE'S RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME WITH IT THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO EVERYONE WHO LIVES HERE IN THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN ANTONIO.
AND IT FALLS UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE JUST LIKE THE BITE CASES.
THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE WAY AT THIS STATUTES ARE ORDERED AND GENERALLY SPEAKING THE CASE PROGRESS WORKS THROUGH THIS OUTLINE. NOW CRUELLY TREATED IS A PRETTY BROAD DEFINITION. OF COURSE, THE ANIMALS ARE TORT TOURED, WOULD FALL UNDER THIS, SEVERELY OVERWORKED, ANY ANIMAL THAT IS ABANDONED THAT IS BEING DEPRIVED OF NECESSARY FOOD, CARE OR SHELTER, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP A LOT, YOU KNOW, DURING THE HOT SUMMER.
WE COME ACROSS ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT. NO ACCESS TO WATER.
NO ACCESS TO SHADE. OR ALTERNATIVELY IN THE WINTER, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT IS REALLY COLD AND FREEZING AND ESPECIALLY DURING THE SNOWSTORM THERE'S INSTANCES OF PEOPLE NOT BRINGING THEIR ANIMALS IN. AND AS IT'S DEFINED IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE BEING CRUELLY -- OR BEING DEPRIVED OF THE NECESSARY FOOD AND CARE AND SHELTER. AND CRUEL CONFINEMENT, AND THOSE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE MAY LEAVE THEIR ANIMALS IN A CRATE THAT IS TOO SMALL FOR THEM OR IN A CRATE PERIOD WITH NO ACCESS TO FOOD OR WATER. OR DOG FIGHTING CASES AS WELL. OF COURSE BEING, YOU KNOW, HAVING AN ANIMAL FORCED TO FIGHT WITH OTHER ANIMALS FOR SPORT AND BETTING PURPOSES AND THE PENAL CODE WHERE BEASTALLITY, IS DEFINED BY THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
NOW THE DEFINITION OF OWNER IS NOT THE TYPICAL DEFINITION IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF SOMEONE WHO JUST OWNS DOGS AND SOMEONE WHO PURCHASES THE DOG -- THAT'S MY DOG.
THE STATUTE IS THE PERSON WHO OWNS IT OR HAS CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE ANIMAL AT THE TIME OF VIOLATION. SO FREQUENTLY WE'LL GET INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN DOG SITTING OR TAKING CARE OF THE ANIMAL WHILE THE OWNER WAS OUT OF TOWN OR AT WORK.
AND IF THE VIOLATION OCCURS WHILE THAT ANIMAL IS IN THEIR POSSESSION, THEY WILL BE THE ONES TO BE DECIDED AND THEY'LL BE DEFINED AS AN OWNER IN AS COVERED IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. NOW IF A PEACE OFFICER, NORMALLY WITH MOST OF OUR CASES OF ACS OFFICERS BELIEVE THAT AN ANIMAL HAS BEEN CRUELLY TREATED OR IS CURRENTLY BEING CRUELLY TREATED THEY CAN FILE A SWORN AFFIDAVIT AND THE JUDGE WILL REVIEW IT. AND UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, IF THE JUDGE BELIEVES BASED ON THE AFFIDAVIT -- THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AFFIDAVIT -- THAT THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN OR IS CURRENTLY CRUELLY TREATED, THE COURT SHALL ISSUE A WARRANT.
AND SET A TIME OF THE HEARING WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT.
SO WHEN THAT WARRANT IS SIGNED BY THE JUDGE, THAT HEARING HAS TO BE SET WITHIN 10 CALENDAR DAYS AND THERE'S NO WIGGLE ROOM FOR THAT. JUST LIKE THE BIKE CASES, VERY QUICK TURNAROUND TIME. AND THE MAIN QUESTION IN THAT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ANIMAL IN QUESTION, OR THE ANIMALS, IF THERE'S MULTIPLE ANIMALS, HAVE BEEN CRUELLY TREATED. I SAY MULTIPLE ANIMALS BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN INSTANCES WHERE SOME PROPERTIES HAVE UPWARDS 10, 20 DOGS AND MAYBE -- I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD CASES OF HUNDREDS OF SNAIBL SNAKES ON A PROPERTY. AND WE FIND PROTECTED ANIMALS. IN ONE INSTANCE WE HAD A TORTOISE PROTECTED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, WHERE WE HAD AN ACTUAL GAME OFFICER COME IN AS ONE OF OUR WITNESSES. SO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE CASES IT CAN INCLUDE A FEW ANIMALS OR WE CAN HAVE, LIKE, JUST A ZOO FOR SOME OF OUR CASES. BUT THE MAIN QUESTION, REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF ANIMAL, IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ANIMALS HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING CRUELLY TREATED.
SO NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT A.C.S. WILL GO WITHOUT WITH A WARNING WITH SAPD, AND ASPD EXECUTES THE WARRANT AND THE ANIMALS ON THE PROPERTY ARE SEIZED AND TAKEN BY ACS.
NOW THE HEARING IS SET. EACH INTERESTED PARTY IS ENTITLED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AT THIS HEARING. THERE'S NO DEFINITION, LIKE IN THE BIKE CASES, SO MANY TIMES WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'LL GET. WE'LL WALK IN THERE AND WE'LL GET A NEIGHBOR SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE OWNERS. PEOPLE WHO MAYBE LET THEIR ANIMAL TO BE CARED FOR BY A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CITED. SO IT CAN BE A MIX OF THINGS.
OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE PENAL CODE AND BEASTALITY AND THAT'S EVIDENCE THAT THE ANIMAL AND ANY ANIMALS IN THAT PERSON'S POSSESSION HAVE BEEN CRUELLY TREATED.
SO INSTANCES LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS SOMETHING WHERE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO REACH FAR, AS FAR AS IN OUR CASE, IF THEY'VE ALREADY HAD THAT RULING ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE OF IT THAT
[00:30:03]
JUST MAKES THE STATE'S CASE MUCH EASIER TO SHOW THAT THE ANIMALS HAVE BEEN CRUELLY TREATED.NOW, THE STANDARD IN THESE TYPES OF CASES -- IT'S A CIVIL-TYPE CASE AND IT'S PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, AND NOT REASONABLE DOUBT. SO WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT'S MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE ANIMAL HAS BEEN CRUELLY TREATED. MANY TIMES IT'S CLEAR-CUT SCHNAPPSES, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PROOF THEY USER THE LIVING CONDITIONS THAT THE ANIMALS ARE IN. AND SOMETIMES THE ACTUAL CONDITION THAT THEY ARE KEPT IN IS TOXIC TO NOT ONLY THE ANIMALS WHO LIVE THERE BUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THEREA WELL -- YOU KNOW, THE INFESTATION OF TICKS, FLEAS, URINE SATURATED INTO THE WALLS AND INTO THE FLOORING WHERE, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH AMMONIA IS IN THE AIR IT MAKES IT A DANGEROUS LIVING CONDITION FOR ANY ANIMALS LIVING THERE. SO IF THE COURT COMES BACK AND FINDS THAT THE ANIMALS HAVE BEEN CRUELLY TREATED, THE OWNER IS DIVESTED THE OWNERSHIP AND EVERYONE IS DUE TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BEFORE BEING DIVESTED OF THEIR PROPERTY. AND THE SAME THING WITH ANIMALS -- PETS. SO WHEN THAT IS DONE THE COURT CAN ORDER A PUBLIC SALE OF THE ANIMAL BY AUCTION. THAT IS RARELY DONE. MOST OF THE TIME, WE ASK THAT THE ANIMAL BE TURNED OVER TO ACS TO BE KEPT THERE, TO BE HOUSED, MANY TIMES TO BE -- YOU KNOW, BROUGHT BACK TO FULL HEALTH AND TO ADOPTED OUT. IN SOME RARE CASES IF THE ANIMALS ARE IN EXTREMELY BAD CONDITION, YOU KNOW, ACS AND THE COURT CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION -- WELL, THE COURT, I'M SORRY -- THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ANIMAL THAT THE ANIMAL BE EUTHANIZED. NOW AFTER THE CRUELTY HEARING, GENERALLY THE OWNER IS -- OR SHALL HAVE TO PAY ALL OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARING OF THE ANIMAL WHILE IN CUSTODY OF ACS AND THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND IF THAT FINDING IS MADE, THE JUDGE WILL GENERALLY GO OVER WHAT IS REQUIRED IF THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO APPEAL IT. BECAUSE THEY CAN APPEAL IT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY HAVE TO POST A BOND EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT THAT WAS REQUIRED TO CARE FOR THE ANIMAL FROM THE TIME THAT THE WARRANT WAS EXECUTED TO WHEN THE HEARING OCCURRED.
AND THE ANTICIPATED TIME FROM WHEN AN APPEAL WINDOW, WHICH IS GENERALLY ABOUT 10 DAYS FROM THAT POINT, WHEN THE COURT DEEMS THAT THE OWNER CRUEL TREATED THE ANIMAL TO WHEN THAT APPEAL WINDOW CLOSES. IN SUCH TYPE OF APPEALS GENERALLY ARE DONE TO COUNTY COURT. WHEN THAT IS DONE, IT WILL JUST BE HEARD DE NOVO, IN FACT, THE COUNTY COURT OF LAW WILL HEAR THE CASE WITHOUT EITHER REFERRING TO PREVIOUS RECORD AND IT'S THE SAME STANDARD, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT THE ANIMALS THAT WERE SEIZED WERE CRUELLY TREATED AS DEFINED IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
AND THIS GOES OVER THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR THESE TYPES OF CASES.
AND THIS FURTHER SPEAKS TO THE FINER DETAILS OF PERFECTING THE APPEAL GENERALLY JUST REQUIRES CERTAIN STEPS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TO MEET IN ORDER FOR THE APPEAL TO BE PERFECTED AND THEN WE HAVE THAT CASE IN COUNTY COURT. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN A LOT.
I BELIEVE -- I HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY'S ATTORNEY OFFICE A LITTLE OVER FIVE YEARS.
IN THAT TIME WE'VE HAD ONE APPEAL THAT HAS PERFECTED AND ACTUALLY WENT TO COUNTY COURT.
WHICH COUNTY COURT WAS IT? 11? SO WE HAD A FULL DE NOVA HEARING AND NO REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR HEARING IN MUNICIPAL COURT 4. AND IN THAT -- IN THAT PARTICULAR HEARING, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY COURT DID RULE THAT THE ANIMALS WERE CRUELLY TREATED. AND THE OWNER WAS DIVESTED OF OWNERSHIP OF SAID ANIMALS.
ONCE THAT IS RULED BY THE COUNTY COURT THERE'S NO FURTHER APPEAL, THAT'S IT.
THAT'S THE FINAL WORD. AGAIN, HERE'S MORE PROCEDURAL STEPS AND DETAILS IF YOU WANT TO READ LATER REGARDING THE APPEAL PROCESS. AND OF COURSE DURING THE APPEAL THEY CAN'T BE ADOPTED OUT OR OLD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AT AUCTION AND CAN ONLY BE DESTROYED IN RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ANIMAL IS SUFFERING AND ALLOWING IT TO BE ALIVE WOULD BE --
FOR US AT ALL? >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS? I KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF THE ACS DEPARTMENT WHEN THESE ISSUES COME UP BUT OUR COMMITTEE'S FOCUS IS ON THE WAY THAT THE MUNICIPAL COURT HANDLES THESE CASES AND THERE'S PLENTY TO LEARN AND DISCUSS ON THIS TOPIC AS WELL.
THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY SOME VERY LIGHT READING. [LAUGHTER] I DO HAVE A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS. ONE IS RELATED TO THE SEIZURE OF ANIMALS.
I WOULD ASK HOW DOES THE MUNICIPAL COURT HANDLE THE GRAY AREAS REGARDING THE SEIZURE OF ANIMALS, FOR INSTANCE, ONCE THERE'S A SWORN COMPLAINT SENT TO MUNICIPAL COURT AND A HEARING IS SET, HOW OFTEN ARE THE ANIMALS SEIZED AND THE REASONS WHY A WARRANT WOULD NOT BE
[00:35:05]
ISSUED FOR THE SEIZURE OF ANIMALS? >> WELL, YOU KNOW, THE COURT, LIKE YOU SAID, THEY'LL LOOK AT THAT AFFIDAVIT AND IF THE P.C. IS NOT THERE FOR IT, IT SIMPLY WILL NOT BE ISSUED. ONCE THEY ISSUE IT SOMETIMES THEY WILL GO OUT THERE AND THEY CAN'T FIND THE ANIMAL ANY LONGER. IN MOST CASES IN FIVE DAYS IT BECOMES STALE AND THEY'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND GET A NEW WARRANT AND GO BACK OUT THERE.
I THINK THAT IT'S RARE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS IN THE MEANTIME THAT WOULD DISSUADE THEM FROM WANTING OR NEEDING A WARRANT. I DON'T THINK THAT I'VE QUITE HAD THAT HAPPEN. BUT I SUPPOSE THAT IS POSSIBLE. IN THAT SITUATION, TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD COME BACK TO US AND EXPLAIN WHAT THE SITUATION WAS AND WE WOULD DECIDE AT THAT POINT. BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COURT WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH
AND THAT WOULD BE MORE FOR OUR OFFICE. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. SECOND QUESTION IS -- ONE OF THE PRIMARY QUESTIONS FOR A JUDGE THAT WE SAW ON THE SLIDES IS THERE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE DOG CAUSED THE DEATH OF OR THE SERIOUS INJURY TO THE PERSON THAT IS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT.
THAT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY STANDARD QUESTION TO ASK. ARE THERE ANY CHALLENGES -- TRENDS AT LEAST AS IT RELATES TO CHALLENGES TO PROVIDING -- OR PROVING PROBABLE CAUSE?
>> THERE CAN BE IN SOME CASES AND SOMETIMES YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE. AND THERE'S TIME CONSTRAINTS, HOW LONG AGO DID THIS HAPPEN? WHO IS THE PERSON THAT IS GIVING THE INFORMATION? ARE THOSE PEOPLE WILLING TO COME FORWARD AT A HEARING AND TO TESTIFY? IF THEY'RE GOING TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, IT'S ANOTHER BURDEN VERSUS IF THEY'RE WILLING TO BE NAMED IN THE WARRANT AND COME FORWARD. SO THERE'S ALL SORTS OF INS AND OUTS OF THOSE WARRANTS.
AND WHETHER WE THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE PROPER. ANY WARRANT THAT ACS IS GOING TO ISSUE AND PUT BEFORE THE COURT THEY'LL RUN BY OUR OFFICE FIRST. AND SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT FIRST
AND ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS FOR THEM. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU.
AND THE REASON THAT I ASKED -- OR I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TO ASK -- IS, UM, DO WE COLLECT DATA -- SO FOR -- WHAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING IS WHAT DATA IS THERE TO SHOW HOW OFTEN PROBABLE CAUSE CAN BE PROVEN AND WHAT STOP -- YOU KNOW, WHAT BOTTLENECKS EXIST THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS? >> WELL, IT DOES HAPPEN WHERE SOMEONE WILL PUT AN AFFIDAVIT -- ONE OF THE JUDGES WILL SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE IT HERE AND THEY WON'T ISSUE A WARRANT.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE STATISTICS ON THAT TYPE OF THING BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING
THAT WOULD POINT TO THAT SITUATION I THINK. >> I WILL ADD WHEN THAT DOES HAPPEN THAT WE DO GO BACK TO THE ACS OFFICER AND SAY THIS IS THE KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK. AND SO GO BACK AND GET IT. AND YOU CAN ALWAYS REAPPLY FOR
THAT WARRANT. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: SO WE'RE A BODY OF POLICYMAKERS WHO ARE SERVING ON A COMMITTEE THAT IS LARGELY ADVISORY IN NATURE FOR AT-LARGE A VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE WHICH IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE REAPPOINTMENT OR THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES.
BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, UM, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADVISE AS IT RELATES TO POLICYMAKING. OR TO GET INFORMATION THAT COULD ADVISE OTHER COMMITTEES OR COULD ADVISE INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBERS TO -- TO PURSUE NEW POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES AND THE LIKE AND WHATNOT. SO I'D BE INTERESTED IN THE WAYS THAT WE COULD COLLECT THAT SORT OF INFORMATION. HOW DO WE THINK THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE?
>> AS FAR AS THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF MY PURVIEW, OKAY? I'D HAVE TO REFER YOU TO THE JUDGES OR MUNICIPAL COURT THEMSELVES FOR THAT.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD KEEP. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT, CHAIR.
WE WORK WITH ACS IN TERMS OF WHAT DATA THEY CURRENTLY COLLECT.
I KNOW THAT UNDER OUR GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM, THAT COUNCIL HAS BEEN BRIEFED ON, I THINK THAT THERE'S AN INCREASED ATTEMPT -- FOR EXAMPLE, TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON 3-1-1 CALLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK IT'S WHAT THAT PROGRAM COLLECTS AND WHAT ACS IS COLLECTING AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY IS WORKING ON ADDITIONAL DASHBOARDS.
BUT TO YOUR QUESTION, UM, IF I KNOW WHERE YOU WERE HEADED -- IS THAT I THINK THAT THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE PUBLIC AS TO WHAT INFORMATION THE PROSECUTION TEAM NEEDS IN ORDER TO PURSUE ENFORCEMENT OF A DANGEROUS DOG SITUATION. AND, FOR EXAMPLE, 10 3-1-1, A PERCEIVED DANGEROUS DOG OUT THERE -- THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PUT BEFORE A JUDGE TO GET A WARRANT. SO IF YOU COULD, JOE OR BARRY, DIVE A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN AN AFFIDAVIT FOR YOU TO PRESENT TO A JUDGE SO THAT YOU HAVE AN EXPECTATION
THAT A WARRANT WILL BE ISSUED? >> LOOK AT YOU ANDY, THAT'S WHY THEY PAY YOU THE MEDIUM BUCKS.
NORMALLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ABSOLUTE LOCATION BECAUSE THE WARRANT IS FOR NOT JUST AN ANIMAL BUT FOR A LOCATION THAT WE ARE LOOKING INTO, OKAY? SO YOU NEED A TIMEFRAME THAT IS NEAR ENOUGH IN TIME TO BE PROBABLE AS FAR AS THE JUDGE IS GOING TO CONSIDER, OKAY.
IT CAN'T BE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED SIX MONTHS AGO, OKAY, IT HAS TO BE NEARER IN TIME THAN THAT. AND IT HAS TO BE RATHER CLEAR-CUT AS FAR AS EITHER THE
[00:40:03]
INJURY TO THE ANIMAL -- IN THE CASE OF A CRUELTY. OR THE INJURY TO AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE CASE OF AN SBI TYPE OF CASE. AS FAR AS THE WITNESS -- I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A WITNESS THAT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME FORWARD AND TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTS IN THAT AFFIDAVIT. WE CAN'T JUST HAVE AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAY THAT THIS HAPPENED, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BASE IT ON. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO BE NAMED, TO TESTIFY FOR US IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.>> SEGOVIA: AND IF I MAY, CHAIR, IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF PROSECUTING THESE, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED IS SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WILL ACTUALLY SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT AND WOULD ACT AS A WITNESS IN CASE WE DO NEED THAT AT A HEARING. WE'RE USING OUR EDUCATION AND WORKING WITH ACS AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TRYING TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON THE IMPORTANCE OF COMING FORWARD, HAVING THE WILLINGNESS TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT, AND EXPLAIN TO THEM MORE AS TO WHY WE NEED THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MORE ROBUST ENFORCEMENT OF OUR
DANGEROUS ANIMAL STATUTES. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU. >> ALSO A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU WILL SEE THAT WE HAVE A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT THAT I HAVE USED PREVIOUSLY AND THEY HAVE PROVIDED GOOD INFORMATION X NUMBER OF TIMES AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
WILL WORK IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE OF WARRANT. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: GOT YOU.
IF THE DOG HAS CAUSEDDED SERIOUSLY BODY INJURY TO THE PERSON AND THE DOG IS THEN
RETURNED TO THE OWNER, IS IT THEN A DANGEROUS DOG? >> NOT AUTOMATICALLY.
SO IN THE SBI HEARINGS, IF THEY FIND THAT IT CAUSED INJURY OR THEY'LL GIVE IT BACK OR IT DIDN'T CAUSE INJURY AND THEY'LL GIVE IT BACK, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ACS DIRECTOR DESIGNATE THE ANIMAL AS DANGEROUS AND GO THROUGH THE NORMAL HAPPY VNORM HOOPS THEYWOULD DO.
AS FAR AS NOTICE AND OTHER TIMELINES TO START. >> I WOULD ADD THAT ANYTIME THAT HAS HAPPENED WE HAVE AN AUTOMATIC PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH THAT DANGEROUS DOG DETERMINATION. SO NO QUESTION IF THE SBI OCCURS AND THE DOG IS RETURNED TO THE
NEIGHBOR THAT DOG IS CLASSIFIED AS DANGEROUS. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: CAN SO THEN LOOKING AT THIS PROCESS THEN THROUGH THE CONTEXT OF A DANGEROUS DOG NOW -- SO A DANGEROUS DOG THAT INJURIES SOMEBODY ELSE -- WHAT HAPPENS? IS IT THE SAME ORDER OF EVENTS WHERE BASICALLY THE SAME PROCESS? OR WHAT HAPPENS?
>> IT DEPENDS. YOU HAVE DIFFERENT TRACKS THERE. IF IT'S A DANGEROUS DOG AND IT GETS OUT OF ITS ENCLOSURE AND DOESN'T ATTACK ANYBODY, THEY'RE IN NON-COMPLIANCE, OKAY.
SO WE COULD HAVE A HEARING OF NON-COMPLIANCE UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, AND IF THEY'RE FOUND TO BE NON-COMPLIANCE HABITUALLY, IT WILL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM, OKAY.
BUT IF THEY COMMIT SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE WOULD FOLLOW THE SAME
TRACK. >> THEY DON'T EVEN COME TO US, IT'S THE APPEAL OF THAT
DANGEROUS DOG THAT COMES TO OUR OFFICE. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: FOR SURE.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COLLEAGUES AND COUNCILWOMAN HAVRDA. >> CABELLO HAVRDA: PIGGYBACKING OFF THE AFFIDAVIT A BIT AND YOU MENTIONED THAT THE JUDGES CAN ONLY WORK OFF THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AFFIDAVIT. AND I KNOW AT LEAST ONE OF THE MAULINGS, THEY JUST MENTIONED THAT IT WAS A DOG BITE. THEY DIDN'T INDICATE ANYTHING HERE THAT WOULD REFER TO THE DEFINITION OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. NOTHING ABOUT SEVERE BITE WOUNDS AND NOTHING ABOUT TEARING OF, UM, OF MUSCLE. IT JUST SAID THAT THERE WAS A DOG BITE. SO WHEN THAT CASE WENT TO MUNI COURT IT CAME BACK AND THE PEOPLE KEPT THE DOG, RIGHT. BECAUSE IT WASN'T -- THE JUDGE AT THE TIME DIDN'T SEE THIS AS SOMETHING SERIOUS. ALL HE HAD WAS THE AFFIDAVIT. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
AND I THINK THAT YOU MENTIONED THIS A LITTLE BIT AND I THINK THAT YOU SAID WHEN THERE'S A FAULTY AFFIDAVIT OR WHEN IT'S NOT AS THOROUGH AS IT COULD BE, YOU GO BACK AND TALK TO ACS.
IS THERE A MORE REGULAR PROCESS TO TRAIN OUR OCS OFFICERS FROM MUNICIPAL COURT ON WHAT TO LOOK FOR, WHAT THE DEFINITION OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY IS? SO WHEN THEY ARE MAKING THAT REPORT IT WILL -- IT WILL NOTIFY THE JUDGE LOOKING AT IT THAT THIS IS A PRETTY SERIOUS
INCIDENT? >> I THINK THAT PERHAPS THE ONE THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING OF AN ACTUAL BITE CASE WHERE IT WAS A CRIMINAL CITATION THEY WERE GOING UNDER AND NOT THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE, OKAY. >> AND WE CAN STICK TO THAT -- WE CAN STICK TO THAT HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES BUT YOU CAN ANSWER THE COUNCILWOMAN'S QUESTION REFERRING TO SPECIFIC CASES -- WITHOUT REFERRING TO SPECIFIC CASES.
>> YES. SO IF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE JUDGE, WHICH GOES THROUGH OUR OFFICE OF COURSE AT THE SAME TIME IS INADEQUATE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, IT COULD RESULT IN SOMEONE NOT BEING FINED PROPERLY IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE.
[00:45:02]
I THINK THAT THEY HAVE SINCE CHANGED THE WAY THEY DO THAT ON BITES.THEY HAVE BASICALLY WHAT WE WOULD CALL A PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION TIME PACKET.
WHICH IS MUCH MORE THOROUGH. IT HAS PHOTOGRAPHS, UM, INFORMATION ON THE INJURY TO THE INDIVIDUAL. IF THIS DOG HAS BITTEN SOMEONE IN THE PAST.
THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO WE WILL PLEA BARGAIN WITH AN INDIVIDUAL IF THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO ENTER INTO SOME SORT OF PLEA WITH US AND PLEAD GUILTY OR NO CONTEST.
THEY'LL GO BEFORE THE COURT. AT THAT POINT WE CAN PUT THAT PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION IN FRONT -- JUST FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES. SO THEY HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED. >> CABELLO HAVRDA: BUT MY POINT IS THAT YOU CAN'T GET THERE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT.
SO IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR -- FOR MUNI COURT JUDGES OR PROSECUTORS TO GO TO ACS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY? I DON'T KNOW THAT ACS OFFICERS ARE NECESSARILY UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AND THE DEFINITIONS THAT YOU ARE USING
TO INDICATE A SERIOUS -- SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. >> NO, WE HAVE CHANGED THE WHOLE
PROCESS -- [INDISCERNIBLE] >> CABELLO HAVRDA: OKAY.
>> WE'RE REFERRING WITH THEM MONTHLY, NOT ONLY OUR OFFICE BUT THE JUDGE'S OFFICE AND THEN ACS.
SO WE MEET WITH THEM MONTHLY, LIKE A STANDARD MEETING THAT WE HAVE WITH THEM.
AND BARRETT BASICALLY TALKS TO THEM DAILY. >> CABELLO HAVRDA: OKAY.
>> 24/7 FOR THE MOST PART BECAUSE IT OCCURS AT ALL TIMES OF DAY.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE NEW ACS OFFICERS TODAY SHOULD BE BETTER INFORMED ON WHAT TO LOOK FOR AND WHAT THEY NEED IN THAT AFFIDAVIT. IT'S NOT VERY OFTEN THAT AN AFFIDAVIT IS REJECTED, BUT, OF COURSE, SOMETIMES THEY ARE. AND THAT'S WHERE WE SAY THIS IS THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO GET IT WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE GOING.
IF WE CAN'T REACH THAT BURDEN THEN IT WAS NOT A DANGEROUS DOG TO BEGIN WITH.
>> CABELLO HAVRDA: OKAY. SO I WANT TO ASK JUDGE OBLEDO, FROM THE JUDGE'S SIDE OF IT, ARE YOU SEEING THAT CHANGE NOW THAT THERE'S MORE TRAINING FOR ACS OFFICERS, ARE YOU SEEING MORE
VALID AFFIDAVITS THAT YOU CAN USE? >> OBLEDO: YES, AS BARRETT MENTIONED, ESPECIALLY WITH SENTENCING, IS THAT THEY ARE GETTING THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE THAT THE JUDGE NEEDS TO MAKE AN INFORMED RULING ON A CASE.
AND A JUST SENTENCE FOR -- FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. SO THAT JUSTICE IS SERVED.
SO -- SO THAT IS SOMETHING NEW THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE PROSECUTORS ARE WORKING WITH ACS TO DEVELOP AND WE ARE -- AS JOE MENTIONED, WE ARE MEETING WITH THEM MONTHLY JUST TO, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR CASES ARE BEING SEEN -- ALL OF THE CASES ARE SEEN TIMELY.
>> CABELLO HAVRDA: OKAY. >> OBLEDO: AS YOU KNOW AS A COURT WE CAN'T REALLY GIVE A LOT OF INPUT ON WHAT WE REQUIRE AS EVIDENCE. SO THAT'S WHY ACS -- I MEAN,
JOE'S OFFICE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH ACS TO DEVELOP THAT. >> CABELLO HAVRDA: OKAY.
I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT I BROUGHT THIS UP IS THAT EARLY ON A LOT OF MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES WERE GETTING FAULTED FOR SENDING THESE DOGS BACK TO THEIR OWNERS AND SOME OF THE AFFIDAVITS JUST WERE NOT CLEAR ENOUGH IN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. AND THE POINT THAT YOU MADE, BARRETT ABOUT, ONLY BEING ABLE TO GO OFF THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AFFIDAVIT -- I MEAN, THERE'S NO BODY CAMS, RIGHT. AND THERE'S NO OTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE USING SO THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN CABELLO HAVRDA. COUNCILWOMAN.
>> A FEW QUESTIONS. IF A DOG HAS BITTEN SOMEONE, WHY IN SOME INSTANCES IS THE DOG
GIVEN BACK? >> IT DEPENDS ON THE SEVERITY OF THE BITE.
IT HAS TO BE SEVERE ENOUGH, A TEARING OF THE MUSCLE OR TENDONS AND THEY WOULD SEEK HOSPITALIZATION OR MEDICAL CARE AND IT HAS TO BE A BAD ENOUGH BITE.
IF IT DOESN'T MEET THAT STANDARD THE ANIMAL MIGHT BE GIVEN BACK. AND WE OFTEN PICK IT UP FOR QUARANTINE AND WHILE THE ANIMAL IS QUARANTINED WE'LL HAVE THE ANIMAL DECLARED DANGEROUS AND
WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE MOTION. >> SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT A BITE HAS JUST TO BE BAD ENOUGH?
>> YEAH, SOMETIMES THE DOG BITES ITS OWN OWNER AND SO UNLESS THEY REPORT IT, SOMETIMES IT IS REPORTED BUT UNLIKE -- IT ALL IS BASED ON THE SEVERITY OF THE BITE.
>> INTERESTING. AND WHO JUDGES IF IT'S SEVERE ENOUGH OR NOT?
>> WELL, IN THAT CASE ACS DOES. >> OKAY. >> BUT JUST IN GENERAL, THEY'RE THE FIRST RESPONDER, IF NOT SAPD, IF IT'S A VERY BAD BITE SOMETIMES.
>> OKAY, SO IF THE DOG DOESN'T BITE SOMEONE SEVERELY ENOUGH BASED OFF MAYBE THE ACS
OFFICER'S PERSPECTIVE, THEN THE DOG CAN BE GIVEN BACK? >> IT CAN BE.
AND IT ALSO BE QUARANTINED OR DECLARED DANGEROUS AND ANIMAL PICKED UP PURSUANT TO COMING
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE WARRANTS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
PIGGYBACKING A OFF OF WHAT OUR CHAIR AND ANDY WERE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT SIGNING THE AFFIDAVIT -- I GET CONCERNED, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT THE CURRENT PROCESS -- YOU KNOW, AND WE HAVE
[00:50:05]
HEARD A LOT OF FEEDBACK ABOUT IT AT OTHER MEETINGS, WHEN SOMEONE IS HAVING TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT, IT PITS NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR, RIGHT? BECAUSE NOW SOMEONE IS SAYING I KNOW THEY HAVE A DANGEROUS DOG AND THAT DOG IS OUT ALL OF THE TIME.SO THEY'RE CURRENTLY CALLING 3-1-1 AS AN ANONYMOUS VOICE AND SAYING THAT THERE'S THAT DOG OVER THERE. BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEIR NAME AND I UNDERSTAND WHY.
BECAUSE MAYBE IF THIS PERSON HAS A DANGEROUS DOG, THEN -- YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A FAR LEAP TO THINK THAT THEY WOULD BE HARMFUL TO A NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW? AND SO I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THERE IS PROBABLY SOMETHING MORE THAT WE COULD DIG INTO THERE, BECAUSE I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT THE CURRENT PROCESS ALLOWS, UM, FOR A CONCERNED NEIGHBOR OF A -- OF A DANGEROUS DOG OR A DOG THAT
GETS OUT TO -- TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE ABOUT IT WITHOUT PUTTING -- >> WE'RE WORKING UNDER THE STAT-
>> SURE. >> THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MODIFY THAT THIS LAST SESSION WHICH PASSED THE LEGISLATURE BUT NOT QUITE ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
>> SURE. YEAH. >> SEGOVIA: IF I MAY, THAT'S DIRECT, COUNSEL, THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND OTHERS REALIZE THAT IS A REAL ISSUE WITH HAVING NEIGHBORS, AS YOU SAY, GOING AGAINST NEIGHBORS. WE TRIED TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATION TO GIVE US MORE FLEXIBILITY AND IT GOT A LITTLE WAYS BUT IT WASN'T PASSED.
I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER THAT AND KEEP THAT ON OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, BECAUSE IT IS A VERY CHALLENGING ISSUE AS WE TRY TO ENFORCE THESE DANGEROUS ANIMALS.
>> YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT WE COULD DO AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL
>> SEGOVIA: WHAT WE COULD DO AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL IS ONCE AGAIN TO INCREASE OUR EDUCATIONALLESTS IN TERMS OF ADVISING THE PUBLIC OF HOW IMPORTANT -- HOW VITAL THAT IS IN TERMS GETTING DANGEROUS ANIMALS OFF OF THE STREETS. AND THE OTHER THING IS TO INDICATE THAT IT IS INCREASING THE ABILITY -- IF WE CAN AS FIRST RESPONDERS AND ACS, THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THAT IS NEEDED ON AN AFFIDAVIT. BUT THEY HAVE TO GET THERE IN TIME AND TO BE ABLE TO OBSERVE, BUT WE'RE TRYING AS HARD AS WE CAN TO HAVE ACS OFFICERS FILL
THAT ROLE TO THE EXTENT THEY CAN. >> I SEE.
YEAH, THAT'S INTERESTING. YEAH, WE'RE DEFINITELY -- OBVIOUSLY, DOUBLING DOWN ON ACS IN TERMS OF GETTING MORE OFFICERS OUT THERE. BUT, UM, YEAH, I THINK THAT HOWEVER THEY CAN FILL THAT ROLE, THE BETTER. BUT WE CAN EXPLORE THAT OFF-LINE. ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION IS, UM, SO WHERE EXACTLY DOES THE POWER TO ENFORCE PUNISHMENTS ON ABUSIVE OR NEGLECTFUL OR RESPONSIBLE OWNER?
>> THE FINE ONLY LEVEL IS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
ANYTHING WITH A POSSIBILITY ABOVE FINES IS GOING TO BE AT THAT LEVEL.
>> OKAY. SO IT JUST HAS TO GO TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY --
>> SEGOVIA: AND IT DETERMINES ON HOW WE COORDINATE WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN TERMS OF
THE PROSECUTION OF THESE TYPE OF CASE? >> CERTAINLY.
AND SAP WILL WORK UP A CASE AND FILE WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SOME OF THE MORE CASES SAPD WILL DO THAT AS WELL, AND ONE OF THE DETECTIVES EXACTLY IN AND WORK THE CASE UP AND GET ALL OF THE -- THE VIDEOS, AND THE STATEMENTS, THE MEDICAL RECORDS, PUT THOSE TOGETHER AND GET THEM TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE AND FILE THE CASE AS WELL.
>> OKAY. I WANT TO ATTEMPT ONE QUICK FINAL QUESTION TO CLARIFY.
SO WHEN A DOG MUST BE DESTROYED, BECAUSE THEY DID CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY, IS IT UP TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT OR ACS? I THINK THAT YOU MENTIONED IT WAS ACS.
>> THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE, AS FAR AS THE SBI SITUATION. >> OKAY.
>> OKAY? I DIDN'T KNOW -- >> I JUST WAS CURIOUS WHO IS
MAKING THAT DECISION THAT THE DOG -- >> THE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY IT'S MADE BY THE JUDGE. ACS DOES MAKE THAT DECISION IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BUT NOT IN
THAT ONE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU.
AND WHO ULTIMATELY DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE CAN OWN ANOTHER ANIMAL?
>> THAT -- BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE COUNTY COURTS, SOMEONE, SAY, HAS A CRUELTY TO ANIMAL CASE FILED AGAINST THEM OR ALONG THOSE LINES CAN MAKE A CONDITION OF BOND THAT THEY DON'T OWN OTHER ANIMALS DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. ONCE THE SUIT GOES FORWARD WITHIN THE CRUELTY STATUTE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO NOT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ANYMORE ANIMALS BUT THAT'S ONLY DURING THE DEPENDENCY OF THE PROBATION UNDER THE FORM OF EDUCATION THAT PERSON IS UNDER.
ONCE THAT IS GONE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GET ANIMALS ONCE AGAIN. YOU CAN'T PERMANENTLY, NO.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: INTERESTING. >> SEGOVIA: THAT'S ANOTHER GAP, COUNCILMAN.
YOU COULD HAVE THEO 10 OR 20 OR0 TIMES AND NOT GET A PERMANENT ORDER THAT SAYS THAT INDIVIDUAL
[00:55:02]
CAN NEVER OWN AN ANIMAL AGAIN. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO.
>> CASTILLO: THANK YOU, BARRETT AND DAVID FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO IN REGARDS TO AN INDIVIDUAL CHARGED WITH ANIMAL CRUELTY. IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILL TAKE ON
THAT -- THAT CASE? >> YEAH, THE CRUELTY CASE IS SIMPLY FOR BASICALLY POSSESSION
OF THOSE ANIMALS. >> CASTILLO: OKAY. >> SO ONCE WE DO THAT PART ACS FILES WITH THE DA OR SAPD FILES AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IT FROM THERE.
>> CASTILLO: I ASK BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S POTENTIALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A REQUIREMENT WITH -- WITH HAVING INDIVIDUALS HAVE COMMUNITY SERVICE AT ACS FOR THOSE WHO ARE CHARGED WITH ANIMAL CRUELTY? SO SOME TYPE OF ASSOCIATSOCIALIZATIONWITH ANIMAS WITH CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOLKS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO THEY THE FINE AND THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THEY PAY IT, RIGHT, AND THEY'LL GO IN AND OUT OF COMPLIANCE. BECAUSE THEY JUST HAVE THE RESOURCES.
AND IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT TAGGED ON -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
Y'ALL HAVE EXPLORED WITH LIKE A COMMUNITY COURT MODEL? >> COMMUNITY SERVICE CAN BE IMPOSED BY MUNICIPAL COURT OR THE COUNTY AND DISTRICT COURTS. HOWEVER, TO HAVE THEM TO DO THE WORK THERE AT ACS AND TO HAVE TO DO IT ELSEWHERE BUT THEY COULD CERTAINLY IMPOSE IT.
>> CASTILLO: AND I WOULD EMPHASIZE SUPERVISED COMMUNITY SERVICE.
AND I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT LANGUAGE, RIGHT -- IS IT BECAUSE ANIMALS ARE DEEMED PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT WE USE THE WORD DESTROYED RATHER THAN EUTHANIZED?
>> I PREFER EUTHANIZED BUT BOTH TERMS OF INTERCHANGEABLE. >> SEGOVIA: THEY ARE CONSIDERED PROPERTY. THAT IS CORRECT, COUNCILWOMAN. THAT'S THE GENESIS OF A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IS THAT ANIMALS ARE CONSIDERED PROPERTY, AND GIVEN ALL OF THE PROPERTY PROTECTION STATUTES THAT WE HAVE AND THE MINDSET OF THE STATE.
THAT EXPLAINS A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE. HAVE.
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THEY HAVE THE HEARINGS SO QUICKLY IS BECAUSE IT'S PROPERTY AND WHY WE TAKE AWAY WE DON'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF TAKING OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
>> CASTILLO: LASTLY, WHOEVER MADE THIS PRESENTATION, THE SLIDE WITH THE PHOTO OF THE CAT LAWYER -- THIS ME TRYING TO RETAIN MY LAUGHTER THE ENTIRE TIME.
SO THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOR COMMUNITY SERVICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS SHARED THAT UNAFFORDABLE FINES ONLY IMPEDE SUCCESSFUL REENTRY AND INCREASING RECIDIVISM AND WEAKENING COMMUNITY TRUST IN GOVERNMENT. I KNOW THAT FOR MANY OF US THAT WE KNOW THAT IF YOU CAN AFFORD THE -- IF YOU CAN AFFORD THE FINE, YOU CAN DO THE CRIME.
THAT'S OFTEN WHAT WE SEE IS THAT IT MAKES IT LEGAL FOR THOSE WHO CAN PAY.
AND SO -- I THINK THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHERE -- WHERE THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR US, WE SHOULD LOOK AT AS MANY CREATIVE SOLUTIONS AS POSSIBLE. COUNCILMAN GAVITO.
>> GAVITO: I REALLY LIKE THAT IDEA TOO. A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.
HOW MANY SERIOUS BODILY INJURY CASES ARE HEARD PER YEAR? >> THERE'S 44, 47?
44 LAST YEAR. >> GAVITO: 44. >> OKAY, PREVIOUS YEAR WAS
PROBABLY HALF OF THAT. >> SEGOVIA: I THANK WE HAVE STATS COUNCILWOMAN FOR THE LAST
TWO ARE TWO OR THREE YEARS, WHAT ARE THEY, JOE? >> WE CAN GET THOSE STATS BUT
THE PAST CALENDAR YEAR WE HAD 44SPI CASES. >> GAVITO: THAT'S A LOT.
I'M CURIOUS ON HOW OFTEN PLEA DEALS ARE REACHED IN ANIMAL CASES AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE?
>> WELL, ON THESE IT'S NOT A PLEA BARGAIN, OF COURSE, AND IT WOULD SIMPLY BE ON OUR CLASS-C FINE ONLY CASES THAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A PLEA BARGAIN. WE DO TALK TO INDIVIDUALS INTHESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS AS WELL BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY FALL UNDER A PLEA BARGAIN TYPE OF
SITUATION, OKAY. >> GAVITO: OKAY. SO YOU SAID THEY COULD DO IT FOR
CLASS-C? >> CLASS-C. SAY THAT SOMEONE HAS A NUMBER -- A DOG BITE, A DOG AT LARGE ENCLOSURE IN THE FENCE TO FIX THINGS AND WE WILL WORK OUT A PLEA BARGAIN WITH THEM.
BUT THE BITE CASES WE ARE HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE ON THOSE.
>> GAVITO: YEAH. AND I DO THINK THAT IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE I THAN PART -- LIKE YOU WERE MENTIONING, ANDY, ARE ISSUES THAT ANIMALS ARE SEEN AS PROPERTY, YOU KN KNOW, AND, THEREFORE WE CAN'T FIX THEM. ACS CAN'T FIX THEM WHEN THEY PICK THEM UP. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE'S A DIFFERENCE -- AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR THE STATE. LIKE, WE CAN'T FIX DOGS, BUT YET WE CAN FIX CATS.
AND I TALKED TO A VETERINARIAN ABOUT THIS -- BECAUSE YOU CAN TECHNICALLY PICK UP LIKE A CAT AND FIX THEM. BUT WEIGH CAN'T DO THAT FOR DOGS.
[01:00:04]
AND I AM LIKE HOW ARE DOGS AND CATS DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF PROPERTY?CATS DON'T KILL. >> THEY BOTH TRAVEL AND THEY'RE BOTH PROPERTY AS FAR AS THAT
GOES. BUT -- >> GAVITO: BUT THEN -- I MEAN, YOU COULD TECHNICALLY PICK UP SOMEBODY ELSE'S CAT AND HAVE THEM FIXED AND THEY FIX THEM.
>> WELL, I MEAN -- YES AND NO. IF YOU TOOK THE CAT TO THE VET TO BE FIXED THEY WOULD PUT THE WAND OVER IT AND SEE WHO OWNS THE CAT, OKAY? IF IT'S NOT YOUR CAT THEY WON'T HELP WITH YOU THAT. IF IT'S A STRAY CAT, YOU COULD TAKE IT, ABSOLUTELY, IF YOU WANT
TO PAY FOR IT. >> GAVITO: BUT ACS CAN FIX THOSE CATS?
>> SEGOVIA: IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CATS AND DOGS AS FAR AS ACS?
>> THE ONLY DISTINCTION IS THAT BOTH ANIMALS CAN BE PICKED UP BUT THE IDEA THAT DOGS, OF COURSE, ARE KEPT. AND IF SOMEONE RECOVERS THEM, THEY ARE RECOVERED AND OTHERWISE THEY GO THROUGH THE ACS PROTOCOL WHETHER THEY ARE ADOPTABLE OR NOT.
AND CATS, SINCE THEY'RE NOT A DANGER, I GUESS, TO THE PUBLIC -- THEY ARE -- YOU KNOW,
RELEASED BACK INTO THE -- TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> SPAY OR NEUTERED AND RELEASED
BACK INTO A CAT COLONY. >> GAVITO: THAT'S THE THING, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPAY AND NEUTERED AND WHY CAN'T WE SPAY AND NEUTER THE DOGS AND RELEASE THEM BACK.
>> THEY'RE JUST LOOSE. WHERE A CAT THEY'LL TAKE IT TO A CAT COLONY AND THEY'LL PUT IT
OUT THERE IN THAT COMMUNITY OF CATS BASICALLY. >> GAVITO: OKAY.
>> THEY WON'T DO THAT WITH THE DOGS. >> GAVITO: THEY WON'T RELEASE THOSE DOGS? OKAY. THAT IS HELPFUL BUT I THOUGHT
THAT WAS INTERESTING. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: A QUICK QUESTION TO INTERJECT A BIT.
SO IF ACS DETERMINES THAT THE CAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SPAY OR NEUTER THAT
CAT, RIGHT? >> WELL, THEY'LL -- THEY'LL CALL THE OWNER FIRST AND SEE IF THE OWNER WANTS TO COME TO PICK UP THEIR CAT. IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT THEY'LL LET THEM COME BACK OUT THERE AND RECLAIM THE ANIMAL. IF THE ANIMAL HAS GOTTEN OUT THEY'LL REQUEST THAT IT BE SPAYED OR NEUTERED IF IT'S NOT DONE ALREADY.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: SAY THAT PART ONE MORE TIME. SO ACS -- SO WHAT I INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN IS THAT IF AN OWNER IS GOING TO PICK THEIR CAT BACK UP AND THEY'RE GOING TO OWN THAT CAT -- SO RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THAT CAT -- THEN ACS WILL NOT SPAY OR NEUTER IT.
BUT I'M HEARING NOW THAT THEY WILL OR THEY'LL SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO BE?
>> THERE'S A CITY STATUTE THAT THE ANIMAL GETS OUT -- I THINK IT'S MORE THAN ONCE THOUGH -- THEY ASK THAT IT BE SPAYED OR NEUTERED, OKAY, BEFORE YOU PICK UP THE ANIMAL.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: OH, OKAY, SO ACS WILL PERFORM THE SURGERY? >> WHEN THEY ARE RELEASED BACK
TO THEM THEY'LL DO THAT. >> THEY WILL CHARGE. >> THEY WILL.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: SO IT'S NOT FREE, GOT YA'. >> GAVITO: BUT WEIGH CAN'T DO
THAT FOR DOGS? >> SEGOVIA: WE CAN, YES. >> GAVITO: SO WE CAN FIX THE
DOGS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED BACK TO THE OWNER? >> YES, IF OUT AT-LARGE.
>> GAVITO: OKAY, THAT'S INTERESTING. THAT'S ALL.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT TOPIC ALL DAY.
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE -- SORRY -- TRYING TO FIND MY LAST LITTLE NOTE.
WELL, WE'RE GOING TO END UP ON TIME. THIS IS THE PART OF THE MEETING THAT I LIKE TO ASK, MEMBERS, IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS OR ANYTHING THAT IS ANY DATA OR QUESTIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE ASKING? WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL. SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR AGENDA AND OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 2:10 P.M. AND THANK YOU. AND HAVE A WONDERFUL VALENTINE'S DAY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.