Gloucester, VA - Readers Respond To Animal Control Law Section 3-15 - Is It Legal?

One of the people who responded early to the national survey on whether or not Gloucester, VA law , Section 3-15 is even a legal law has quoted some further interesting information and leaves some clues that they have a much higher knowledge of law than they originally stated.  The following is a new message that they have left.  We still see legal problems with their comments.

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Law 3-15 Early Res...": 

From your "yes" voter ... I referenced that State law supports the local law. SPECIFICALLY see 3.2-6503 which mimics local law. If you have a problem, you are barking up the wrong tree:

§ 3.2-6503. Care of companion animals by owner; penalty.

A. Each owner shall provide for each of his companion animals:

1. Adequate feed;

2. Adequate water;

3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;

4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

5. Adequate exercise;

6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and

7. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 1, A 2, A 3, or A 7 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 4, A 5, or A 6 is a Class 3 misdemeanor.

                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                           

This is an updated argument and we want to thank the person who sent this.  However, we are still arguing that 3-15 is not being properly used in Gloucester, VA by Animal Control.  Section 3-15 is not supported as a law that can be adopted by a locality as further evidenced through state law 3.2-6543.

Sec. 3-15.  Failure to perform duties of ownership; penalty.

(a)       Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of the Code of Virginia:

(1)       Adequate feed;

(2)       Adequate water;

(3)       Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;

(4)       Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

(5)       Adequate exercise;

(6)       Adequate care, treatment and transportation; and

(7)       Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall apply to an owner or custodian of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter, pound, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

(b)       Game and wildlife species shall be cared for in accordance with current regulations promulgated by the Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries.

            (c)        Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

I like this person's argument as it shows us where the flaw in our own argument stands.  That required us to re write our survey to ask the correct question.  Let's look at Virginia Code 3.2-6503 a little closer.  It states that it''s a penalty.  What is the penalty?  A class 4 misdemeanor charge.  It does not show where the violation stems from but only a broad definition of what has been violated and that the penalty for the violation is a class 4 misdemeanor.  3.2-6500 of the Virginia code only defines terminology, or gives definitions to terms used.  However, it could logically be argued that the definition of terms is the source of origin.  New problem though is this.  Virginia law section 3.2-6543 provides the following.  

A. The governing body of any locality of the Commonwealth may adopt, and make more stringent, ordinances that parallel §§ 3.2-6521 through 3.2-6539, 3.2-6546 through 3.2-6555, 3.2-6562, 3.2-6569, 3.2-6570, 3.2-6574 through 3.2-6580, and 3.2-6585 through 3.2-6590. Any town may choose to adopt by reference any ordinance of the surrounding county adopted under this section to be applied within its town limits, in lieu of adopting an ordinance of its own.   

We would like to note that 3.2-6503 is not part of what a county may adopt and or make more stringent according to Virginia State law 3.2-6543 

With that said, how can Gloucester Animal Control law 3-15 that parallel's 3.2-6503 then be considered legal if Virginia state law does not permit it to be adopted and or paralleled as shown above?   It was a sound sounding argument as long as you did not dig deeper into state laws.  I'm going to give that person a free pass here as they said they were not a legal professional and I want to thank that person for further input.  It helped us clarify our survey and our argument.  And as we like to note, we are not attorney's and this is not to be considered legal advice.  Only an attorney can advice you.  We are not trying to practice law on this site.  We are only questioning what we are seeing.

The following is the survey, updated to reflect the proper context of our arguments.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Related articles

• Offenses Animals Cruelty Virginia Lawyer 18.2-403.1 Fairfax Richmond Beach Loudoun Prince William Fredericksburg Lynchburg.
• Obstruction Justice Virginia Lawyer Penalty 18.2-460 Fairfax Richmond Beach Loudoun Prince William Fredericksburg Lynchburg

Gloucester County Producing False And Illegal Search Warrants?

Gloucester County Producing False And Illegal Search Warrants?

Above is a jpg image of a search warrant issued here in Gloucester County. This is the search warrant that has been in discussion in earlier parts of this overall story. On the surface, it may look valid, but when you start really studying all it's components and asking a lot of questions, you start to realize that there is something very wrong here. At least it is our opinion that something horribly wrong exists.

Let's start breaking this document down and asking questions shall we? If you look at the bottom of this document, you will see that it is signed by one Gloria Owens who is a Gloucester County court clerk. She signed this document and marked the box Judge. Gloria Owens is not a judge. She is not a Magistrate. She is a clerk. Okay, in fairness, she has the right to sign this document and mark it for a judge if she was in contact with a judge and was signing it in his place, which would require her to mark it as such but was never done. See VA Code Ann 19.2-56 below. Information we have obtained states that Gloria Owens is the usual go to person in the county whenever a fast form is needed for whatever reason. Now we have no way to confirm this, it's what has been told to us from inside the Sheriff's office.

Va code ann 19.2 56

View more documents from Chuck Thompson

Now let's look at the date and time this was executed. Well all we have here is a date, no time. A time stamp is required by law to be on this document, however, it will not invalidate evidence and or property seized during the search as long as Gloucester County can show the time that this document was created. The search took place on May 4^th, 2010. One day after this document was “supposedly” created. We strongly emphasis supposedly. Yet this document does not contain a valid file number. If it was created one day in advance of a search, this document should have a valid file number. It's rather shoddy and shady that this document does not contain a file number seeing as Gloucester had 24 hours advanced preparations.

Now let's look at the markings or numbers that are placed in the file number box. 10.45. Could this possibly be a date? 2010, 4^th day of May? This search as already stated took place on May 4^th, 2010. So it is very feasible that 10.45 means just that. Now opinion is that the real date that this document was in fact created is May 4^th, 2010 and after the search began. Or in other words, while an illegal raid was being conducted against those this search warrant has been issued. This is why I have asked for the meta data files on the creation of this document. You can not alter the meta data on a computer without creating a major boot record of such. Again, more reason why Gloucester County really wants to ignore my requests for information? It's better to take a hit for non compliance than to offer up evidence that may just incriminate a number of people? The opinion is that everything had to be created after the illegal raid began to cover the tracks of those guilty parties to the raid.

Ah, and I am just warming up here to. Now let's look at the affiant section of the search warrant. The signature on here to the best of our understanding is Steve Baranek of Animal Control. He is the second of two affiant's. His affidavit is in place of the first affidavit where by law, the original affiant does not have to be disclosed to the defendant, however, burden of proof as to why the original affiant is hidden is on Gloucester County. There must be a certain amount of fear of retribution from the defendant against the original affiant in order to hide said evidence.

Now here is what I am not supposed to know. The original affiant was under the employ of Peninsula Heating and Air,or PHA at the time. Evidence produced by this PHA employee that was supposedly used to create this search warrant comes into very deep questioning. I have asked for all evidence here and have not received it. It is believed that the PHA employee, through illegally trespassing into areas of a house where he was assigned to work, took photographs on what he considered to be either questionable and or possibly illegal evidence of animal neglect.

Now when it comes to accepting evidence and compiling an affidavit for the purposes of issuing a search warrant, the affiant must be deemed reliable. If the PHA employee was criminally trespassing into areas of a house he had no right to access, can his testament be considered reliable? Gaining evidence via committing an illegal act does not prove reliability.

Va code ann 19.2 59

View more documents from Chuck Thompson.

That would invalidate the PHA employee affidavit. Now what about Steve Baranek's affidavit? Well that was created to protect the original affiant. So now that would make Steve Baranek's affidavit null and void making the search warrant null and void. Problem is, the search took place. These are not the only areas in question. There isn't an area on this search warrant I can't question and show some serious flaws in. I mean this thing is loaded with problems in my opinion. However, I am not going to give everything I know away right now as I am still waiting on evidence from Gloucester County and know that there are many people in the county who are in fact reading this. Plus inside information from the Sheriff's deputy says that all the evidence of this case have been destroyed so it's going to be hard for Gloucester County to produce what we are looking for. This he was told by Sheriff Gentry. After ample time, I'm still going to pick this document clean and show even worse issues than I have put up yet.

So far we are looking at a very sloppy search warrant that is at the very least, highly questionable and County officials that are ignoring requests for information to clarify areas of this document. How much worse can it get? You have no idea.

At this point, if I have your attention, I would strongly suggest that you start following all the updates on this site as this does not even begin to scratch the surface of everything coming. I have surprises everywhere and on every story coming up that are more shocking than the last.