We have spoken to Robert Warden who has informed us that to the best of his knowledge, he never received a search warrant when these folks, in the above video, came onto his property and just started taking his animals. You read that correctly. NO SEARCH WARRANT was ever given Mr Warden that he recalls. We have asked Animal Control, the County Attorney and the County Administrator for a copy, if one exists, of the Search Warrant that was required for the above confiscation of Mr Warden's animals. We have already covered those laws in our last article so we are not going to repeat them again.
Now if someone wanted to argue the following state code, then it's easy to argue.
§ 3.1-796.115. Seizure and impoundment of animals; notice and hearing; disposition of animal; disposition of proceeds upon sale. (3.2-6569)
A. Any humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may lawfully seize and impound any animal that has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or is suffering from an apparent violation of this chapter that has rendered the animal in such a condition as to constitute a direct and immediate threat to its life, safety or health. Before seizing or impounding any agricultural animal, such humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall contact the State Veterinarian or a State Veterinarian's representative, who shall recommend to such person the most appropriate action for the disposition of the agricultural animal, provided, however, that the seizure or impoundment of an equine resulting from a violation of subdivision A (iii) or subdivision B (ii) of § 3.1-796.122may be undertaken only by the State Veterinarian or State Veterinarian's representative who has received training in the examination and detection of sore horses equivalent to that required by 9 C.F.R. Part 11.7 and that is approved by the State Veterinarian. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall notify the owner of the agricultural animal and the local attorney for the Commonwealth of the recommendation. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may impound the agricultural animal on the land where the agricultural animal is located if:
1. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located gives written permission;
2. A general district court so orders; or
3. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located cannot be immediately located, and it is in the best interest of the agricultural animal to be impounded on the land where it is located until the written permission of the owner or tenant of the land can be obtained.
If there is a direct and immediate threat to an agricultural animal, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may seize the animal, in which case the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall file within five business days on a form approved by the State Veterinarian a report on the condition of the animal at the time of the seizure, the disposition of the animal, and any other information required by the State Veterinarian.
B. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall cause to be served upon the person with a right of property in the animal or the custodian of the animal notice of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known and residing within the jurisdiction wherein the animal is seized, written notice shall be given at least five days prior to the hearing of the time and place of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known but residing out of the jurisdiction where such animal is seized, written notice by any method or service of process as is provided by the Code of Virginia shall be given. If such person or the custodian is not known, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction wherein such animal is seized notice of the hearing at least one time prior to the hearing and shall further cause notice of the hearing to be posted at least five days prior to the hearing at the place provided for public notices at the city hall or courthouse wherein such hearing shall be held.
C. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
D. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall provide for such animal until the court has concluded the hearing. Any locality may, by ordinance, require the owner of any animal held pursuant to this subsection for more than thirty days to post a bond in surety with the locality for the amount of the cost of boarding the animal for a period of time set in the ordinance, not to exceed nine months.
In any locality that has not adopted such an ordinance, a court may order the owner of an animal held pursuant to this subsection for more than 30 days to post a bond in surety with the locality for the amount of the cost of boarding the animal for a period of time not to exceed nine months. The bond shall not be forfeited if the owner is found to be not guilty of the violation.
If the court determines that the animal has been neither abandoned, cruelly treated, nor deprived of adequate care, the animal shall be returned to the owner. If the court determines that the animal has been (i) abandoned, or cruelly treated, or (ii) deprived of adequate care,as that term is defined in § 3.1-796.66, (§ 3.2-6503.1. Care of agricultural animals by owner; penalty.
A. Each owner shall provide for each of his agricultural animals:
1. Feed to prevent malnourishment;
2. Water to prevent dehydration; and
3. Veterinary treatment as needed to address impairment of health or bodily function when such impairment cannot be otherwise addressed through animal husbandry, including humane destruction.
B. The provisions of this section shall not require an owner to provide feed or water when such is customarily withheld, restricted, or apportioned pursuant to a farming activity or if otherwise prescribed by a veterinarian.
C. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that there has been no violation of this section if an owner is unable to provide feed, water, or veterinary treatment due to an act of God.
D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to agricultural animals used for bona fide medical or scientific experimentation.
E. A violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.) or (iii) raised as a dog that has been, is, or is intended to be used in dogfighting in violation of § 3.1-796.124, then the court shall order that the animal be: (i a) sold by a local governing body; (ii b) humanely destroyed, or disposed of by sale or gift to a federal agency, state-supported institution, agency of the Commonwealth, agency of another state, or a licensed federal dealer having its principal place of business located within the Commonwealth; (iii c) delivered to any local humane society or shelter, or to any person who is a resident of the county or city where the animal is seized or an adjacent county or city in the Commonwealth and who will pay the required license fee, if any, on such animal; or (iv d) delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal as provided in subsection E.
E. In no case shall the owner be allowed to purchase, adopt, or otherwise obtain the animal if the court determines that the animal has been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care; however, the court shall direct that the animal be delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal, upon his request, if the court finds that the abandonment, cruel treatment, or deprivation of adequate care is not attributable to the actions or inactions of such person.
F. The court shall order the owner of any animal determined to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care to pay all reasonable expenses incurred in caring and providing for such animal from the time the animal is seized until such time that the animal is disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this section, to the provider of such care.
G. The court may prohibit the possession or ownership of other companion animals by the owner of any companion animal found to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care. In making a determination to prohibit the possession or ownership of companion animals, the court may take into consideration the owner's past record of convictions under this chapter or other laws prohibiting cruelty to animals or pertaining to the care or treatment of animals and the owner's mental and physical condition.
H. If the court finds that an agricultural animal has been abandoned or cruelly treated, the court may prohibit the possession or ownership of any other agricultural animal by the owner of the agricultural animal if the owner has exhibited a pattern of abandoning or cruelly treating agricultural animals as evidenced by previous convictions of violating § 3.1-796.73 or §3.1-796.122. In making a determination to prohibit the possession or ownership of agricultural animals, the court may take into consideration the owner's mental and physical condition.
I. Any person who is prohibited from owning or possessing animals pursuant to subsection G or H may petition the court to repeal the prohibition after two years have elapsed from the date of entry of the court's order. The court may, in its discretion, repeal the prohibition if the person can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the cause for the prohibition has ceased to exist.
J. When a sale occurs, the proceeds shall first be applied to the costs of the sale then next to the unreimbursed expenses for the care and provision of the animal, and the remaining proceeds, if any, shall be paid over to the owner of the animal. If the owner of the animal cannot be found, the proceeds remaining shall be paid into the Literary Fund of the state treasury.
K. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the humane destruction of a critically injured or ill animal for humane purposes by the impounding humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, animal control officer, or licensed veterinarian.
So in order for the above to be applicable, the below code must first be met. (Note, this is the state code that was in place in 2009. It has since been repealed and rewritten.)
§ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals.
When an affidavit is made under oath before a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction by any animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been, are being, or are about to be violated in any particular building or place, such magistrate or judge, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant authorizing any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer to search the building or place. After issuing a warrant under this section, the magistrate or judge shall file the affidavit in the manner prescribed by § 19.2-54. After executing the warrant, the animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative shall return the warrant to the clerk of the circuit court of the city or county wherein the search was made.
Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (7) 2009 from Chuck Thompson
In the above document, we see the arguments of all the lawyers and the judge in what constitutes a valid seizure. Look at the horrible arguments allowing the seizure as valid by the judge. He defaults his ability to understand the above to a higher court so that he can get away with a horrible ruling in our view. He claims he did not fully understand 3.2-6569 above. Well just go up on this post a bit and see if there is anything there that is difficult to understand. The entire case was defaulted to an appeal for interpretation of an appellate court to decide. So the ruling was made on ........well.....nothing that we can see. The arguments should have been on other areas of the code that clearly states immediate danger to life, safety, or health.
If you read the code above, "C. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."
(Can anyone say; Judicial Review?)
Mr Warden had his property taken from him based on ......well....nothing provable in this court that we can begin to see and all at a huge cost to Mr Warden. That is disgusting. The initial charges at the beginning of the case are state charges of cruelty to animals.
Now we are going to show the opening court transcript and this gets even worse. It does state that they had a warrant, but we highly doubt the information contained in the records. Even if they did, you will see that the court ignored and decided against both state and federal laws in our view and we are going to show just that based on state code, from our interpretations.
In the above document, we see the arguments of all the lawyers and the judge in what constitutes a valid seizure. Look at the horrible arguments allowing the seizure as valid by the judge. He defaults his ability to understand the above to a higher court so that he can get away with a horrible ruling in our view. He claims he did not fully understand 3.2-6569 above. Well just go up on this post a bit and see if there is anything there that is difficult to understand. The entire case was defaulted to an appeal for interpretation of an appellate court to decide. So the ruling was made on ........well.....nothing that we can see. The arguments should have been on other areas of the code that clearly states immediate danger to life, safety, or health.
If you read the code above, "C. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."
(Can anyone say; Judicial Review?)
Mr Warden had his property taken from him based on ......well....nothing provable in this court that we can begin to see and all at a huge cost to Mr Warden. That is disgusting. The initial charges at the beginning of the case are state charges of cruelty to animals.
Now we are going to show the opening court transcript and this gets even worse. It does state that they had a warrant, but we highly doubt the information contained in the records. Even if they did, you will see that the court ignored and decided against both state and federal laws in our view and we are going to show just that based on state code, from our interpretations.
Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (1), 2009 from Chuck Thompson
The argument starts on page 9 of the above document. The attorney for Mr Warden argues that the alleged warrant or summons claims only one animal. The county and state argue economy.
Here is what state code reads;
The hearing shall be not more than ten business days from the date of the seizure of the animal. The hearing shall be to determine whether the animal has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or has not been provided adequate care. Now if we look at when the animals were seized or can we maybe say; STOLEN?, off of Mr Warden;s property, that was in March. The trail was in July. This is well beyond the 10 days as stated by state code. What gives?
The argument starts on page 9 of the above document. The attorney for Mr Warden argues that the alleged warrant or summons claims only one animal. The county and state argue economy.
Here is what state code reads;
§ 19.2-54. Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of failure to file affidavit.
No search warrant shall be issued until there is filed with the officer authorized to issue the same an affidavit of some person reasonably describing the place, thing, or person to be searched, the things or persons to be searched for thereunder, alleging briefly material facts, constituting the probable cause for the issuance of such warrant and alleging substantially the offense in relation to which such search is to be made and that the object, thing, or person searched for constitutes evidence of the commission of such offense. The affidavit may be filed by electronically transmitted (i) facsimile process or (ii) electronic record as defined in § 59.1-480. Such affidavit shall be certified by the officer who issues such warrant and delivered in person; mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested; or delivered by electronically transmitted facsimile process or by use of filing and security procedures as defined in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (§ 59.1-479 et seq.) for transmitting signed documents, by such officer or his designee or agent, to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city wherein the search is made, with a copy of the affidavit also being delivered to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city where the warrant is issued, if in a different county or city, within seven days after the issuance of such warrant and shall by such clerks be preserved as a record and shall at all times be subject to inspection by the public after the warrant that is the subject of the affidavit has been executed or 15 days after issuance of the warrant, whichever is earlier; however, such affidavit, any warrant issued pursuant thereto, any return made thereon, and any order sealing the affidavit, warrant, or return may be temporarily sealed for a specific period of time by the appropriate court upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing. Any individual arrested and claiming to be aggrieved by such search and seizure or any person who claims to be entitled to lawful possession of such property seized may move the appropriate court for the unsealing of such affidavit, warrant, and return. The burden of proof with respect to continued sealing shall be upon the Commonwealth. Each such clerk shall maintain an index of all such affidavits filed in his office in order to facilitate inspection. No such warrant shall be issued on an affidavit omitting such essentials, and no general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage shall be issued. The term "affidavit" as used in this section, means statements made under oath or affirmation and preserved verbatim.
Failure of the officer issuing such warrant to file the required affidavit shall not invalidate any search made under the warrant unless such failure shall continue for a period of 30 days. If the affidavit is filed prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, nevertheless, evidence obtained in any such search shall not be admissible until a reasonable time after the filing of the required affidavit.
As stated above, a general search warrant is prohibited. The warrant or summons or whatever was used, should have read each animal and listed all the animals to be seized. Not just one animal. Throwing out the argument to bring the charges down to one animal in our view was illegal as the argument was very specific. The argument Mr Warden's attorney made were very clear and specific.
"Deprive AN animal of necessary food, drink, and emergency veterinary treatment. So it alleges a single animal."
The defense claim that the charge was the same for 38 or 39 animals is just there for economy. We highly disagree. There were ways to write the papers to read either animals or add in a bill of particulars for each animal and that would have created the correct legal wording. Judge Long sided with the defense. Absurd in our view as well as gross misconduct.
It has been heard numerous times that most attorney's outside of Gloucester County will not take a clients case who is to be tried in any Gloucester court room. Reason? It's viewed as one of the worst if not the states worst Kangaroo court systems. The information we have heard says that the Commonwealth attorney gets together with the county attorney, if involved, and the judge, before the trial and they decide how they are going to proceed with the case and determine the case's outcome well before the case even gets to court. We can not prove this but it's been repeated so many times from so many people, it's very hard to ignore. We have witnessed an attorney that will not take cases in Gloucester as they did not think their client would get a fair hearing. So we believe there is plenty of validity to the stories of others.
Again, we are checking on whether search warrants were issued or if they were just summons. The video above shows no evidence that any search warrant was issued. This ends part two. We are going to cover a lot more on this as we have only hit the tip of the entire iceberg.
