You asked about (1) animal control officers' (ACOs) powers and responsibilities under the law, including when an ACO may seize a dog, and (2) a recent incident in Hartford involving seized pit bulls (and what happened to the dogs).

The incident reported in the Hartford Courant involved 14 pit bills that were seized and impounded after the police found them caged in a backyard shed. Columnist Helen Ubiñas reported that all 14 were eventually adopted from the Hartford pound.

Warrantless Seizure. The law allows an ACO to take custody of a neglected or cruelly treated animal without a warrant if the officer reasonably believes it faces imminent harm. The act requires the ACO to obtain a warrant if the animal does not face imminent harm. It also establishes a procedure for an ACO to petition the court to act when the ACO has not taken custody of an animal (CGS § 22-329a).

The owner or keeper, or his or her agent, of any dog, cat, or other animal that an ACO captures or impounds may redeem his or her dog or animal:

1. with proper identification, and, when the animal is a dog, by presenting the municipal ACO a license and tag for the dog, and

2. by paying (a) the redemption fee that the municipality established, which cannot exceed $15, and (b) the cost of advertising the animal's capture or impoundment as the law requires. (One exception is that a dog, cat, or other animal seized for doing damage under CGS § 22-355 -damage to domestic animals, such as goats, sheep, or horses- cannot be released, except by written order of the agriculture commissioner or an ACO.)

When the owner or keeper of an impounded animal fails to redeem it within 24 hours after receiving notice to do so, or, when the owner was unknown, 24 hours after notice was made as the law requires in a newspaper, the owner or keeper must additionally pay an amount the municipality to determines to be the full cost of the animal's detention and care (CGS § 22-333).

The state's broadest anticruelty law, which guides ACOs, makes it a crime to overwork, beat, kill, torture, or injure an animal; fail to give it proper care; inflict cruelty upon it; deprive it of food or water; expose it to poisons; fail to provide it with protection from the weather; abandon or carry it in a cruel manner; or fight with, harass, or worry it to make it perform. Violators may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to one year, or both (CGS § 53-247(a)).

The law also makes it an unclassified felony to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill an animal. The penalty is a prison term of up to five years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. The law exempts a licensed veterinarian following accepted standards of practice and anyone (1) following statutorily approved slaughter methods; (2) performing medical research as an employee, student, or person associated with a hospital, educational institution, or laboratory; (3) following generally accepted agricultural practices; or (4) lawfully taking wildlife (CGS § 53-247(a) and (b)).

Additionally, the law subjects anyone who confines or tethers a dog for an unreasonable time (which the law does not define) to a fine of up to $100 for a first offense, between $100 and $250 for a second offense, and between $250 and $500 for any subsequent offenses (CGS § 22-350a).

State V. Koczur, 287 Conn. 145 (2008). In 2008, Connecticut's Supreme Court, in State v. Koczur, 287 Conn. 145 (2008), affirmed a lower court's finding that the state had the right to seize the defendants' 46 cats, because she had neglected them and failed to provide proper care, under CGS § 22-339a. (Specifically, she had 46 live cats and one dead cat in a 950 square foot apartment that was cluttered with garbage.) The Court found the trial court properly interpreted the meaning of “neglect” and that the law is not unconstitutionally vague as the defendant claimed. The Court reasoned “…that § 22-329a incorporates by reference § 53-247, which sets forth specific types of conduct that constitute neglect. Accordingly, we conclude that § 22-329a is not unconstitutionally vague as applied,” (Koczur, supra, at p. 157)

The Court continued:

The defendant also claims, however, that the failure to provide 'proper care' and 'proper food,' which specifically is prohibited by § 53-247 (a) and which provided the basis for the trial court's conclusion that the defendant had violated § 22-329a, is itself an 'ever shifting' standard of neglect. We agree with the defendant that the phrases 'proper care' and 'proper food' as used in § 53-247(a) are susceptible to a wide range of interpretations and could be vague as applied in some situations. Our careful review of the record in the present case, however, satisfies us that the defendant's conduct came within the 'statute's unmistakable core of prohibited conduct' (internal citations omitted, at p. 157).

The incident highlights the current debate on the issue of animal cruelty. The Courant reporter described animal advocates' position that the state's animal cruelty law pertaining to unreasonable tethering and confinement is too vague and needs to be strengthened. They maintain that the law needs to define the term “unreasonably” to clarify when ACOs can impound animals and owners can be prosecuted or fined for animal cruelty. During the 2009 regular session, the legislature's Environment Committee heard a bill, HB 5798, that defined “unreasonable confinement,” but it died in committee.

JH:ts