Animal Law Legal Center home page

Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

On this site you will find a comprehensive repository of information about animal law, including: over 1200 full text cases (US, historical, and UK), over 1400 US statutes, over 60 topics and comprehensive explanations, legal articles on a variety of animal topics and an international collection.

Read more about Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

January News

Massachusetts bans the sale of cats and dogs at “swap meets” and other public areas. On January 8^th, Governor Maura Healey signed S. 2908 into law, creating new sections 141C and 141D of Chapter 140 on dogs. The first section makes it illegal for any person to sell or exchange for permanent physical placement a dog or cat that is less than 8 weeks of age (note that other laws and regs only apply to state licensees who import or engage in commerce of dogs). The new law also targets “swap meet sales,” prohibiting anyone from selling or exchanging any dog or cat on “any roadside, public right-of-way, parkway, median, park or other recreation area, flea market or other outdoor market or commercial or retail parking lot.” Violation of either law results in a fine. Curious to learn more about laws on swap meet sales of pets? Check out our Topic Intro.

Two more states enact laws restricting the use of certain animals in travelling performances and circuses. In May 2024, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed SB 547/HB 379 into law, which prohibits the use of elephants, big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates in traveling shows and circuses in the state. In August 2024, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed H 4915 into law, prohibiting the use of big cats, bears, elephants, non-human primates, and also giraffes. These states join California, Colorado, Hawaii (by regulation), Illinois, Kentucky (by regulation), New Jersey, and New York in banning the use of certain animals in traveling acts or circuses. According to Western Mass News, the Mass. ban was idling in the state legislature for decades, “but the death of an elephant in 2019 during the fair gave it an extra push.” The Maryland law goes into effect on October 1^st and the Massachusetts law is effective on January 1, 2025.

Have you ever heard the term "multispecies family?" While this term may be new to the U.S., other countries in Latin America like Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and Colombia already recognize this legal concept. This expansion of rights has resulted in a shift in how "family" is defined based on the idea of “free development of personality." Relying on the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, courts are declaring that everyone has the right to build their lives the way they see fit, so long as it does not harm others, and to have those choices respected. Here, this also includes one’s decision to add and keep animals into their family. There have been multiple landmark cases in Latin American courts that exemplify the courts’ recognition and protection of multispecies families. Learn more about this emerging concept in our new Multispecies Family Topic Intro..

News archives

Cases

Florida cruelty conviction vacated after appellate court holds appellant state law on "good defense for killing dog" applied. Barnes v. State, --- So.3d ----, 2024 WL 5151604 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2024). In this Florida case, Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for two counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty, asserting that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. The conviction stems from an incident in 2023, where Appellant discovered two dogs who killed three of his chickens. Appellant found the offending dogs a short distance later, where he shot and killed both dogs. At trial, the state did not contest Appellant's evidence and Appellant pleaded no contest to two counts of the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor animal cruelty, while specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced Appellant to concurrent terms of 11 months and 29 days of probation. On appeal here, the court observed that the plain language of section 767.03, titled "Good defense for killing dog," provides Appellant with a defense and the trial court should have granted the motion to dismiss. The dogs killed chickens, defined under Florida law as "domestic animals," and section 767.03 constitutes a good defense to killing dogs who were found killing livestock or domestic animals. The court reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to vacate Appellant's judgment and sentences.

Plain view exception and exigent circumstances supported search of defendant’s curtilage and impoundment of distressed dogs, resulting in upheld cruelty conviction. State v. Johnson, --- S.E.2d ----, 2024 WL 5130828 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2024). Defendant appeals from one count of felony cruelty to animals and two counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals. The conviction stems from a search of defendant's property. After failing to reach the defendant by phone, animal control officers drove to the property and observed a "very, very strong odor" of ammonia, feces, and "the smell of rot." As the officers walked up the driveway, they encountered a chained dog who presented with an irritated neck, worn down teeth, overgrown nails, and multiple scabs. Other dogs were observed without access to water, including a box filled with puppies and dried feces. After sending photos of the dogs to the magistrate, probable cause was found to charge the defendant with animal cruelty and impound the dogs for their safety. At trial, the court denied defendant's motion to suppress, and defendant was ultimately convicted at trial. On Appeal, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by concluding that a warrantless search of his home's curtilage was reasonable. This court found that there was no unreasonable search since it occurred while officers were walking up the driveway and "in a place where the public is allowed to be." Exigent circumstances also existed supporting the seizure of the other dogs. Finally, after the plain view discoveries, there was a substantial basis for probable cause to search the property and its buildings that supported the search warrant that was eventually granted. Accordingly, this court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress.

Case Archives