Contact: Media@aldf.org
Olympia, wash. – Washington’s Supreme Court confirmed the appellate court’s decision that a dog named Thor, who was previously considered dangerous, should not die due to a violation of a local dangerous dog ordinance by its owner. The decision of the case, the State vs Richards, followed one. amicus short In May 2024 was submitted by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), which argued against the lower court sentence, focusing on how the punishment tried to avoid proper processing reservations while Thor He tried to kill in a case where he did nothing wrong.
The case went to the Supreme Court of Washington to determine whether the district court had done properly in presenting the election to Richards – to spend almost a year in jail or surrender to killing Thor. For
After the legal label of “dangerous” after a collision with a neighbor’s dog, Thor had to be stopped at a strap all the time or in a fence courtyard. However, Thor’s guardian, Jennifer Richards, left him on his porch – although it was not included, Thor had never left the place – who encouraged a neighbor to call law enforcement agencies to call. He later sent the case to the local. Prosecutor. The lower court convicted Richards for raising a dangerous dog irresponsibly, o Misery. Upon being convicted, the owner of Thor was ordered to receive the time of the jail, but he was given an alternative to surrender to Thor so that he could be put to death.
“The court sentence has stopped the law of the law in forced law,” said David Ba Rosingard, Managing Attorney, Managing Attorney of ALDF. “Thankfully, the Supreme Court not only upheld the decision that will protect Thor from immediate loss, but also with his own interests and hereditary value, ready as a ‘someone’ apart from its owner. In this decision, the court agreed with the legal interpretation given by ALDF. DefendantThere are a attorney and we are grateful that Thor will continue his life.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that “Thor, an innocent animal, should be killed by Richards as a punishment for failure to properly imprison him, merely a ‘creative punishment’. More than that, the punishment for the death of a particular animal has nothing to do with the punishment of an animal. “
The Amex briefed by ALDF added that the convictions should have a reasonable trend to recover the crime or to stop the crime. In this case, since Thor did not harm anyone, the compensation was irrelevant. And, critically, because killing Thor (or another individual animal) does not prevent Richards (or owner of another animal) from violating local animal property laws in the future, so the trial court thorns. Attempting to achieve death was not a valid punishment.
Washington is number 8 in ALDF. Reporting of the rules of animal protection laws of the US stateWhich classifies animal protection laws from all 50 states.
Richards was represented by Adam Corp, a Belingham animal lawyer.