# I wanted to start this thread for all charge's droped for dog fighting



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

#1

Dog-fighting case against Scott brothers dismissed

*LAS CRUCES *-- A state judge has dismissed the criminal case against twin brothers Daron and Duryea Scott of El Paso, who were accused of running a dog fighting breeding operation in Chaparral.

Third Judicial District Judge Lisa Schultz on Tuesday dismissed the charges -- 50 combined counts of dog fighting, animal cruelty and conspiracy -- with prejudice, meaning prosecutors can't refile the case.

Daron Scott, who has maintained all along that their dogs were part of a show animal breeding operation, said Wednesday that he and his brother's reputations have been harmed because they were improperly charged. He said it unfairly led to the loss of his job as a teacher with the Gadsden Independent School District and he's been turned down for other jobs since.

"I just want my name back," he said.

The grounds for the dismissal were based on a state Court of Appeals decision in September upholding a decision by a District Court judge to suppress all evidence in the case.

And without the evidence -- including dogs, photographs and other information gathered from them -- there's no case, said Susan Riedel, chief deputy attorney for the 3rd Judicial District in Las Cruces. Had the Scotts' attorneys not filed the motion to dismiss the case, Riedel said she would have.

"The court has suppressed all my evidence so there was no basis to go forward," she said. "The case couldn't proceed under any circumstances."

In February, 3rd Judicial District Judge Douglas Driggers ruled that the warrant was improperly obtained. Do-a Ana County sheriff's investigator Robyn Gojkovich in August 2007 telephonically secured a search warrant for the seizure of pit bulls from the two Chaparral properties being rented by the Scotts. Questions arose about whether she entirely read the support documentation for the warrant to the judge, a requirement, and whether the telephonic approval was valid.

Prosecutors appealed Driggers' decision, but it was reaffirmed by the state appeals court.

Also Tuesday, Schultz ordered that the state return the dogs within 30 days to the Scotts.

Exactly how many dogs will be returned is unclear.

The Scotts in August filed a lawsuit against county officials and prosecutors contending their civil rights were violated because a number of their dogs have been lost or mistakenly killed while in the custody of law enforcement, which is documented in a police report. In the complaint, they contend just 17 of the 57 dogs seized remain in the county's custody.

The lawsuit was filed in state court, but it has since been moved to federal court.

Daron Scott repeated his concerns Wednesday about the missing dogs, especially considering the charges against he and his brother have been dismissed.

"You cannot get rid of evidence, unless we were convicted," he said. "This is about unlawfully taking animals."

Riedel said Duryea Scott relinquished ownership of some of the animals after they were seized. She said as of October, 28 dogs were alive and in the custody of the state.

"I don't have any reason to believe that we don't have 28 dogs," she said.

Riedel said the Scotts don't claim ownership of some of the dogs that the state says belong to them, something that must be resolved before the animals are given back. Plus, she said the district attorney's office wants to make sure the Scotts are in compliance with county animal permitting rules, before handing them over.

Diana M. Alba can be reached at [email protected]; (575) 541-5443.

Dog-fighting case against Scott brothers dismissed - Las Cruces Sun-News


----------



## performanceknls (Apr 4, 2009)

Yeah this is in my neck of the woods and it was a shame what they did to them. We have a state run program to turn in dog fighters for a reward, and no proof is necessary other than have multiple APBT's.


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

Post up all you'll finding's, we need to put the word out that yes you can be found guilty for dog fighting with just owning a break stick, we need to work on changing these law's


----------



## texpitbull2 (Aug 13, 2007)

yes we do . where im from the guy that does the animal control and wrote the law to ban bulldogs of any kind in town has had the aspca called on him 3 times for his horses . see what kind of people write these laws . wtf is wrong with people now days . he said he wrote the law because pits and the like where chaseing cats and harming the town folks yards , cars , and such .on top of that he has breed and had pits in the past . my thaoughts are show me a breed of dog that want do this , why ban bulldogs .

oh and bulldogs include , bostans , old engilsh , an all others that even have bulldog of any kind breed into them per his law.


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

*Authorities on the lookout for dog fighting.*..

The idea of watching dogs fight to the death for sport is repulsive to most people.

In fact, dog fighting is illegal in every state and a felony in all except two. In Indiana, just owning dog fighting "paraphernalia" is a felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Even watching an organized dog fight is illegal in most states, including Indiana.

Yet local animal activists and law enforcement officers believe dog fighting takes place in the Terre Haute area.

"We're sure some of it goes on," said Jerry Arney, a code enforcement officer with the Terre Haute Police Department. He and other code enforcement officials have heard rumors and followed up tips, but, so far, have always come away short of the proof needed to make the charges of dog fighting stick.

"Anyone in animal control is always on the lookout for it," Arney said. "That's what we do."

But the world of organized dog fighting is a highly secretive one, Arney said. The penalties associated with the crime are severe, so only the most trusted associates are allowed to participate, he said.

"It's like a secret club," Arney said.

Yet animals sometimes turn up at the Terre Haute Humane Society with wounds consistent with dog fighting, said Steve Brown, manager of the society. Yet Brown adds he has no proof that organized fighting takes place.

"I've never witnessed a dog fight," Brown said, adding that anything he might say about wounded dogs he's seen and possible dog fighting would be pure speculation.

The same is true for a local animal rights activist interviewed for this article who did not want to be named. She said it's fairly certain dog fighting takes place, but, again, has no proof.

But dog fighting certainly goes on. In addition to the well known case of NFL quarterback Michael Vick, who went to prison for dog fighting, a large dog fighting ring using more than 100 dogs in southern Indiana was busted this summer. In 2006, another ring was broken up near Gary.

Even if you don't witness a dog fight, there are visible clues associated with organized dog fighting. For example, animal control officers are on the lookout for "break sticks," Arney said. These are heavy wooden sticks about 18 inches in length used to pry the jaws of a dog off of the body of another dog after a fight. A typical dog fighting ring is about 12 feet by 12 feet, is surrounded by a two-foot wall and has markings in the middle where the dogs meet, Arney said.

"It's really a complex thing," he said.

Anyone with information about possible dog fighting should contact local law enforcement authorities. The Terre Haute Police Department's animal control division can be reached at (812) 238-1661 Ext. 258. Vigo County's animal control division can be reached by calling (812) 462-3226.

Arthur Foulkes can be reached at (812) 231-4232 or [email protected].

Terre Haute News, Terre Haute, Indiana- TribStar.com - Authorities on the lookout for dog fighting


----------



## davidfitness83 (Jul 7, 2009)

I don't see the point of this thread, newbies come here to learn and then they see this thread then they are going to think that dog fighting is not happening at all and it is a hoax by HSUS, ASPCA and PETA. *Dog fighting keeps happening and it is real*, people do it everyday and then they cover it up and cry that they just have 50 petbulls chained in the yard for "fun". The past is what it is, we are no longer in the past, it is a felony and in this day and age it is horrific practice that shouldn't be done anymore. The quicker people reallize that there is no need to match animals, the quicker they will get media attention away and then those who breed manbiters will be known just for that instead of being associated with fighting dogs.


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

If you don't see the point in this thread you don't see the point in owning this breed


----------



## SnoopsMomma (Nov 5, 2009)

davidfitness83 said:


> I don't see the point of this thread, newbies come here to learn and then they see this thread then they are going to think that dog fighting is not happening at all and it is a hoax by HSUS, ASPCA and PETA. *Dog fighting keeps happening and it is real*, people do it everyday and then they cover it up and cry that they just have 50 petbulls chained in the yard for "fun". The past is what it is, we are no longer in the past, it is a felony and in this day and age it is horrific practice that shouldn't be done anymore. The quicker people reallize that there is no need to match animals, the quicker they will get media attention away and then those who breed manbiters will be known just for that instead of being associated with fighting dogs.


Im still more or less a newbie and nothing in that article says that dog fighting isnt happening. There is a valid point to this article and thread atleast to me. People are accused of this all the time just because they have more then one APBT. To know that it can be fought and you can win against such bogus charges does nothing more then lessen the concern some people may have.

David just because we are new doesnt mean we cant distinguish between right and wrong and doesnt mean one article is going to make us believe that dog fighting isnt real.


----------



## Black Label Romo (Oct 15, 2009)

Good read Marty...thanks for sharing the articles!


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

*Brothers Accused Of Dogfighting Allowed To Pick Up Dogs

LAS CRUCES, N.M.* -- Tuesday Daron and Duryea Scott of El Paso were allowed to pick up their pit bulls after alleged dogfighting charges were dropped. There were plenty of harsh words for the Scott Brothers today when picking up their dogs.

"They're cowards, they're deplorable, they're despicable," said Bill Hard of Dona Ana County.

Regardless of the case outcome people believe the brothers were guilty of the 'alleged' dog fighting dogfighting charges.

"Absolutely there's no doubt in my mind," said Hart."These people have gotten off on a technicality."

The technicality Hart is referring to being an improperly obtained search warrant. So the dogs were locked up at the local animal shelter for over two years, but now the court said the brothers could pick them up. However, a federal court order issued Monday threw a dent in that plan.

"Basically stopping us from giving any of the animals back that belong to Daron Scott," said director of the Dona Ana County Animal Control, Curtis Childress.

Monday, only Duryea was able to pick up his dogs. He picked up four, leaving three behind he claims aren't his.

"I assure you those are their dogs," said Childress. "I can show you the pictures of the dogs when we seized them when they were still on the property, let you see the dogs now and there will be no doubt in your mind that's their dog."

Brothers Accused Of Dogfighting Allowed To Pick Up Dogs - News Story - KFOX El Paso

*More reading.*.... Scott brothers raise hackles in shelter crowd - Las Cruces Sun-News


----------



## Sadie's Dad (Jul 9, 2009)

davidfitness83 said:


> I don't see the point of this thread, newbies come here to learn and then they see this thread then they are going to think that dog fighting is not happening at all and it is a hoax by HSUS, ASPCA and PETA. *Dog fighting keeps happening and it is real*, people do it everyday and then they cover it up and cry that they just have 50 petbulls chained in the yard for "fun". The past is what it is, we are no longer in the past, it is a felony and in this day and age it is horrific practice that shouldn't be done anymore. The quicker people reallize that there is no need to match animals, the quicker they will get media attention away and then those who breed manbiters will be known just for that instead of being associated with fighting dogs.


The past is the same as now, except now it is illegal. Fighting dogs is the same as it was 50 years ago. Except I think the dogmen of years past truly cared for what happened to their dogs, they loved them if you will. Now the people like Micheal Vick that do horrendous things to the losing dog is not how it used to be. JMHO Not that I promote dog fighting. But it is what it is.


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

*Floyd Boudreaux*

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/64332682.html

Vindicated family sues SPCA 
* By RICHARD BURGESS 
* Advocate Acadiana bureau 
* Published: Oct 15, 2009 - Page: 1BA

LAFAYETTE - A father and son acquitted last year on dogfighting 
charges filed a lawsuit Wednesday for restitution from the animal 
welfare group that killed their prized pit bulls.

Floyd J. Boudreaux and his son, Guy Boudreaux, are also seeking 
damages from the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
Animals for mental distress and loss of income from the sale of the 
pit bulls' offspring.

A judge last year acquitted the father and son on dogfighting charges, 
citing a lack of evidence.

But the 57 "Eli" pit bulls that State Police had seized from their 
home in a 2005 raid had long since been euthanized by the SPCA. 
The Boudreaux's attorney, Richard Dalton, said the Boudreaux family 
had bred the internationally known "Eli" bloodline of pit bulls for 
more than 100 years and the destroyed dogs were valued at about 
$300,000.

He said that figure does not include the price the dog breeders could 
fetch from future offspring. Testimony at the Boudreaux's trial last 
year raised questions about who authorized the killings.

State law allows for the killing of suspected fighting dogs under 
certain conditions, but there are provisions for dog owners to 
challenge euthanasia and to post a cash bond to pay for the cost of 
boarding the animals pending trial.

The state trooper who investigated the case testified at the 
Boudreaux's criminal trial that he believed the SPCA would house the 
animals and did not know the dogs would be euthanized.

A representative from the SPCA testified that no one person at the 
nonprofit animal welfare group made the decision to kill the animals 
but that there was a general assumption that the dogs would be 
euthanized.

Dalton said the killing of all 57 of the Boudreaux's dogs has 
effectively ended the family's legacy of breeding the "Eli" bloodline. 
He said the raid and subsequent killing of the dogs was so distressing 
to Floyd Boudreaux that he "had a heart attack five days after it 
happened."

A telephone message at the SPCA's New Orleans' office was not returned 
Wednesday afternoon.

The lawsuit was filed in 15th Judicial District Court in Lafayette 
Parish.


----------



## Marty (Dec 10, 2005)

Reps Lindsay


----------



## bahamutt99 (May 14, 2008)

*Pat Patrick*

The Explorer - The Voice of Marana, Oro Valley and Northwest Tucson > Archives > News > Pair acquitted in dog fighting case

*Pair acquitted in dog fighting case*

*Investigators say courts behind times when it comes to dog fighting*

*By Patrick McNamara, The Explorer*

Published: November-26-2008

A Pima County Superior Court judge last week acquitted two people accused of dog fighting.

After nearly six days of testimony, Judge John Leonardo granted a defense motion to throw out charges that Emily Dennis and Mahlon Patrick knowingly sold pit bulls that were later used in illegal fights.

The pair had waived their right to a jury trial, instead choosing to have a judge weigh the facts in their case.

Dennis and Patrick, both 64, ran a kennel on West Orange Grove Road, where for decades they bred and sold pit bulls.

"That kennel had been there for about 30 years without any problems," Dennis's attorney Thomas Higgins said in an interview after the trial.

Higgins said the state's evidence, much of which amounted to a collection of e-mails between the defendants and prospective buyers, could not connect Dennis and Patrick with dog fighting.

The pair entered the trial with an advantage because of the way the state's dog fighting statute is written, according to Higgins.

The law forbids owning, training or keeping dogs for the purpose of fighting, but does not mention selling dogs to individuals who then use the animals in fighting exhibitions.

Under the law it is also a crime to be present at a dogfight.

"They have to show that beyond a reasonable doubt," Higgins said. "That just didn't happen."

News of the judge's decision disappointed Pima County Sheriff's Deputy Terry Parish, who worked on the investigation and spent days at the Picture Rocks property collecting evidence.

"Dog fighting encompasses more than putting a dog in the pit (or fight ring)", Parish said.

Because there have been few dog-fighting cases in the state, Parish said the legal system doesn't have experience prosecuting people accused of the crime.

"Dog fighting has been under-prosecuted and under-enforced for years," Parish said. "But now enforcement has been stepped up."

He predicted that it would take more arrests of people involved with dog fighting for the legal system to catch up with enforcement.

In his prosecution of Dennis and Patrick, Deputy County Attorney Lewis Brandes attempted to link the pair to dog fighting based on the physical condition of many dogs taken from their west side home last February.

Veterinarians who testified on behalf of the prosecution said many dogs seized at the property had scarring, presumably indicative of wounds obtained in fights with other dogs.

But Higgins and Patrick's attorney, Mark Resnick, were able to cast doubt on the doctors' testimonies.

Resnick asked one veterinarian if it was possible to know whether a scar was the result of an organized dogfight or a normal confrontation between two dogs in a kennel or on the street.

The doctor said that could not be determined.

Resnick also asked if the injuries could have occurred from a dog climbing a fence, for example.

The doctor said that various things could have caused the scars. The origin of injuries would be difficult to determine once a wound heals.

"I really think that the whole prosecution was done in large part because of the Humane Society of the United States," Higgins said.

The animal rights organization assisted the Pima County Sheriff's Department with the search of the property and three others in a series of raids last February.

"That's virtually unheard of," Higgins said.

The high-profile dog-fighting case of football star Michael Vick fueled a public outcry against pit bulls, Higgins said.

"That case encouraged the Humane Society of the United States and the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) to push these things," Higgins said. "We showed that they overreached."

In the opening stages of the case, Brandes requested the judge not include against Dennis and Patrick 21 counts of animal cruelty. The state could decide to pursue those charges again in the future.

As for Dennis and Patrick, Higgins said the pair has not decided whether to seek damages against the state after more than 100 of their dogs were confiscated and later euthanized.

The pair lost more than $110,000 in potential earnings, Higgins said.


----------

