City of Dubuque v. Fancher, 97-654
| Decision Date | 24 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-654,97-654 |
| Citation | 590 N.W.2d 493 |
| Parties | CITY OF DUBUQUE, Iowa, Appellee, v. Walt FANCHER, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Russel A. Neuwoehner of Lange & Neuwoehner, Dubuque, for appellant.
Barry A. Lindahl, Corporation Counsel, Dubuque, for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, CARTER, NEUMAN, and CADY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a district court order for the disposition of nearly three hundred neglected rabbits removed from the home of Walt Fancher. The district court ordered the rabbits destroyed by euthanasia, and required Fancher to pay the expenses of the removal, care, and destruction of the rabbits. We affirm the district court on our review.
The animal warden for the City of Dubuque was called to the home of Walt Fancher by police officers after they discovered numerous dead and neglected rabbits in cages in and around the home. The police had entered the premises to execute a search warrant for certain business records as part of an investigation unrelated to the maintenance of the rabbits. Upon her arrival at the premises, the warden observed hundreds of rabbits in unclean cages. Many of the cages had no food or water. A foul odor permeated the home. The rabbits had matted fur, abscesses, and some ears had been chewed off. The warden attempted to consult with a veterinarian by telephone, but the doctor was unavailable to speak with her. She then removed seven of the rabbits from the home and transported them to the veterinarian for examination. The veterinarian found the rabbits suffered from serious health problems. The warden and veterinarian agreed all the rabbits should be removed and placed at the Dubuque Humane Society. The warden, with assistance from other city employees, removed the remaining 284 rabbits from the Fancher property. The city police officers did not assist in the removal.
The City subsequently filed a petition for the disposition of the rabbits. At the hearing, the City presented testimony the rabbits were highly infected with bacteria and parasites, and the entire population needed to be euthanized. Even the veterinarian called to testify at the hearing by Fancher agreed the entire colony of rabbits should be euthanized. Fancher, however, claimed the rabbits had been removed from his property in violation of the governing statute, as well as his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The trial court rejected Fancher's request to address this issue prior to the hearing.
Following the hearing, the district court found the rabbits were neglected. It also determined they were properly seized by the City, and ordered the rabbits destroyed by a humane method. The costs of the removal, care, and destruction were assessed to Fancher.
On appeal Fancher claims the district court erred in failing to decide the legality of the seizure prior to the dispositional hearing, and failing to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction based upon the failure to comply with the statutory rescue procedure. He also maintains the district court erred by admitting evidence at the hearing unrelated to the definition of animal neglect and admitting a letter from the Department of Public Health into evidence.
Because this action was tried at law, our review is on error. Iowa R.App. P. 4; Plymouth Farmers Mut. Ins. Ass'n v. Armour, 584 N.W.2d 289, 291 (Iowa 1998). We generally review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. Hedican, 561 N.W.2d 817, 822 (Iowa 1997). Hearsay rulings, however, are reviewed for correction of errors of law. State v. Hallum, 585 N.W.2d 249, 253-54 (Iowa 1998).
We first consider the procedural and jurisdictional issues raised by Fancher. He claims the district court erred in failing to address his statutory and constitutional challenges to the seizure of the rabbits prior to the hearing. He argues this issue was required to be addressed prior to the dispositional hearing because an illegal seizure would deprive the city of its authority to dispose of the animals and deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the case.
Our legislature has made animal abuse and neglect a crime in Iowa. See Iowa Code §§ 717B.2, 717B.3 (1997); Johnson County v. Kriz, 582 N.W.2d 759, 760 (Iowa 1998). Additionally, the law permits a law enforcement officer to "rescue" a neglected animal from public or private property. Id. § 717B.5(1). Generally, the law allows a law enforcement officer who has lawfully entered onto property to rescue a neglected animal from the property after consulting with a veterinarian. Id. Once an animal is rescued, the city or county is required to maintain and care for it or contract with a person to provide such care. Id.
The city or county, as well as the person caring for or owning the animal, is also authorized to petition the district court to determine the disposition of a neglected animal. Id. § 717B.4(1). The action is a civil proceeding, and is unrelated to any criminal proceeding that may result from the neglect. Id. The disposition that may result from the hearing includes destruction of the animal by a humane method. Id. § 717B.4(4). Additionally, the district court may order the owner of the neglected animal to pay the "expenses incurred in maintaining the neglected animal rescued pursuant to section 717B.5, and reasonable attorney fees and expenses related to the investigation of the case." Id. § 717B.4(3).
The language of the statute does not make the rescue of a neglected animal a prerequisite to the disposition of a neglected animal. Instead, the district court is authorized to "order the disposition of an animal neglected as provided in section 717B.3." Id. § 717B.4(1). Iowa Code section 717B.3 defines animal neglect. Thus, any animal which falls within the statutory definition of neglect, whether rescued under the specific statutory procedures of section 717B.5, seized by other authority, or left in the owner's control, may be the subject of a petition for disposition. It is the neglect of the animal, not the nature of any seizure, which gives rise to the disposition.
Accordingly, we reject Fancher's claim that the district court had no authority to hear the petition for disposition of the rabbits without first considering his challenge to the seizure of the animals. If the authority of the court to order the disposition of a neglected animal does not hinge upon the rescue procedure under section 717B.5, it also does not hinge upon compliance with the rescue procedure. See In re Property Seized on Jan. 31, 1983, 362 N.W.2d 565, 569 (Iowa 1985) (). Simila...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kurth v. Iowa Dept. of Transp.
...review of the district court's instruction to the jury is involved, our review is for correction of errors at law. City of Dubuque v. Fancher, 590 N.W.2d 493, 495 (Iowa 1999). "Error in giving ... a particular instruction does not warrant reversal unless the error is prejudicial to the part......
-
Gacke v. Pork Xtra, LLC, 02-0417.
...field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject." Thus, "experts may base their opinions on hearsay." City of Dubuque v. Fancher, 590 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 1999). If the trial judge determines the hearsay is "reasonably relied upon" by experts as required by the rule, the court has......
-
Arnold v. Lee, No. 6-154/05-0651 (Iowa App. 5/24/2006)
...2004). The evidence "is not admissible for the substantive evidence of the matters asserted therein." Id.; see City of Dubuque v. Fancher, 590 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 1999); Brunner, 480 N.W.2d at 37; In re Estate of Kelly, 558 N.W.2d 719, 721 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996); CSI Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Ma......
-
State v. Reetz, No. 7-936/06-1577 (Iowa App. 3/14/2008), 7-936/06-1577
...defense counsel had a duty to object to Dr. Seaton's testimony about Dr. Taylor's report on hearsay grounds. See City of Dubuque v. Fancher, 590 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 1999) (noting rule 5.703 "does not permit the use of the opinion of a nontestfying expert to corroborate the opinion of the ......