Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: USDA animal dealer charged under AWA

USDA animal dealer charged under AWA
Howell, MI (US)

Incident Date: Sunday, Oct 31, 1993
County: Livingston
Local Map: available
Disposition: USDA Citation

Persons of Interest:
» Frederick R Hodgins
» Janice Estelle Hodgins

Case Updates: 2 update(s) available

Case ID: 6407

Classification: Neglect / Abandonment

Animal: dog (non pit-bull)

View more cases in MI (US)

On June 19, 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged animal dealers Fred and Janice Hodgins, owners of Hodgins Kennels, with violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The USDA complaint was issued March 22, 1995.

APHIS inspectors found that, from November 1993 through November 1994, the Hodgins and Hodgins Kennels failed to:

--maintain programs of disease control and prevention, euthanasia and adequate veterinary care under the supervision and assistance of a veterinarian;

--provide veterinary care to animals in need of care;

--individually identify dogs;

--keep interior surfaces of housing facilities and surfaces that come in contact with dogs and cats free of excessive rust;

--store supplies of food and bedding in a manner that protects them from spoilage, contamination and vermin infestation;

--sufficiently ventilate indoor dog housing facilities so as to provide for the health and well-being of the animals and to minimize odors, drafts, ammonia levels and moisture condensation;

--keep the walls and floors of indoor housing facilities impervious to moisture;

--keep primary dog enclosures clean;

--have enough employees to carry out the required level of husbandry practices and care;

--maintain dog housing facilities that are structurally sound and in good repair so as to protect the animals from injury, contain the animals securely and restrict other animals from entering;

--maintain complete records showing the acquisition, disposition and identification of animals;

--make provisions for the regular and frequent collection, removal and disposal of animal and food wastes, bedding, debris, garbage, water and other fluids and wastes;

--sufficiently heat indoor dog and cat housing facilities so as to protect the animals from temperature extremes and provide for their health and well-being;

--construct primary dog enclosures so that they had sufficient space to allow each animal to turn about freely; to stand, sit and lie in a comfortable, normal position; and to walk in a normal manner;

--establish and maintain a pest control program so as to promote the health and well-being of the animals and reduce contamination by pests in animal areas;

--store toxic substances away from food storage and preparation areas;

--maintain surfaces of housing facilities;

--sufficiently ventilate indoor dog housing facilities so as to provide for the health and well-being of the animals and to minimize odors, drafts, ammonia levels and moisture condensation;

--clean and sanitize surfaces of housing facilities;

--maintain ceilings that are impervious to moisture or are replaceable; and

--clean the interior of a van used to transport dogs.

Case Updates

In In re Fred Hodgins, AWA Docket No. 95-0022 (Decision and Order on Remand), decided by the Judicial Officer on April 4, 2001, the Judicial Officer assessed the Respondents a $325 civil penalty and directed the Respondents to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act (Act) and the Regulations and Standards issued under the Act. The Judicial Officer�s Decision and Order on Remand was precipitated by Hodgins

6v. United States Dep�t of Agric., 238 F.3d 421 (Table), 2000 WL 1785733 (6th Cir. 2000), in which the Court vacated In re Fred Hodgins, 56 Agric. Dec. 1242 (1997), and remanded the proceeding to the Judicial Officer. The Court found that the Respondents committed 15 violations of the Act and the Regulations and Standards, but that none of the Respondents� violations were willful and all of the Respondents� violations were minor. The Court found that the Respondents violations would, at most, support a small civil penalty.

Source: USDA Judicial Officer Decision - Fiscal Year 2001
Update posted on Dec 5, 2005 - 12:06AM

Back to Top

In re Fred Hodgins, AWA Docket No. 95-0022, decided by the Judicial Officer on July 11, 1997 (168 pages), the Judicial Officer affirmed Judge Hunt's (ALJ) Initial Decision and Order assessing a civil penalty and directing Respondents to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act (Act) and the Regulations and Standards issued under the Act. However, the Judicial Officer also suspended Respondents' license for 14 days and reduced the civil penalty assessed from $16,000 to $13,500. Respondents bear the burden of proving that they are the target of selective prosecution but failed to sustain this burden because they did not show membership in a protected group, that others in a similar situation not members of the protected group would not be prosecuted, or that prosecution was initiated with discriminatory intent. The warrantless searches of Respondents' facility were reasonable and fell within the "closely regulated industry" exception to the warrant requirement. The Complaint fully complies with both the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. � 554(b)) and the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. � 1.135), and the record reveals that Respondents were reasonably apprised of the issues in controversy and not misled by the Complaint. Complainant, as proponent of the Order, bears the burden of proof, and the standard of proof by which the burden of persuasion is met is preponderance of the evidence. The Judicial Officer found inspection reports introduced by Complainant and Complainant's witnesses' testimony to be substantial evidence of 58 violations alleged in the Complaint. The Federal Rules of Evidence are not applicable to administrative proceedings conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act in accordance with the Rules of Practice, and reliable hearsay is routinely admissible in federal administrative hearings and can be substantial evidence as long as it is reliable, probative, and meets the test of fundamental fairness. The inspection reports were not prepared in anticipation of litigation, and the facts surrounding the preparation of the inspection reports are not similar to the facts surrounding preparation of the documents at issue in Young v. United States Dep't of Agric., 53 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 1995). The Regulations and Standards issued under the Act are not unconstitutionally vague. The ALJ's denial of Respondents' subpoena to assist in the preparation of their defense was proper because discovery is not available under the Rules of Practice. Jencks Act statements may only be obtained after a witness has testified on direct examination, and the ALJ's denial of Respondents' prehearing motion for Jencks Act statements is proper. Further, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), is inapposite to administrative proceedings under the Act. Sound recordings are generally admissible in these proceedings. However, there was no foundation sufficient to show that Respondents' recordings are trustworthy. Respondents did not preserve their right to appeal the ALJ's ruling limiting their cross-examination of a witness in accordance with 7 C.F.R. � 1.141(h)(2). Respondents' correction of the violations does not operate to eliminate the fact that violations occurred, does not provide a basis for the dismissal of alleged violations, and does not prevent the assessment of a civil penalty for violations. While some of Respondents' violations are trivial, In re Marlin U. Zartman, 44 Agric. Dec. 174 (1985), is inapposite because Respondents have committed 58 violations of the Act, some of which are serious. The term adequate veterinary care means sufficient veterinary care not barely sufficient veterinary care. The mere presence of outdated drugs on Respondents' premises does not violate 9 C.F.R.� 2.40. Theft of an animal is not an element of a violation of 9 C.F.R. � 2.50. Respondents' violations were willful (5 U.S.C. � 558(c)), and Respondents received written notice prior to the date that this proceeding was instituted as provided in 7 C.F.R. � 1.133(b)(2). Evidence regarding a defamation action instituted by Respondent Fred Hodgins against animal rights activists and the influence of animal rights activists on the Department is irrelevant to this proceeding. The Judicial Officer accords great weight to the ALJ's credibility determinations, but the Judicial Officer is not bound by them. Respondents' history of previous violations is relevant to any penalty to be imposed under 7 U.S.C. � 2149(b).

The sanction imposed against Respondents is appropriate under the circumstances and is in accordance with the Act and the Department's sanction policy.

Source: USDA Judicial Officer Decision - Fiscal Year 1997
Update posted on Dec 5, 2005 - 12:02AM

Back to Top

Neighborhood Map

For more information about the Interactive Animal Cruelty Maps, see the map notes.

Add this case to:

Del.icio.us

Digg

Furl

References

USDA - June 19. 1995

« MI State Animal Cruelty Map

Not sure what these icons mean? Click here.

Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.

Site Map ¤ Disclaimer ¤ Privacy Policy

USDA animal dealer charged under AWAHowell, MI (US)

Case Updates

Neighborhood Map

References

USDA animal dealer charged under AWA
Howell, MI (US)