Rescue misrepresented

[isis297]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A dog was due to be picked up from a shelter by a rescue. The rescue followed protocol where they submitted in writing the name and contact information of the person who was supposed to pick him up for them. Instead, another woman showed up at the shelter claiming to be with that very rescue. We don't know why, but the shelter gave her the dog though she was NOT the person listed by the rescue as the right person. Within hours she had the dog destroyed taking him to not one, but two places before finding someone who would do so.

She admitted in writing to the rescue that she falsely used their name and "apologized" for doing it. The vet said she lied to him about the story surrounding the dog.

Some of us feel the rescue should press charges being the woman lied about representing them. The rescue feels the shelter should, which I honestly don't think they will as it is a sad reality how the shelters operate. I know the rescue is concerned because they are angry their name was used, the shelter didn't do their job, but also have no idea how they would pay to go after this woman, find a lawyer, and have someone take care of the rescues while they try to press charges.

Could you give some insight how this situation should be handled and what the entity prosecuting would be facing procedure and time-wise?

Thank you.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A dog was due to be picked up from a shelter by a rescue. The rescue followed protocol where they submitted in writing the name and contact information of the person who was supposed to pick him up for them. Instead, another woman showed up at the shelter claiming to be with that very rescue. We don't know why, but the shelter gave her the dog though she was NOT the person listed by the rescue as the right person. Within hours she had the dog destroyed taking him to not one, but two places before finding someone who would do so.

She admitted in writing to the rescue that she falsely used their name and "apologized" for doing it. The vet said she lied to him about the story surrounding the dog.

Some of us feel the rescue should press charges being the woman lied about representing them. The rescue feels the shelter should, which I honestly don't think they will as it is a sad reality how the shelters operate. I know the rescue is concerned because they are angry their name was used, the shelter didn't do their job, but also have no idea how they would pay to go after this woman, find a lawyer, and have someone take care of the rescues while they try to press charges.

Could you give some insight how this situation should be handled and what the entity prosecuting would be facing procedure and time-wise?

Thank you.

That's a very interesting scenario. Based on what you've said, I'm thinking it could be fraud or theft under CA Penal Code 487g, which reads:

Every person who steals or maliciously takes or carries away any animal of another for purposes of sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use, or who knowingly, by any false representation or pretense, defrauds another person of any animal for purposes of sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.

Since the woman intentionally misrepresented her association with the rescue organization in order to take the animal, and her sole intent was to have the animal destroyed (or slaughtered), that seems to be the closest criminal offense I can find.

She also could be sued to seek damages under Cal Civil Code 3294, although those damages would likely be limited to the actual value of the animal I think.

This is mere speculation on my part. I'm sure someone else might come up with something more appropriate here.

Did anyone ever find out WHY the woman took the steps and made the efforts she did just so that the dog could be destroyed? Did she have some personal interest in this particular animal such that she needed to make sure it was destroyed?

 

[justalayman]

I don't see any action available to "the organization".

There is nothing said of it being their animal so nothing was stolen from them. The shelter, maybe.

The use of the organizations name. Obviously a misrepresentation but what injury has the organization sustained due to the ruse? Nothing I can see.

If there was no crime committed in euthanizing the dog I just don't see anything to do other than be upset at the shelter for giving the dog to the woman when it was supposed to go to the organization

 

[davew128]

How about posting this woman's identifying information so she can get the reward she so richly deserves for being a @&^#%^$ and a @*(*&#.

 

[tranquility]

Why did she take these actions?

If "malice" was involved, it could be malicious mischief or cruelty to animals.

I would have to research who the "owner" would be, but it seems likely there was some type of theft as well.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I would have to research who the "owner" would be, but it seems likely there was some type of theft as well.

It certainly seems to qualify as larceny by trick.

I would argue that she stole the dog from the rescue, on the theory that title to the property passed to the rescue when the shelter gave possession to the agent of the rescue.

I think it's equally as likely the police will call it a civil matter and stay away from it.

If it is to be pursued as a civil matter, the question of damages comes in to play. What is the value of an animal that is being rescued? I doubt it is very much (which is why I had no qualms about transporting rescue animals without insurance)