We took over two dozen of your
dogs and now they're dead -- now go away and don't bother us:
Cochise County's Callahan-Harding case
This site is http://littlebigdog.net/YourDogsAreDead.htm , last updated at 12:24 p.m. on December 21, 2009.
I. The basics
Over two dozen dogs have "expired," according to a County stonewall.
That's the subject of this report. This report is quite
restrained, considering the subject. For a less restrained
version, see attorney Perry Hicks' "Notice Of Claim" against Cochise
County, the Sheriff's Department, Animal Control, and Animal Control
Officer Crystal Callahan. The "Notice Of Claim" is 10 pages long;
here are links to each of the separate pages.
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice01.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice02.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice03.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice04.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice05.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice06.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice07.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice08.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice09.jpg
http://littlebigdog.net/HicksClaimNotice10.jpg
On December 20, 2007, a woman
named Marjorie Heidi Tipling visited the property of Bob and Barbara
Ratliff, who raise and sell dogs.
Over three months later, on
March 31, 2008, Tipling made allegations about what she saw to Cochise
County Animal Control Officer ("ACO") Crystal Callahan. Tipling
alleged that she saw dogs "not being properly cared for.... not
provided with clean potable water ... infested with ticks ... no food
accessible to them.... eye and limb injuries ... not provided with
proper medical attention."
Over two weeks later, on April
16, 2008, ACO Callahan used Tipling's allegations to get a search
warrant. The County seized 30 dogs (the record sometimes says 28
or 29.)
The dogs were placed with
"foster care" providers, including members of PAKS, "People Assisting
Kindred Spirits." Although PAKS members provided "foster care,"
the dogs remained in the legal custody of Cochise County. ACO
Callahan eventually gave testimony that emphasized that the dogs had
not been "turned over" to PAKS, because they "are still evidence."
The county prosecutor assigned
to the case was Jason Lindstrom. On April 30, 2008, defense
attorney Perry Hicks asked Lindstrom to make the seized dogs available
for transport to the Ratliffs' vet, Dr. Behney, in Bisbee.
Despite that motion, Lindstrom, in May 2008, asked the Court to declare
the dogs forfeit to the County. But Lindstrom and Hicks worked
through that issue, and on June 12, 2008, they made a joint request for
JP Morales to order the dogs taken to Dr. Behney. JP Morales
granted the motion on June 13, and on June 17, ACO Callahan received
the court's order to transfer the dogs by June 22.
But Callahan didn't obey the
court's order. She gave a variety of reasons: that she
didn't have time; that the PAKS "foster care" providers refused to
deliver the dogs; that the court order didn't specify that she,
Callahan, was personally to do the transport, or even that the County
Sheriff's office was to do so. However, Callahan admitted that
only she, another animal control officer, or an evidence custodian,
could transport the dogs. (When Callahan testified, she also
mentioned an order by her "direct supervisor" not to transport the
dogs. However, that was irrelevant to what happened in June,
because the alleged order didn't come until July 25.
Then deputy county attorney
Gregory Harding replaced Lindstrom as prosecutor on the case. On
July 1, 2008, Harding wrote Hicks including "Many of [the "foster care"
providers] have provided medical care and attention for these dogs,"
and a week later, Harding filed a second motion to forfeit the
dogs. On July 14, Hicks moved to suppress the search warrant and
the dogs seized through it, and on July 15 he moved to dismiss the case
and return the dogs. Harding's motion, and Hicks' two motions,
were all set for one hearing on July 28, 2008.
II. The County hangs on to the dogs
On July 23, 2008, five days
before the hearing, Hicks wrote to attorney Harding and ACO Callahan
"requesting that the dogs be made available for transport to the office
of Dr. Chuck Behney in Bisbee for examination as soon as
possible." Behney, the vet used by the Ratliffs, was the vet to
which the County's first attorney, Jason Lindstrom, had agreed to
transfer the dogs. To Hicks' request, Harding answered "until the
Court rules on the State's Motions, your request transport is
premature." The County hung on to the dogs.
At the July 28 hearing, ACO
Callahan testified that "Nothing has happened to the dogs," but also
that that some of the dogs were sick or injured, and some had
died. She did not say how many had supposedly died; evidently the
number was small. Here's some of the testimony:
Harding: "Are you aware that these dogs are healthy at this
point in time?"
Callahan: "They are doing better, sir. Yes."
Harding: "... are they still on special diets?"
Callahan: "Some of them are. Yes, sir."
Harding: "Are they still receiving veterinary treatment?"
Callahan: "Some of them are, yes."
...
Hicks: "When was the last time you saw the dogs?"
Callahan: "I saw six of the dogs, about two weeks ago. They
were at Pencin's [a veterinarian] for a brief time."
...
Hicks: "And how were they doing?"
Callahan: "Much better.... There [sic] hair was healthy and
combed. They weren't infested with ticks. They didn't
have patches of hair gone and they were health -- they
were filled out. They were fat, they weren't skinny."
At the hearing, Mrs. Ratliff
denied all of Tipling's allegations, and denied that Tipling could even
see the area where she said she was problems. Harding did not
cross-examine Mrs. Ratliff. Mr. Ratliff testified to the same
effect as Mrs. Ratliff. The Ratliffs adamantly deny the
allegations by Tipling.
After hearing the evidence, JP
Morales determined that the allegations in support of the search
warrant were "stale" -- over four months old by the time the warrant
was executed -- so he ruled "to suppress ... the search warrant.
And therefore the [seized dogs] will be returned to the rightful
owner. And the forfeiture hearing is denied and there will be no
forfeiture. And that should take care of the entire amount, I
believe. I believe I've answered all. Is there anything I
haven't answered?" Harding answered "No, judge."
Despite Harding's admission at
the time that forfeiture was denied, Harding later denied (in a letter
to attorney Hicks) that the JP even considered the motion to
forfeit. It's unusual for an attorney to deny something which
he's previously admitted on the record.
The County appealed from the
suppression of the search warrant. While the appeal was pending,
Hicks again wrote to Harding asking that the dogs be transported to the
Ratliffs' vet, Dr. Behney, for examination. Harding refused the
request. The County again hung on to the dogs.
Harding ran the County's
appeal. His arguments included a "good faith exception" to the
requirements for issuing a search warrant -- an argument which Harding
should have known was improper on appeal, because he hadn't made it in
the trial court, and you can't wait until appeal to raise such an
issue. Harding's argument was frivolous, but it added bulk to the
appeal.
Harding lost the appeal.
On December 15, 2008, Judge Hoggatt ruled, as JP Morales had, that the
allegations underlying the warrant were stale. A concerned
person, seeing dogs living in dangerous conditions, couldn't possibly
delay action for the three months that Tipling waited before going to
ACO Callahan, or for the two weeks that Callahan waited after getting
Tipling's statement.
Judge Hoggatt was so obviously
right that no one can blame attorney Harding for losing the
appeal. In fact, it may even have been frivolous for the County
to appeal from the suppression of such a stale search warrant.
The possibility of frivolity was increased by Harding's making an
argument on appeal that he had never made in the trial court. As
Judge Hoggatt said, "The State waived the ... issue by not raising the
issue until it did so for the first time on appeal." Most
attorneys understand that rule.
But the appeal did let the County hang on to the dogs.
On December 31, after the
appeals court had returned the case to the trial court for further
action, JP Morales ordered that all the dogs be returned to the
Ratliffs "forthwith." On January 21, 2009, Hicks wrote to Harding
and ACO Callahan with a copy of the order. There was now no legal
way that the County could hang on to the dogs.
On January 22, 2009, Harding moved to dismiss the case. But the County still did not return the dogs.
III. "All the dogs have expired" -- says the County
On January 29, 2009, Harding
filed a document titled "Notice: Status Of Dogs." The
document was based on an attachment to it, a letter, which said "It has
been nine months since these dogs were turned over to Heidi Tipling and
during that period of time all of the dogs have expired."
The letter was signed by a
woman named Donna Dunham. It was not notarized, nor otherwise
authenticated. Harding's "Notice" did not say whether he had done
any investigation after receiving the letter, nor whether the letter
had been prepared in coordination with anyone from the County.
Harding's lack of explanation
or comment about the letter was remarkable, since many statements in
the letter contradicted the record in the case.
For instance, although the
letter refers to dogs being "turned over" to Heidi Tipling, ACO
Callahan's testimony, in the July hearing, emphasized that the dogs
were not "turned over" to anyone, but remained in the legal custody of
the County.
And although the letter says
"We were given instructions that [the dogs'] care should be
extraordinary. We were told not to vaccinate, spay/neuter, treat
any illnesses or conditons [sic] that the dogs were experiencing,"
those statements contradict Harding's own letter of July 1, 2008, in
which he told defense attorney Hicks that "Many of [the "foster care"
providers] have provided medical care and attention for these dogs,"
and thse statements also contradict ACO Callahan's testimony:
Harding: "Are you aware that these dogs are healthy at this
point in time?"
Callahan: "They are doing better, sir. Yes."
Harding: "... are they still on special diets?"
Callahan: "Some of them are. Yes, sir."
Harding: "Are they still receiving veterinary treatment?"
Callahan: "Some of them are, yes."
...
Hicks: "When was the last time you saw the dogs?"
Callahan: "I saw six of the dogs, about two weeks ago. They
were at Pencin's [a veterinarian] for a brief time."
...
Hicks: "And how were they doing?"
Callahan: "Much better.... There [sic] hair was healthy and
combed. They weren't infested with ticks.
They didn't
have patches of hair gone and they were health --
they
were filled out. They were fat, they weren't skinny."
But Harding didn't go into any
of that when he gave the Dunham letter to the court. Harding did
say that the letter was "received from People Assisting Kindred Spirits
which sets forth the status of the dogs .... As this Court can
ascertain from the contents of such letter, all the dogs have
expired. Based on the above, the State would respectfully submit
that any further action by Mrs. Ratliff lies in a different forum."
That is: we took your dogs, and now we say they're dead, but you can't sue us.
As to that claim, time will
tell. On March 2, 2009, defense attorney Hicks filed a "Notice of
Claim Against Cochise County ... and The Cochise County Sheriffs
Department, Cochise County Animal Control Division, and Animal Control
Officer Crystal Callahan."
IV. A little history: Tipling, Dunham, PAKS
The involvement of Heidi
Tipling and Donna Donham with the Ratliffs didn't begin in 2007.
It began in 2004, when the Ratliffs lived in Greenlee County.
On June 12, 2004, Heidi
Tipling, Donna Dunham, and Kris Liston visited the Ratliffs' home and
kennel in Greenlee County. After her visit, Dunham wrote a report
alleging terrible conditions in the kennel -- not unlike the
allegations that Tiplilng gave to ACO Callahan, here in Cochise County,
in 2008.
Dunham's allegations must have
made quite a stir, because on December 10, 2004, two Greenlee County
Rabies Control Officers, plus Greenlee County Sheriff Richard McClusky,
visited the Ratliff home and kennel, with no advance notice to the
Ratliffs. A Rabies Control Officer and Sheriff McClusky wrote up
reports later that day. Three days later a deputy paid a surprise
visit. Their reports did not substantiate Dunham's allegations.
The Rabies Officer reported "We
saw no problem with any of the dogs. All dogs had food and water
and shelter. All dogs have current rabies shots and other needed
shots. We also noticed many sacks of dog food, medication
properly kept as well as well maintained livestock. I have
checked on the Ratliff Kennel many times and have never seen a
problem.... Our department considers the complaint unfounded at
this time."
Greenlee County Sheriff
McClusky's reported that conditions were good, with nothing worse than
a small amount of dog feces in a few cages, and no sick or injured
animals. (McClusky's report adds that a deputy went back three
days later, to see if the first inspection was "just a very lucky day"
for the Ratliffs, and "found the pens clean, water dishes full and
clean. Food dishes were also clean and contained some dry food,
and the same amount of animals in each pen.")
Sheriff McClusky noted an odd
delay in the allegations. Sheriff McClusky said "the time frame
from when I was asked to look into this mater and when the first report
was made was about five months. Fifty-four days alone went by
after [Dunham's] trip to the Ratliff's home to make her first
report. If there was any abuse that was happening, this delay was
intolerable ...." That was similar to what Judge Hoggatt said
when he denied Cochise County's appeal in 2008.
The long delay may have helped
generate Sheriff McClusky's suspicions about motives: "after I
read the report filed by [Dunham] and Dr. Curtis I was somewhat
concerned as to what the reasoning for the report was. I found
that they were as much concern with the breeding qualities of the
animals as the physical condition". Arizona has no statute making
it a Sheriff's job to enforce AKC breed standards. At present, in
Cochise County's draft rewrite of its Animal Control Ordinance, the AKC
is awarded special status.
Tipling, Dunham, and Liston
kept in touch, based on a document which came to light in the Ratliff
case. On March 12, 2007, a woman named Karen Heider sent an email
to
paks03@msn.com
and
jkliston@bmi.net
Karen Heider's email address was
karen.heider@pimasheriff.net
On September 19, 2009, an article in the Arizona Daily Star at
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/byauthor/309712
identified Heider as "a contract transcription supervisor with the Pima County Sheriff's Department."
Heider's email to "paks03" and
"jkliston" begins "Please give this to Kris or Donna." A "Kris
Liston" was involved in the Greenlee County incident in 2004.
Donna Dunham apparently uses the email address at "paks03". A web page at
http://www.adoptapet.com/pet3110833.html
identifies Donna Dunham-Cecil
as contact person for PAKS, with the "paks03" email address.
Arizona Corporation Commission records list "Donna M. Dunham-Cecil" as
statutory agent for "People Assisting Kindred Spirits, Inc." which was
dissolved on September 13, 2007. However, a news story from
December 2008, at
http://cgi3.azstarnet.com/sn/85750/270914
names Dunham as director of
PAKS, says PAKS "had hoped to start groundbreaking on a small shelter
before the end of 2008., but ... the project has had to be moved back,"
and says PAKS "has five acres of land in Cochise County." The
legal status of PAKS appears to be somewhat confused.
Heidi Tipling is a apparently a
vet tech. ACO Callahan testified at the July hearing that "at a
Dr. Pencin's office [in Willcox] Ms. Tipling called me to the back room
and advised me she had some information that I needed to check
on. I asked her to start a witness statement." Callahan
added that "Ms. Tipling has worked with the Sheriff's Department on
several occasions. Ah -- we take a lot of injured animals to that
clinic in specific. Ah -- she's actually been an informant on
several other cases."
At the hearing on July 28,
2008, defense attorney Hicks' opening statement included "Tipling has
reported injuries like this on these same dogs to a different Sheriff
in a different county. He went out and found that there was no
truth to them.... [T]his witness has been found incredible in the
past. And ... that should have been considered. And had it
been considered no warrant would have been issued."
As to PAKS: after the
dogs were seized, twelve of them went to the Pencin Veterinary Clinic
in Willcox, where Tipling was a vet tech. Some dogs were sent to
"foster care" under written agreements that listed the shelter as PAKS,
and named Donna Dunham as PAKS' representative. While the dogs
were in County custody, Dunham said that PAKS members refused to return
the dogs for inspection by the Ratliffs' vet, Charles Behney -- who,
incidentally, is the subject of a complimentary article published in
the Sierra Vista Herald on November 30, 2009; see
http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2009/11/30/80-longtime-vet-has-touched-lot-lives
ACO Callahan testified that she knew what PAKS was but did not belong
to it, and did not know whether Tipling, Pencin, or anyone named Cecil
belonged to it. But when Hicks later asked Callahan "Is there
somebody you coordinate with PAKS?" she answered "Donna Dunham ...
keeps in contact with me in reference to any medical records".
Hicks: "And she is a representative of PAKS?"
Callahan: "Yes, sir."
V. The Callahan-Harding
case comes at an unfortunate time for the County's efforts to rewrite
the Animal Control Ordinance. See the existing ordinance and the
latest draft changes at
http://littlebigdog.net/AnimalControlDebate.htm
The obvious
question is, can we trust the County with Animal Control at all, after
what happened to the Ratliff dogs?