On October 16th, 2020, a West Seattle man was arrested and charged with multiple counts of animal cruelty. For a description of the case, see the coverage by the Seattle Times and the West Seattle Blog. Despite 222 animals found on the property, many in poor condition or deceased, the accused was charged with just 17 counts of animal cruelty under RCW 19.52. Since the crimes were felonies, the case was filed in King County Superior Court. The defendant negotiated a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to two counts of animal cruelty, and the other counts were dismissed. His jail sentence was suspended and he was fined $5,000. The City spent $405,760 on veterinarian services, medicine, boarding services and supplies in caring for the seized animals, and requested that amount in restitution. The judge ordered the defendant to reimburse the City for $29,118.71, leaving the City to pay the $376,641.29 shortfall.
This case illustrates some of the problems prosecutors face in trying to hold people accountable for animal cruelty.
It can be difficult to convince a judge or jury that a companion animal has value. State law defines animals as property, which imposes legal limitations on liability.
It can be difficult to explain how an expert knows that one rabbit is sick and another is not. This expertise is especially problematic to convey about animals that are not dogs or cats.
Prosecutors select the animal victims for charging crimes based on their ability to prove the animals were injured by the accused; many victims will not result in additional charges due to weak evidence.
Sentencing ranges for crimes are set out by Washington State Sentencing Guidelines. Because animals are property, and injury to them falls under property crimes, it is difficult for judges to impose longer jail sentences. This problem is currently the subject of a bill pending in the State Legislature: HB 1961.
The ownership of animals cannot be relinquished without due process because they are property. Animals can be seized by Seattle Animal Shelter but cannot be rehomed until the owner gives permission to surrender the animal. This defendant did not surrender the animals in his care for many months, incurring large amounts of boarding fees and other costs. Although we have no evidence this case is the main driver, both the RCW 16.52.085 and Seattle Municipal Code 9.25.100 were amended shortly after the case concluded to address ongoing expenses - and restitution to cover those costs - in situations like this. The RCW now requires a pre-paid bond to cover expenses incurred while litigation proceeds, while the City compels surrender of an animal if another pet owned by the defendant dies due to cruelty or neglect. The City has also added limitations to animal ownership after conviction.
Finally, this case was prosecuted because an alert citizen called authorities about the grim conditions they observed. It’s still true - if you see something, say something.