Quote Originally Posted by Cataholic
I tend to lean towards liliacdragon's comment. If she had been arrested, it is kind of doubtful she would have been 'locked up'. More likely, arrested, and either posted bond, released OR, or, arraigned the following day. Then, she gets to go before a Judge and explain the situation. IF, IF it is a serious as she said, then, it seems the charges would be dismissed. Something doesn't sound quite right here.
Both the humane Society and the AC and police were contacted several times over the weekend, this is a matter of record... none of them responded which is why on Monday Tammy Grimes did what she did.
http://www.animal-law.org/statutes/penn.htm
Quote:
(c) CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.--A PERSON COMMITS A SUMMARY OFFENSE IF HE WANTONLY OR CRUELLY ILLTREATS, OVERLOADS, BEATS, OTHERWISE ABUSES ANY ANIMAL, OR NEGLECTS ANY ANIMAL AS TO WHICH HE HAS A DUTY OF CARE, WHETHER BELONGING TO HIMSELF OR OTHERWISE, OR ABANDONS ANY ANIMAL, OR DEPRIVES ANY ANIMAL OF NECESSARY SUSTENANCE, DRINK, SHELTER OR VETERINARY CARE, OR ACCESS TO CLEAN AND SANITARY SHELTER WHICH WILL PROTECT THE ANIMAL AGAINST INCLEMENT WEATHER AND PRESERVE THE ANIMAL'S BODY HEAT AND KEEP IT DRY. THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN IN NORMAL AGRICULTURAL OPERATION.

Quote:
(i) POWER TO INITIATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.--AN AGENT OF ANY SOCIETY OR ASSOCIATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH, SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWERS TO INITIATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED FOR POLICE OFFICERS BY THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. AN AGENT OF ANY SOCIETY OR ASSOCIATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH, SHALL HAVE STANDING TO REQUEST ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.

Quote:
(l) SEARCH WARRANTS.--WHERE A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS ALLEGED, ANY ISSUING AUTHORITY MAY, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ISSUE TO ANY POLICE OFFICER OR ANY AGENT OF ANY SOCIETY OR ASSOCIATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH A SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF ANY BUILDING OR ANY ENCLOSURE IN WHICH ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS OCCURRING OR HAS OCCURRED, AND AUTHORIZING THE SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE OF THE VIOLATION INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE ANIMALS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE VIOLATION. WHERE AN ANIMAL THUS SEIZED IS FOUND TO BE NEGLECTED OR STARVING, THE POLICE OFFICER OR AGENT IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE SUCH CARE AS IS REASONABLY NECESSARY, AND WHERE ANY ANIMAL THUS SEIZED IS FOUND TO BE DISABLED, INJURED OR DISEASED BEYOND REASONABLE HOPE OF RECOVERY, THE POLICE OFFICER OR AGENT IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR THE HUMANE DESTRUCTION OF THE ANIMAL. THE COST OF THE KEEPING, CARE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE ANIMAL SHALL BE PAID BY THE OWNER THEREOF AND CLAIMS FOR THE COSTS SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN UPON THE ANIMAL. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW, THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING SENTENCE UPON A CONVICTION FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MAY REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER PAY THE COST OF THE KEEPING, CARE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE ANIMAL. NO SEARCH WARRANT SHALL BE ISSUED BASED UPON AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION WHICH AUTHORIZES ANY POLICE OFFICER OR AGENT OR OTHER PERSON TO ENTER UPON OR SEARCH PREMISES WHERE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WORK IS BEING CONDUCTED BY, OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF, GRADUATES OF DULY ACCREDITED SCIENTIFIC SCHOOLS OR WHERE BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS ARE BEING PRODUCED FOR THE CARE OR PREVENTION OF DISEASE.

PA's code of cruelty. I would like to point out this:
Quote:
AN AGENT OF ANY SOCIETY OR ASSOCIATION FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Being a member of a 501c association for the prevention of cruelty, even if its not a HS should be enough as this is the way it is worded in their code.
Those paragraphs indicate that the "agent" can start criminal proceeding and/or acquire a search warrant through legal channels. In other words, do the legal beagle stuff BEFORE trespassing and seizing.
The only thing tammy actually did wrong was she did not get a warrent... as time was of the essence here I believe it would have negligent to act any other way.

OK from a legal standpoint
Regarding the abuse

There is the owners admission in the first article in the mirror. Admitting the knew the dog was sick.
"Lori Arnold said her family had planned to euthanize the dog.
“But do you know how hard that is to do?” she said."

There are pictures
video's
witness'es
and the report of a quailified vet, not to mention NUMEROUS calls to the authorities, which went ignored.

I have seen ppl jailed with far less evidence.

I agree maybe Tammy did not do everything right, but time was of the essence here, the authorities had ignored the reports for long enough.