(

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 60-3-03

COMMONWEALTH

Violations of the Dog Law

vs.

BEN TEICHBERG

Transcript of decision at a hearing held before District Justice Alan B. Cooper, at the Pike

County Courthouse, 412 Broad Street, Milford,

Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, July 7, 2010, beginning at

4:48 p.m.

APPEARANCES:

DAVID C. McKENZIE, III, ESQUIRE Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110

For the Commonwealth

FISHER & FISHER LAW OFFICE

BY T. AXEL JONES, ESQUIRE

1200 Pennsylvania Route 940 Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania 18344 For the Defendant

ALSO PRESENT: Ellen Howarth, Dog Warden

PANKO REPORTING

537 Sarah Street, 2nd Floor Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360 (570) 421-3620

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE MAGISTRATE: As counsel indicated, it's a difficult case and I want to thank the attorneys, they did very well. It was

presented very professionally.

It was very

appreciated and it made my job a lot easier.

There are three charges, as I indicated at the beginning; the charge of confinement, the charge of violating a quarantine order, the charge of a dangerous dog. And I'll take them in that order.

As far as the confinement charge goes, what happened here is we have a witness who clearly identified the dog as the one who attacked

her.

Understanding that, eyewitness

identifications aren't always a hundred percent reliable, especially when someone is in the throws of being attacked. Having the second witness come along who is an unbiased, third-party witness and also identified the dog as the same dog convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt.

The testimony of the veterinary, while interesting, I simply don't think it was significant in light of the pictures and some distortion there, you know; so I do find you guilty of the confinement charge. And that's a possible

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

$100 plus court costs.

You've got 30 days to file

an appeal of that decision.

Your attorney will

give you instructions as to how that should be done.

On the quarantine order, initially I set the fine on that at $500, but I set that in the event that it concluded a deliberate thwarting of the quarantine test. I don't feel that was the case. I feel that while technically you did violate the quarantine order, it was not done in a malicious fashion to try to hide the dog or anything of that nature. So while technically you're guilty, the fine is going to go down from $500 to $50 for that charge.

The significant one obviously is the dangerous dog charge. As counsel has pointed out, it is one of the most difficult cases that I hear. It lS in effect a capital punishment case for the dog so it is taken very seriously; you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a criminal charge.

It seems to me that I'm not sure what happens

that the dog may be In one situation, behaves a certain way and behaves a different way in another situation.

The testimony of the witness who is

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

currently housing the dog was very interesting.

applaud her work and her heart's certainly in the right place, and I think she understands animals to a certain extent and for some reason seems to be

able to handle this particular dog.

Again, her

definition of what's a dangerous dog is not similar to what is defined in the statute.

Here's what I propose to do. I hate to put a dog to death, basically is what this case lS. On the other hand, I wouldn't like to have anybody else get bitten by the dog. What I'm going to do is this: I'm going to hold judgment on the dangerous dog charge for 90 days.

During that time you did indicate you're going to fence In your property. You're going to have 90 days to do that. The warden is going to certify to me that that is done in an

appropriate fashion.

If that's the case, that

charge will be dismissed, not guilty but dismissed without prejudice, which means it could be refiled at a later time.

In the event that there's another confinement violation -- that doesn't mean you couldn't leave the dog on a leash, on the property

on a leash.

If there's another confinement

4

I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

violation, an additional financial fine will be assessed with some potential jail time of up to

90 days in jail. So the responsibility is on you, if that dog gets out again and is not confined.

And this is Shohola where I'm going

to be for a while.

There's a distinct possibility

that you could face jail as a result. I want to make clear what the stakes are that you're undertaking, okay? That dog is not to run loose again. If it does and you get caught, you're looking at potential jail time. It's been done before.

THE DEFENDANT: I understand.

THE MAGISTRATE: So that's the decision. As far as the two charges you've been found guilty of, you do have 30 days to file appeals to them. If not, I know you paid some money in and I'll just make the fine payable within 30 days. If you need a payment schedule, you call our office and figure out some arrangement. If you file an appeal, it makes it a moot point.

Warden, would you assist with that? WARDEN JAMES RICKERT: Yes, Judge. THE MAGISTRATE: Thanks, everybody.

(Decision concluded at 4:52 p.m.)

5

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 I hereby certify that the

8 proceedings are contained fully and accurately in

9 the notes taken by me at the decision in the above

10 matter; and that the foregoing is a true and

11 correct transcript of the same.

12

13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EVILYS E. BRATHWAITE

6