|
?:reviewBody
|
-
With humanitarian and rescue operations underway in response to Tropical Storm Harvey in Texas, rumors are cropping up that could discourage the rescue of animals in danger. Snopes readers wrote in to ask about the following warning: What the law says There is no law in Texas that specifically states when an animal rescue is or is not a theft -- either because of water and mud levels or any other circumstance. Stealing horses, cattle, exotic livestock, or ten or more sheep, goats or pigs is a third-degree felony in Texas if the total value of the animals is up to $150,000. (Sec 31.03 e 5). While there is no provision in Texas law which allows an exception specifically for rescuing an animal from a flood, it is extremely unlikely -- almost unimaginable -- that someone who rescued an animal from death or injury would be prosecuted for theft (unless, of course, they later refused to return the animal to its owner). For one thing, prosecutors (usually district attorneys) have limited resources and have to prioritize only the most urgent and egregious crimes. A herd of cattle or a dozen horses being removed from their owner's possession during a devastating natural disaster of historic proportions would not fall into this category. Secondly, prosecutors generally avoid pursuing cases they are not likely to win -- and they are not likely to convince a jury to convict of theft a person who acted to save an animal's life. Moreover, such a case would probably bring the prosecutor, who is usually an elected official, negative attention. Jeremy Rosenthal, a Texas-based criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor at the Collin County District Attorney's office, told us that, according to Texas law, prosecutors can and should refuse to prosecute cases that do not advance the cause of justice. Article 2.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says that the primary duty of prosecutors is not to convict, but o see that justice is done. Rosenthal calls this the common sense factor. However, even if a prosecutor - for whatever reason - decided to pursue an individual who had taken an animal from its owner in order to save its life, that individual would have several legal defenses available to them which would make conviction extremely unlikely. Both Rosenthal and Marcia Kramer, a lawyer and Director of Legal and Legislative Programs for the Animal Law Resource Center at the National Anti-Vivisection Society, both told us that the first line of defense in a case like this would likely be the defense of necessity. The Necessity Defense Texas Penal Code Section 9.22 offers a kind of blanket defense against criminal prosecution of many kinds, which would include theft: Necessity, Rosenthal says, is basically where there is greater harm that results from not taking the action. The 'Deprivation Defense' Both Kramer and Rosenthal also pointed out that the very definition of theft in Texas seems to exclude a good faith animal rescue. The Texas Penal Code (Sec. 31.03 a) states that A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. However, deprive is defined as follows (Sec. 31.01 2): Kramer says: Rosenthal pointed out that if someone who rescued an animal later refused to return it to its owner, that could, of course, be treated as theft.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}