f

,w\c\No
CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS
NOTICE
OF ADMINTSTITATIVE
HEARING
DECISION
AND ORDER
In Re: the Matter of
The City of Palm
Springs
and
Richard
Rutgard,
Respondent
Date of Heariug:
January 16, 2013
Address!
Palm springs Police Department,
200 so. civic Drive
Palm Springs,
Californi a 9?263
\/r Yrv ' rL' vv'
owner
of Animals;
Richard Rutgard
.,
parm
springs,
cA
Reporting
Parfy:
city of
palm
springs, Animal conrrot
Division
Animals
Invohed:
AII dogs on the property
of R. Rutgard
at
,
Patm springs, cA. (Estimated
to ue in excess of 20 dogs).
This rnatter
was called to hearing and the parties
submifted
their infcrrmation
and. te stified
on January 16,-2_A]3 at approximately
t:3ir p.m. ar the Ciry of
palm
Springs
police
Department,
200 south Civic Dr.,
pairn
springs, cA 92263.
The following persons
were present:
Rodell R. Fick, Bq., Administrative
Hearing
officer
5q: lruyen,
Erq., for City Artorney
Leslie Tisdale,
Director of Animal control Division
Tedd Nickerson,
supervisor
of Animal conhol Division
Richard
Rutgard, Respondent
and Animal Owner
Documeltary
Evidence presented
for hcaring:
Ciq of Palm Springs:
Exhibit I consjsting of 57 pages
of City correspondence,
reporrs,
police
reports
and forms, photographs
and other miscellaneous
documents.
Rutgard never saw the City's
"evidence", nor was he given
a copy of it, as due process
requires.
Address redacted
Address redacted
Documentary Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer,
but not to Rutgard at the time of the "hearing" or afterward.
Administrative
Hearing Order and Decision
Page 2
Respondent, Richard Rutgnrd :
No relevant exhibits were formally submitted by R. Rutgard for review.
Issue and
Question
Presented:
The solE question presented through this Administrative Hearing is whether or not
physical
conditions exist on the properly occupied by Richard Rutgard with respect to the
care and maintenance of a large number of dogs which would wanant an Order allowing
the City of Palm Springs to entertheproperfy and physically seize the dogs pursuant to
California Penal Code Section 597.1 et.seq. for hurnanitarian reasons,
F'indings:
This is a pre-seizure Administrative Hearing to determine if sufficient grounds exist for
the Animal Owner, Richard Rutgard, tQ retain custody of the large number of dogs
currently maintained on his properfy, or alternative[v, if there are sufficient grounds
established by the City of Palm Springs to enter the properry
of R. Rutgard and impound
all of the dogs for purposes of
ocare
and treatment' and other generally related
humanitarian reasons. By a preponderance of the evidence presented at this
Administrative Hearing, I do find there are suffieient grounds established by the
City of Palm Springs grant a pre-scizure flearing Order authorizing the City of
Palm Springs to seize or irnpound all dogs located on the propcrfy of Respondent
Rutgard for hurnanitarian reasons pursuant to Cnlifornia Penal Code Section 597,!
et.seq,
The legal standard of review of all evidence in such administative cases is a
preponderance
of the evidence or evidence which is of greater weight and more
convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which
as a whole shorvs that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not,
Director Leslie Tisdale was called and testified that her agency was seeking an Order
allowing the City of Palm Springs, Animal Conrol Division to seize all the dogs
maintained by R. Rutgard at his horne , Palm Springs, CA pursuant
to California Penal Code Section 597 .1. According to Director Tisdale, R. Rutgard is not
properly caring for his many dogs and the seizure is necessary because of the many City
and State code violations, the cruel and unsanitary conditions that exist at the Rutgard
home and the
'cruelty'
of the living conditions witncssed there by staff. She stated that
there are somewhere between 20 and 30 dogs and the numbers of dogs maintained eould
be escalating. Visual inspections of the property have shown that thi fencing and
The sole question, according
the language of Penal Code
Section 597.1, should have
been whether or not Rutgard
was providing proper care
and attention for his dogs.
The statute doesn't mention
anything about physical
conditions of a property or
seizure of animals for
"humanitarian reasons". I
wonder if Mr. Fick read the
statute.
Another misstatement of the
law. Since when does an
animal owner have to prove
that there are sufficient
grounds for him to keep his
animals? Nice way to try to
shift the burden of proof
from the City to animal
owners. That is completely
backwards. But, when an
administrative hearing is
largely for appearance, it
doesn't really matter how it's
conducted, does it?
Apparently payment receipts
from veterinarians aren't
relevant to prove that vet
care was provided. How
formally was that supposed
to be submitted? Trying to
hand them to Fick wasn't
formal enough?
The only number escalating
was that cited by animal
control. They were well
aware that Rutgard did not
have 30 dogs, but for
purposes of the "rescue" that
had already been planned by
the time of the hearing, it
sounded better.
f YLULo\rW
Administrative
Hearing
Order
Page
3
securify
of these animals
is lacking
and as a result there
are reports
of dogs breaching
that
fence,
thus creating
a public
safbty
and health issue.
she also said that many veterinarian
examinations
of the dogs kept by n, Rutgard have discroseJ
many dogs suffer from
physical
injuries, probably
resutiing
frorn'
'dog
fights'.
These local veter:inarians
have
acfually
ealled
the Animal
control Division to report their gbservations
and concerns
about
the poor
condition
of the animals
brought in uy R. Rutgard,
According
to Direct'r
Tisdale'
the sheer number
of dogs constitutc
a serious public
safety and health issue.
Based
on the report.s
of vet clinii prruonnrl,
it is obvicnx
ttrat many
of the dogs are being
bitten
and/or iqured
in fights betrveen tr,ese animSly
on the property
of R. Rutgar. There
have
been trvo fatalities
cF dogs and the demise
of those
dogs could have been as a result
of the exfiemely
poor
conditions
existing oo
q?
property.
i v", clinic in
palm
springs
has reported
5
iql*?o
dogs to the city,
irimarily
from dog bites. A vet clinic in Indio
has reported
4 iljuries,
ufuio, mosrly dog bites and probably
from fighting.
As to
whether
or not the irliuries
are serious,
drector Tisdale stated
that if a vet takes the time
to call the City with such reports;
it can be deemed a'
'serious,
injuqy. Finally, the
number
of dogs can also be considered
a menace to the neighbors,
based on the smell
from feces, noise from barking and also the smaller dogs a[ constantly
in danger of
being injured
by the bigger do-gt. The fypes of wou"d;;rp"tted
were
.fronral,
wouncls
(facial,
snout, chest
*d ?tot t legs), wnicir are from dogs ngr,ting or
,subrnissive
,
wounds
where a smaller
dog has received serious biteito ti. belty area after being
submissive
when attacked- fn ,nnclusion,
she stated that the dogs that are kept in these
dangerous
andunlu"ir"w
conditions
suffer nf,u*anrtreatJent,
unjustified pain,
injuries,
and all of which can only be considered
to be'cruelty
to animals,.
Superuisor
Tedd Nickerson
was called and testified that he has served as an Animal
Control
ernployee
for over 32 years,
with the last zB beinl r.rveo with the City of
palrn
springs'
supervisor
Nickerson stated that he has been rro"rrry
fi;lvi iri*noucring
rhe
field inspections-of
the Rutgard property, photographing
the facilities and conditions
on
that property
and rgsponding
to neigfrUo.',
.o*pt*int, ii, tt, past.
He stated that cluring
the summer
of 2012,,he
city
legan
getting
many complaints
from the neighbors
about
the noises
from the dogs' barking
*f th, Jmell ort*tg,
u**nr,
of dog feces about the
yard
area of this property.
He is aware about the numler
of dogs owned by Mr. Rutgard
that have coms to local vet clinics ftrrtreatrnent
of injwies received.
while 4 or 5 did
com in for spal.or neutering, there were many *9r" dogs needing
treatment for injuries
received, probably
in dog fights' During a reclnt inspecion
he personally
counted z0
dogs and neighbors
have now reported u n.* litter *irirt *outo raise rhai count by
several
more dogs' This is exceisive
based on the statutes
anO ,oO*s which limit the
lqbT
of dogs a ho*.owner
may have. In the past the inspections
have been with 'notice'
so he felt that Mr. Rutgard did clean up the property
before the inspection.
It is
doubtful
that the prop.erfy
is kept in such clean condition
at att times. while there is some
shading for the dogs during the summer, rnany
:f
th.. oogs apparently go inside during
the hot months.
He noticed that on one inspection
therein*o't
I trash bags of feces put
(-
utl
So, are the injuries "probably
resulting" from dog fights? Or
"primarily from" dog bites?
Officer Tisdale's statements
aren't even consistent
throughout one paragraph.
Tisdale conveniently fails to
mention which vet clinic in
Palm Springs. That would
be the one in which Dr. Kunz
is Medical Director, VCA
Palm Springs.
This "new litter" was fabricated
either by neighbors or animal
control, very likely just to inflate
the number of dogs Rutgard
allegedly had.
Since when can
animals be seized
because an animal
control officer "doubts"
that someone's
property is always
clean? What law is
that?
tAil t0tpffi,
-'i-*'
Administrative
Ilearing Order
Page 4
out for trash pick'up.
He did opine that the large number of dogs in and of itsetf creates a
'public
nuisance' just
frorn the on-going noise as well as the unianitary conditions of
large amounts of feces spread about the yard area.s. He documented this information with
1
myriad of photographs,
which are part of City's Exhibit I . The phorographs depict a
lairly
barren yard area, filled with dogs, and areas in which dog fecer
"io
b. ,r*n all over
the yard.
FIe has received many calls to the Rutgard residence, as has the Director and
the Police Department
staff for barking dog noise complaints and other unsanitary
conditions.
This horne is a single family home which is zoned R-l in this neighborhood.
While the fencing would seln fairty adequate at this tims to contain the largo number of
dogs, there have been reports of these dogs getting out or trying to get out and being
injygd in the process.
It was his opinion that the unsanitary conditions generally
seen
and the crowded conditions these dogs live in create a serious public n1,ii*.. and a
significant
safety r:isk to the animals themselves.
Richard Rutgard was ealled and testified on his behalf. He stated that he tras lived in
this horne about three years. A{ter acquiring an unsprayed dog frorn the local shelter,
lPParently
the dogs he owned began having lifiers of puppies.
He said that he gave
them
the best care that he could, that he has trained his dogs, that he is aware of theiineeds and
does provide
adequate food and water. One example of training he provides was
'-shouting'
at his dogs to be quiet. He did admit that there have been about 5 injuries but
felt that possibly coyotes may have gotten into the yard and caused them. He had never
seen a coyote within his fenced yard, only heard them at night. He denies that his dogs
wer,e loud, but rather they are salm and peaceful most of the time. As for the fencing,
there was one area that needed repair and he has fixed the fence so it is secure again. He
also explained that the dogs were biting each other because one of the fernales was in
heat' He thought some of the injuries were not bites but only scrapes and scratches. IIe
cleans his lot once a week, which includes picking up the fecds from his dogs. He
estimates that he collects about 5 pounds of feces each week lbr disposal. He was
evasive about the total number of dogs he actually owns. As for the two dogs that died,
he felt it was from eating chicken treats. He stated that he would like to adopt out the
dogs if possible. He did say City oflicials would allow him to keep three of the dogs.
Conclusions:
Based on the foregoing evidence and infonRation provided by the City of Palm Springs
and Mr. Riohard Rutgard, and after a careful review of the many Exhibits submitted by
the City of Palm Springs, Animal Control Division ofthe Police Deparhnent, I find that
the,Ci$ of Palm Springs has met their burden of proof and established that the unsanitary
and unsafe conditions that cunently exist on the property occupied by Richard Rutgerd
located at e, Palm Springs, CA constitute a'public nuisance'.
Rutgard never even saw the
City's Exhibit 1, much less
did he receive a copy of it.
The City was required to
give him a copy, but never
did.
"Unsprayed"? Fick undoubtedly
meant unspayed, but he didn't
even get that right. King Kong
was a male dog and wasn't
neutered when Rutgard got him
from the PS Animal Shelter,
which violates state law.
What? Where did public
nuisance come from? Fick
didn't mention anything about
public nuisance anywhere else
in this decision and it has
nothing to do with Penal Code
Section 597.1.
Address redacted
tgrtt[cUAU)
Administrative Hearing Order
Page 5
Further, I find that these crorvded conditions for such a large number of dogs has resulted
in rnany dogs being injured as a result of bites from fighting. Maintaining dogs in such
confined conditions is tantamount to an act of
'animal
cruelty' if it is not conected
promptly by the removal of these dogs to more sanitary and safe conditions. Not only
are the conditions a hazard and danger to some of the clogs, it also becornes a public
health and safety issue as well fcrr the corrmunify, especially the neighboring residents
rn'ho have had to endure the noise and stench fronr the presence of this number of dogs on
one lot. In conslusion, the totality of the evidence presented in this matter supports a
finding that the City of Palm Springs, to prevent any further harm and injuries to these
dogs, be allowed to exercise the authority granted within Penal Code Section 597 .1
(aXl).
The staff of the City of Palrn Springs is authorized to enter the property of
Richard Rutgard and seize all dogs located thereon and remove them from the unsafe and
dangerous conditions, snsure that they receive adequate care and treatment and thereby
protect the health and safety of the community from this
'public
nuisance',
IT IS HBREBY ORDERRD as follows:
l: The City of Palm Springs is hereby authorized to enter the property of Respondent
Richard Rutgard, locatsd at , Palm Springs, CA, and impound any
and all dogs located thereon and provide for any care and treatment of these animals
dsemed necessary.
Date: January 18, 2013
Rodell R. Fick, Esq. Hearing Officer
Fick can't legally authorize
anyone to enter Rutgard's
property or take his dogs.
Only a judge or magistrate
can do that, with a warrant.
Address redacted
Note the date of the "decision", January 18, 2013. Rutgard was not given a copy of this
document until January 23, 2013, one day after his home was raided and his dogs were
taken. Palm Springs Animal Control Officer Leslie Tisdale hand delivered it to Rutgard's
mailbox.
*