Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Jury Finds In Favor Of Parrot In Lawsuit Against Animal Welfare League
A jury impaneled last week to hear evidence in a civil suit brought by complainant Jennifer Parrott regarding dogs being removed under questionable circumstances from her Leoma farm in 2010 awarded her monetary damages.
Parrott filed the lawsuit against the Lawrence County Animal Welfare League (League) as a whole and League director Jessica Yokley Mayfield Smith individually, seeking damages after around 40 dogs were removed from her farm by county employees and League members on February 20, 2010. Alleging that Parrott was running a “puppy mill”, League members reportedly requested an investigation.
Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department officials said that League members reported receiving a complaint from an individual who had purchased a puppy from Parrott and later discovered that it was suffering from mange.
Parrott asserted that law enforcement, League members, and county employees had entered her property without her permission or a search warrant despite the fact that there were “no trespassing” signs posted; that League members wore badges bearing the words “Special Agent” leading her to believe that they were law enforcement officers; that television news crews were brought to the scene to broadcast the incident thus vilifying her in the public eye; that she was coerced under threat of incarceration and loss of livelihood into signing a document relinquishing ownership of her animals; that her animals were illegally seized; and that she did not get all of her animals back when a judge ordered that they be returned.
In a countersuit the League claimed breach of contract, saying that Parrott had breached the contract she signed relinquishing ownership of the dogs.
A jury was seated Thursday morning and heard testimony throughout the day on both Thursday and Friday.
Robert Denton took the stand Thursday. Denton, who was at that time an Investigator with the sheriff’s department, testified that he was called to the scene by responding officer, former deputy Pete Shrader.
While Shrader had expressed his belief that the animals were being neglected, Denton said he did not agree. He said that after inspecting all of the dogs and conditions at the Parrott farm he contacted the sheriff’s department and, “Told them they needed to send another officer if they wanted to continue with the investigation because I didn’t believe there was neglect.”
League attorney Daniel Freemon asked Denton how he and Shrader could have had such differing opinions. Denton responded, “I don’t know. I have dogs. I’ve seen dogs that are malnourished, abused. I didn’t see that there.”
Denton was asked why he did not notice some conditions later noted by a veterinarian, such as gum disease. “I go on what I can see on the outside,” he explained, “I have to stop at that point. Only when I find evidence can I go further. It has to be obvious and reasonable.” He pointed out that he would have needed to obtain a search warrant before looking inside the dogs’ mouths.
Denton testified that he had contacted Smith with his findings, stating that he found no criminal activity. He told the court, “She said, ‘We are going to come get those dogs no matter what you do or don’t do.’”
Denton stated that he felt Parrott’s rights were being violated. “There were people on their property going to take their property without going through the proper channels…That’s why I left.”
Former County Executive Paul Rosson was next called to testify. He reported that he had received a call that day from George Barturen with the sheriff’s department. “He said they were going to execute a search warrant at a puppy farm,” Rosson said, “He wanted to know if they could house the dogs at the solid waste facility if they needed to be seized.”
Rosson said that during telephone conversations he was told that the operation was being coordinated with the District Attorney’s Office, law enforcement, and the Animal Welfare League. He said that he was led to believe that a search warrant had been obtained for the Parrott property. “It seemed reasonable to allow them to use the facility…If I had known the facts I would not have let the sheriff’s department use the facility.”
Rosson said that after he watched television news coverage of the incident that night, “I knew that we probably had these animals illegally in county possession… I sure wish I had the opportunity to change my decision because I didn’t’ feel right about it to begin with.”
Rosson pointed out that, although purported that the animals had been taken for their own protection, one died while in county custody. “Unfortunately we’re probably just as culpable for the death of that animal as the Animal Welfare League is,” he said.
Rosson said that he had trouble getting in touch with then-Sheriff Kenny Taylor to find out more about the matter. “I tried to contact Sheriff Taylor and he didn’t return my calls.”
Rosson emphasized, “I count this as one of the worst mistakes I made as County Executive.”
During the testimony of Mike Robbins he was asked whether he felt that the dogs housed at the county facility had been neglected. He told jurors he did not feel that was the case.
Tina Byrd, who had been Parrott’s dog groomer for more than five years, told jurors that, “Her (Parrott’s) dogs were fine. A couple had skin conditions. One had some matting. We thought that was probably due to hay.”
She explained that she had been somewhat incapacitated due to an injury and had not been able to groom the dogs for some time. She said that she had finally been able to schedule time to accommodate Parrott. “That next Monday I had cleared my schedule for her.”
Witness Jill Ragan told jurors that she had purchased a Bullmastiff puppy from Parrott about a month prior to the raid and that they had become friends. She said that she had taken the puppy to her husband’s place of employment, where Jessica Smith’s mother was also employed, and that she had been very interested in the pup. She said that she asked her several questions, including where she had gotten it. Witnesses testified that after the raid Smith’s parents assumed care of the mastiffs.
District Attorney Mike Bottoms was called to the stand Friday morning. He said that once Denton reported that he had found no criminal activity at the Parrott farm, he instructed him to notify the sheriff of his findings.
Bottoms said that when he spoke by telephone with Smith, “I asked what right she had to be on the property. She said she was a sworn officer of the sheriff’s department. I told her she needed a search warrant.” Afterwards, he said he had no direct dealings with the League.
Bottoms said that he did not interpret in the same manner the statute to which League members were referring, saying they had a right to enter the property. “I don’t see anything to justify the actions in this case,” he said. “Everyone has a federal and state constitutional right to privacy in their own home.”
Freemon asked Bottoms whether it was a constitutional infringement for an owner to transfer ownership of property from one person to another. “That depends on whether you’re doing it under duress,” he replied. “This wasn’t legal because she was under duress.
They came with media. They were wearing badges. Searched her property without a search warrant and threatened to prosecute unless she agreed to sign (the dogs) over.”
Next on the stand was Jennifer Parrott. She stated that she had left for work at Countryside Nursing Home at around 7:00 that morning where she was tending to her terminally ill brother-in-law. “Around 12:00 he started actively dying,” she said. “He passed away a few days later.”
When asked about her mental state Parrott answered, “I was distraught.” She said that it was her birthday and also the day on which her grandmother and her grandfather had passed away. “I was not in a normal state. I was not thinking clearly,” she explained.
Parrott said that her husband had called, telling her she needed to go home. She said she arrived to find deputies there along with what she now knew to be League members wearing badges.
Parrott said that Smith presented her with a document to sign on the heels of some disturbing statements made by Shrader. She testified that he told her that if she did not sign the document and allow them to take her dogs she would face forty charges, be arrested, and possibly lose her nursing license. She explained, “At that point I wasn’t so worried about the dogs – I have two children.”
Parrott said she had not read the document but had believed it was to allow the dogs to be examined by a veterinarian, then returned. She said that she had been threatened more than once by Shrader and, “I felt like I had no choice.”
Parrott stated, “I saw the media coverage. I looked like I was the biggest piece of garbage that ever lived.” Afterwards, she said she did not want to face people in public. “People still bring it up. They call me ‘the dog lady.’ My daughter still hears things at school.”
She said that as a result of the stress, “I lost weight. I had my doctor increase my Paxil at that time” She said that after everyone left, “I went inside, turned off the lights, and went to bed…The next day I stayed home, got up, got a shower, and expected to be arrested.”
The jury watched a news clip showing an interview with Smith at the time of the incident. Parrott said that statements she made, such as none of the dogs having food or water and all of them having mange, were false and damaging statements. She made reference to another individual’s testimony indicating that League members had been seen pouring out the water in the bowls.
Parrott conceded that some of her dogs suffered from skin conditions. She said that some were being treated with Benadryl. Much of the problems, she said, arose from not being able to identify an acceptable bedding material.
She said that when she used shavings it had caused some of the dogs to develop a cough. She said she tried pet beds, but the dogs merely shredded those. She said she had most recently been using straw. “Some of them were affected by that, but I had to keep them warm,” she explained.
Parrott said that League members claimed that her dogs were forced to drink dirty water they found in a small swimming pool. “That was not intended for drinking,” she said, “The water just hadn’t been poured out.”
References were made to a Dachshund that was found to have an injured spine. Parrott testified, “I don’t know how it got injured. It was fine when I left for work that morning.”
Parrott said she has since gotten out of the breeding business. Although she had enjoyed the hobby she said, “I don’t want to go through that again.”
Freemon asserted that fault regarding the way the events unfolded that day belonged to Parrott and Lawrence County government. He said that all coercion described occurred by county employees, not League members, and that Parrott should have asked everyone to leave her property and get a search warrant.
Also, he stated that when news media attempted to contact her to get her side of the story she was, “unavailable.”
Freemon said that Parrott was negligent because she failed to read the contract. “If she’d read the contract we wouldn’t be here today.” He compared it to signing loan documents at a bank without reading them.
Parrott’s attorney Casey Long asked her, “When you apply for a loan is the banker threatening criminal charges or loss of livelihood?” Parrot responded, “No.”
While on the stand Shrader told jurors that he had initially responded to the Parrott residence that morning with League members, but that no one was home. He said that League members, “Began observing conditions and gathering evidence,” but since they were unable to make contact with the residents, they left. During that brief time, Shrader said he determined that, “Conditions were about the worst I had seen.”
He testified that they had no search warrant and that he had not requested permission to look at the dogs and kennels. He said that he was uncertain as to whether anyone else had sought permission.
Shrader was sent back to the residence to assist Denton, then returned a third time when he was put in charge of the scene. He said, “I was the one who decided they were being neglected or not properly cared for.”
Shrader said that he did not know the details about the seizing of the dogs, but that they were transported from the property to the solid waste facility by Robbins and some jail inmates.
Shrader denied having made threatening or coercive remarks to Parrott. He said that he had not mentioned charges or loss of her nursing license, but that she had asked about it.
Although several had testified that Shrader had told Parrott that due to the fact that it was an election year “everything was political”, and that his superiors wanted her prosecuted, he denied having made such statements. He stated, “I told her I would speak to the DA to see how he wanted to continue the case.”
League member Pat Burks testified that she had been at the scene that day when the animals were seized and that she, Smith, and League member Katrina Smith had worn badges. She said that they were not attempting to deceive anyone.
Burks said that she had dedicated much time to working with the League to the extent that she had paid some $40,000 in veterinarian bills last year. She said that she had stopped working with the League about six months ago because she did not have time to attend meetings, etc.
Long asked Burks whether the group had called a meeting to discuss whether to comply with the court order to return the dogs to Parrott and she acknowledged that they had done so.
When Katrina Smith took the stand she said that, in her opinion, the animals’ welfare was in question. She said that the kennels were, “Somewhat dirty, unkempt, and needed attention.” She said that, “Some of the dogs needed a lot of attention.” She said that they were told they did not need a search warrant to inspect conditions.
Although Jessica Smith had maintained that she read to Parrott the document giving them ownership, several said they were nearby but did not hear her do so. When Katrina Smith was asked about it she said, “I thought Jessica read it to her.”
She said that they had obtained the badges they wore from the leader of another animal group. She said that they had intended to partner with the group but that, “It turned out to be a money racket.” She told the court that they kept the badges because, “Other animal groups wear them.”
Katrina Smith was asked whether she heard anyone make threatening comments to Parrott. She responded, “I don’t know that I did.” She said that she had asked a member of the media who had called them and, “She said someone from the DA’s office.”
Katrina Smith testified that, “To my knowledge we didn’t adopt any of (the dogs) out. The dog that couldn’t walk was sent to a couple in Nashville that specializes in putting them in wheelchairs.” Long asked whether they had attempted to return that dog to Parrott as ordered by a judge. She responded, “No. That dog belongs to us.”
Jessica Smith’s father, Phillip Yokley testified that he had served as the sole witness on the form Parrott had signed, relinquishing ownership. He said that he had heard his daughter read the form to Parrott.
Ragan testified that she had been standing adjacent to Parrott but had not heard Jessica Smith read the document.
Phillip Yokley told jurors that Parrott had asked them whether signing the document would prevent charges being brought against her and that his daughter had told her it would not.
Veterinarian Dr. Louis Lemvo of Columbia was allowed to take the stand briefly. He indicated that he had examined all of Parrott’s dogs the day after they were seized. He said that he identified such ailments as rotting teeth, gum disease, swollen lymph nodes, matted fur, and skin conditions. He said that the dog with the back issue had no feeling in his legs and, “Wounds on the knees that indicate it had been dragging itself around for a short period of time.”
Judge Jim Hamilton entered Lemvo’s findings as a collective exhibit.
While sheriff’s department officials reported that they had been contacted by League members, requesting an investigation, Freemon indicated that the sheriff’s department had called upon the League for assistance in their investigation.
League members asserted that they had only received the complaint the day before the search, however Lemvo testified that he had been contacted by Humane Society of the United States officials two days prior, requesting that he “assist with the raid.”
Teresa Fraley was called as a rebuttal witness. She recounted attending a Mary Kay party with Katrina Smith in 2012, some two years after the dogs had been removed from the Parrott property.
She testified that Katrina Smith had shown them photos of a Dachshund and Yorkshire terrier and told them about how the dogs had been seized from the Parrott farm. Fraley viewed photos entered into evidence and identified two of the dogs shown as the ones she had seen in the photographs.
Katrina Smith was called back to the stand. She said that Fraley’s testimony was untrue. She said that she did have Parrott’s Yorkie for a time, “But I think (it) had died before 2012.” She indicated that the dog had died from a heart condition prior to some of the animals being returned per a court order.
Jessica Smith opted not to take the stand.
During closing arguments Long asked jurors to examine handwriting on some of Lemvo’s paperwork, saying that it appeared it had been penned by two different hands.
Jurors left the courtroom around 7:00 to commence deliberations, returning less than thirty minutes later. Jurors ruled in favor of Parrott on all aspects, including mental suffering, trespassing, conversion, liable, slander, and misrepresentation.
They awarded Parrott $5,000 for mental suffering, $5,000 for the dogs that were not returned, and $10,000 from Jessica Smith, but not the League, for slander.
They determined that punitive damages were allowed, but did not affix damages. In addition, they did not find for the Animal Welfare League in the countersuit for breach of contract.
