State of Vermont v. Allan Washburn

Bennington, Vermont criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant on an animal cruelty charge including forfeiture allegation.

¶ 2. The following are the relevant, undisputed facts drawn from the record. On April

15, 2022, Animal Control Officer Daniel Hollister arrived at a Bennington parking lot and2

observed a crowd of people encircling a car that belonged to defendant. Officer Hollister

approached the car, peered into it, and found Chad, a Siberian husky, locked inside with the

windows rolled down approximately one- and one-half inches. He reported it was "unseasonably

warm” that day and determined, via an infrared thermometer, that the car's internal temperature

was 97.4 degrees. Officer Hollister also observed that Chad was unable to stand up or move around

inside the car, which was brimming with trash and spoiled food, and that Chad had no access to

water. Based on this, he concluded that Chad was "in moderate distress.” Defendant returned to

his car five to ten minutes later and was issued a criminal citation for animal cruelty.

¶ 3. On May 11, 2022, Bennington K9 Officer Robert Murawski responded to another

call of a dog in distress at the same parking lot. On arrival, he discovered Chad locked in

defendant's car, panting excessively with access to no water. Chad was removed from the car and

brought to a local animal hospital to receive medical attention. Chad was thereafter returned to

defendant's custody.

¶ 4. On June 8, 2022, Officer Murawski responded to yet another report of a dog left in

a car in the same parking lot and again found Chad locked inside defendant's car. When he arrived

on scene, Officer Murawski observed that defendant's car was parked in the sun, had its windows

rolled down only half-an-inch, and had no air conditioning running. He noticed as well that Chad

again had no access to water and that defendant's car remained full of trash and rotting food, which

meant Chad did not have room to move around and had nowhere to lie except on a pile of garbage

on the car's passenger seat. He also saw that Chad was "excessively panting” and had a "swollen

tongue,” both of which he recognized as early signs of heat exhaustion in dogs. Officer Murawski

waited approximately ten to fifteen minutes until defendant returned to the car, at which time he

took defendant into custody. He then ordered defendant to follow him by car to the Bennington

police station.3

¶ 5. At the station, Officer Murawski left Chad in defendant's car, which was now

parked in the shade with the air conditioning on, while he processed defendant's arrest inside the

station. Based on defendant's arrest, the criminal division issued temporary conditions of release

under Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 5. One of the conditions required defendant to

"surrender any and all pets to the Bennington PD on 06-08-22.” Complying with this order,

defendant surrendered Chad to Bennington police that day. The police brought Chad to the Second

Chance Animal Center in Bennington, where Chad was later examined by a veterinarian. The

State charged defendant with cruelty to animals in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 352(3) on June 13.

Based on the allegations of cruelty, the State then filed a motion for civil forfeiture of Chad in the

criminal division under 13 V.S.A. § 354(d).

¶ 6. During the civil forfeiture hearing, the State presented evidence about the three

parking lot incidents from four witnesses. Officer Hollister testified about his observations on

April 15. Officer Murawski likewise testified to what he saw on both May 11 and June 8. Based

on his police K9 training, which included training about the effects of internal car temperatures on

dogs, Officer Murawski also estimated that the car's interior (given the external temperature of

seventy-eight degrees) was likely between 105 and 110 degrees on June 8. The court permitted

this estimate over defendant's objection. Lastly, two humane officers from the Second Chance

Animal Center testified that Chad was "underweight for his size” and suffered from a "lack

of . . . nutrition” on his arrival at the Animal Center. The humane officers also averred that Chad

was initially "weak” and lacked muscle mass, which rendered him unable to run without falling

and caused him to lose balance easily and "flop over.” One humane officer considered Chad's

atrophy consistent with dogs that had received a "lack of exercise” and had spent long periods

confined in small spaces. His testimony further revealed that defendant once attempted to feed

Chad rotten moldy food, which the officer prevented, and that Chad required medical attention

including vaccines and4

¶ 7. Based on evidence presented at the civil forfeiture hearing, the court found by clear

and convincing evidence that the State established that defendant engaged in animal cruelty under

13 V.S.A. § 352. See 13 V.S.A. § 354(f)(1) (permitting civil forfeiture of animal if “the

State . . . establish[es] by clear and convincing evidence that the animal was subjected to

cruelty . . . in violation of section 352”). In its decision, the court credited the witnesses’ testimony

about Chad being underweight and malnourished, the cramped and unsanitary space Chad was

often confined to in defendant’s car, and Chad’s weakened state on arriving at the Animal Center.

The court also relied on evidence of the high temperature inside defendant’s car and found, “most

significant[ly],” that Chad had no access to water when left in the heat during these incidents.

Based on this animal cruelty determination, the court granted the State’s motion for civil forfeiture

of Chad pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 354,



Affirmed