I read a lot of animal hoarding and cases at work, but last Sunday I came across a case that was so horrifying that I almost went home.
The case involved the typical hoarding situation: a house stuffed like Noah’s Arc and caked with feces. The description of the house so gruesome however, that I just wanted to speed home, shower, and bleach my entire apartment.

My standards for cleanliness have definitely changed over the past few years. I have a lot of plants, a pet frog, and Harley.

Crumbs, dog hair, and dead leaves are now a fact of life. I clean on a biweekly basis but there is no way to teach the dog to stop shedding, or keep the apartment perfectly sterile.

Only three people have seen my apartment, and they would probably agree that it is relatively clean. But when I read the case last Sunday my kitchen trash was full, the dishes piled, and the laundry unfolded. I was so absolutely disgusted that I devoted all of yesterday to cleaning. The case is after the jump.

The case is Anderson v. Smith. It is a California case decided last July.
It is available on Westlaw: Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2139311

---

I’m going to quote from the fact section extensively. This isn’t for those who are eating, or have weak stomachs.

Both Defendant Neighborhood Preservation Officer Dave Smith (“Smith”) and Defendant Animal Service Officer Betty Cochran (“Cochran”) received several complaints concerning the noise and odor coming from Plaintiffs’ residence in Clovis, California in the month prior to October 26, 2005.

On October 16, 2005, the Clovis Animal Control Department cited Plaintiff Diane Anderson for violations of the Clovis Municipal Code in reference to complaints about dogs barking at and foul odors coming from her property.

On October 20, 2005, Smith and Cochran visited Plaintiff Diane Anderson to inform her of the complaints and advise her how to come into compliance. The residence was surrounded by a six foot solid wood fence protecting the front entry. Officer Smith made contact with Diane Anderson by breaching a gate in the fence and knocking on the front door.

Smith could hear that there were numerous dogs “barking incessantly” inside the house. Diane Anderson answered the door, exited the residence, came outside the enclosed fenced-in area, and spoke with Smith in the front yard. Cochran and Smith spoke with Diane Anderson, and explained the applicable Municipal Codes to her.

Ms. Anderson admitted to having nine or more dogs, and indicated her intent to comply with Smith and Cochran’s request that she remove all but three dogs from the residence. Ms. Anderson indicated that she would comply with this request and would be ready for re-inspection the following week.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, Cochran and Smith returned to Ms. Anderson’s residence, but were unable to establish contact with anyone. Smith returned the following morning, and was able to contact Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson came into the front yard through her garage. Smith called Cochran to meet them. Smith observed unfinished carpentry work, wet floors, and exposed wires in the open garage, all of which were, in his opinion, in violation of the municipal building code. Once Cochran arrived, she could smell urine and feces coming from the home.

Smith explained to Ms. Anderson that he and Cochran were there to re-inspect her residence. Ms. Anderson stated that she understood, but had not been able to comply with the officers’ requests.

Smith told Ms. Anderson that he was not inclined to give her an extension, as there was a “gross violation” of City Ordinances and the neighbors were being inconvenienced. Anderson indicated that she understood, but did not know how to solve the problem and that it would take her some more time to find homes for the animals.

Cochran said it would be better to take the animals to the Clovis Animal shelter, so they could begin the process of adopting them out. Ms. Anderson reluctantly agreed to surrender the “puppies.” Ms. Anderson refused to allow the officers inside the house to help evacuate the animals. She made eight trips in and out of the house, bringing out a total of sixteen puppies.

Officer Smith described the condition of the dogs as follows:

Each puppy was similar in size and weight and they appeared to be six to seven week old shepherd mix puppies. The puppies had an extremely foul odor and it was obvious they also had significant flea infestation and a skin disorder where hair was missing, and a rash was visible on the puppies’ skin. Fleas jumped from the puppies onto my arms as I handled them [to Officer Cochran]. The puppies appeared very weak and in bad condition all the way around. They were sticky to the touch, as if they had been soaking in urine.

Officer Cochran has been an Animal Control Officer for the City of Clovis for eight years, and an employee at a veterinarian’s office for six years before that.

She possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science and has worked with animals for nearly twenty years. She described the condition of the animals Ms. Anderson brought outside as follows:

I immediately noticed the puppies had a strong odor of urine and feces coming from them, there was feces matted in the pads of their feet, there was excessive flea infestation on each puppy, the puppies had scabs covering their bodies due to the flea infestation, they were sticky to the touch from being soaked in urine over a prolonged period of time without cleaning, and they had distended abdomens typical of worm infestation. Because of my years of experience working with animals I recognized the puppies as being very neglected. In spite of my years of experience dealing with animals I found the condition of the puppies to be revolting.

As Ms. Anderson continued to bring puppies out of the residence, Officer Smith “could still hear dogs barking inside,” making it “obvious” to him that “there were still more than three animals inside the residence.”

“As each set of puppies came out of the home,” Cochran “noticed the odor of urine and feces becoming stronger.” This led her “to understand that the smell was coming from the home as well as the puppies. I believed at this time, due to my years of experience, that it was necessary to remove all of the animals from the home immediately in order to protect them.” By this time, Corporal Jim Koch had been called to assist with the investigation.

While Officer Smith was discussing the circumstances with Ms. Anderson, she volunteered information about her 73 year old mother, Dana Cloud, who was living in the residence. Smith declares:

While discussing the seriousness of the circumstances with Ms. Anderson, she stated she was frustrated because she could not accomplish the task of transporting the animals to other locations because her mother, a seventy-three-year-old female (plaintiff Dona Cloud), was in the residence confined to a wheelchair and walker, and spent most of the time laying in bed as she recovered from tetanus that begin in June of 2005. After further discussion, Ms. Anderson said her mother had received a splinter from within the residence that became infected, causing the tetanus, and she had been hospitalized for a lengthy period of time.
“Considering the description of Ms. Anderson’s mother living within the residence with such a serious health condition, the unbelievably foul odor emanating from the residence and condition of the puppies removed from the residence, along with the significant number of dogs still within the residence,”

Officer Smith determined that a health and safety check of Ms. Anderson’s mother was required.

Smith told Ms. Anderson that the Officers needed to “inspect the condition of the residence where her mother was convalescing.”

According to Smith, Ms. Anderson responded that “she was an in-home service provider for the elderly working for the County of Fresno and she understood the need to provide a safe and healthy environment for the elderly.

She also said the condition of the residence was safe and healthy and there was no need for an inspection. At this time, Ms. Anderson was told the inspection had to occur for the safety of her mother, at which time she said ‘fine, I’ll bring her to you; stay out of my house.’ “Ms. Anderson went inside the residence and wheeled Dona Cloud outside in her wheelchair.

According to Smith: “Ms. Cloud had what appeared to be fecal matter¹ on her hands, feet and legs, otherwise she appeared in reasonable health, and appeared alert and oriented.”

Smith notified Adult Protective Services. Case Worker Susan Woodward, a social worker, responded to the scene. Ms. Woodward concluded that Dona Cloud was in the home of her own free will and that Adult Protective Services would not intervene. Smith, however, continued to be concerned for the health of Ms. Cloud and Ms. Anderson because the home was “in violation of several Municipal and Penal Codes.”

Smith explained to Ms. Anderson “that Section 6.1.503 of the Clovis Municipal Code state[s] [that] every person keeping an animal shall at all times keep cages, yards and other enclosures where the animal is kept in a clean and sanitary condition and shall remove excreta and manure therefrom every day or as often as is necessary so as not to become a nuisance in the neighborhood; and 6.1.503(b) [ ] states [that] no person shall at any time maintain any lot or other premises in the city upon which any animal is kept in an unsanitary condition or in such condition as to cause the same to be infested with flies or insects or to create any noxious or offensive odor.”

Smith concluded that “[c]learly the conditions at [the house] where humans were living were in severe violation of the City Municipal Code, [ ] flies at the residence numbered in the hundreds or thousands; fleas were such that every animal and piece of carpet or bedding was visibly infested, and the noxious odor was so apparent that the [neighbors] had been calling for weeks complaining of the odor emanating from [the house] when the door was open or the air conditioning was on.”

Smith further explained that “the conditions of the residence were not safe or sanitary for her mother or herself.”

Ms. Anderson explained that she was in the process of refinancing the home and would be able to fix any problems. According to Smith, Ms. Anderson gave Smith the contact information for the company that was refinancing the home. Smith then called the mortgage company and asked to speak to the appraiser “in order to interview him with respect to the condition of the home.” Smith was unable to reach him.

Ms. Anderson denies ever giving Officer Smith information about her home loan. She asserts that Smith must have obtained the information while inside the home.

At some point after the puppies and Ms. Cloud were brought outside the residence, Officer Koch conferred with Officer Smith about entering the home to check on the safety of Ms. Cloud and the animals. Koch believed that they did not need a warrant to do so under an exception to the warrant requirement.

According to Smith, as he was explaining his concern for Dona Cloud’s health and safety, “Ms. Cloud spoke up and said we could enter the home to check on her living conditions.”

Smith recalls that “Ms. Anderson yelled at Ms. Cloud and told her to ‘shut up’ because ‘you don’t know what you’re saying’.” Smith then “told Ms. Anderson that I would be forced to arrest her if she continued to threaten her mother.” Both Ms. Anderson and Ms. Cloud dispute Smith’s recollection that Ms. Cloud consented to inspection of the home.

Smith then explained to Ms. Anderson that the officers needed to remove the animals from her residence.

Smith recalls that Ms. Anderson gave him “permission to enter her residence for the sake of removing the animals.” Ms. Anderson denies this.

According to Ms. Anderson, she continued to deny the Officers entry and, as they were approaching the door, she said “You are not going in.” She claims that an officer, possibly Officer Smith, then grabbed her elbow to prevent her from entering the home. This forms the basis of Ms. Anderson’s excessive force claim. She does not recall that the grabbing of her wrist hurt her in any way. She was not bruised. She simply asserts that “it made me mad.”
Smith’s disturbing description of how events unfolded during the entry into the home is essentially undisputed:
28. At this point Betty Cochran, Shawn Knapp, Jim Koch, and I, made our way to the front door of Ms. Anderson’s residence for the purpose of entering and removing the unknown number of animals within. What took place while removing the animals is very difficult to describe, and pictures were taken to document the absolute atrocity that was found as we entered the front door.

29. Upon opening the front door of Ms. Anderson’s residence, all officers had to step back because the odor was so strong. It was necessary that everyone obtain a mask in order to try to re-enter the home and collect the animals.

30. Once inside the residence, numerous dogs (more than I was able to count) were running every direction within the house, the floors of the residence had what appeared to be remnants of carpet that were completely disintegrated and apparently absorbed into the existing wood floor that was wet and saturated with urine and fecal matter. As I looked down the hallway, I saw a shovel standing against the wall with fecal matter stacked and smeared three to four feet up the wall.

31. There were numerous dogs in the living room area and I and others began capturing the dogs with catch sticks. During this process, fourteen (14) large breed adult dogs were removed, each of the dogs was clearly unkempt, infested with fleas, had severe skin problems, and was completely non-socialized.

32. After seizure of the fourteen dogs, the inspection of the residence continued. The kitchen was so dirty and deteriorated that it defies description by words alone. There were spider webs so thick it looked like a Halloween decoration. Animals were hiding within the cupboards that had been chewed, scratched and clawed to where they were only partially intact and some cupboards were actually removed.

33. In the living room there was a portable blow up airbed covered in linen and blankets which were smeared with fecal matter. I was informed by Ms. Anderson this was where her mother had been sleeping. The fecal matter on the bed was in all conditions, some fresh and some dried onto the bedding. It was also obvious from the stains that dogs had been urinating on the side of the bed.

*6 34. Upon entering the hall bathroom, I found adult cats within the room and they appeared to have been locked in there for weeks or possibly months without any cleaning; the bathtub was 1/4 full of liquid that was dark black in color and smelled very foul of urine and feces, and the room was so covered in cat urine and feces that I could not move within without slipping. Betty Cochran accomplished the task of removing the cats from the bathroom.

35. Further down the hall was a bedroom with a bathroom which appeared to be “somewhat functioning” in that the water ran, but that bathroom was also covered in fecal matter and urine. There was no possible way of arriving in this room in a sanitary condition or standing within that room in any way to utilize the toilet or shower facilities without standing, walking or handling animal fecal matter and urine.

36. When Ms. Anderson was asked about the master bedroom, she stated this was the bedroom they used to sleep in until rats began biting their heads at night, at which time they moved into the living room where they were now sleeping. Ms. Anderson also said that the end of the house had no electricity because rats had chewed the wiring in the attic. I observed the entire end of the house was covered in spider webs, which were very thick.

37. Upon entering another bedroom and after removing another dog from that room, I found two birds in a cage suspended from the ceiling, one a dove and the other a small parrot-type bird. There were also several kittens, possibly just several days old on the floor along with one adult cat. Five kittens were removed from that room.

38. At this time, I heard a strange sound coming from the mattress in the bedroom, and the mattress appeared to start moving and a small Lhasa-type dog was found in such terrible condition that its hair was matted and missing, it was blind in both eyes and it was unable to open its mouth due to the matted hair on its lips. The dog was emaciated and barely able to move, so it was taken to a veterinarian by Betty Cochran.

Officer Cochran described similarly deplorable conditions:
15. I entered the home to collect the animals. In spite of my experience dealing with animals I was overwhelmed by the odor. I immediately discovered that I was correct in believing the home was incredibly unhealthy for the animals and they were in need of immediate medical rescue from the despicable environment. The home was full of feces and urine on the floors, counters, and furniture. The house was in a state of disrepair and animals appeared to be all over the home and even living in the cupboards.
16. Of the animals collected, all of the kittens died, all of the adult cats except one died from combinations of feline leukemia and compromised immune systems. The single cat that was euthanized was later caught in the garage at [the home] and was being eaten by maggots while it was still alive.
17. Several of the puppies suffered from upper respiratory infection and were given courses of antibiotics as treatment. One of those puppies, Rufus, die d in my arms from that infection several weeks later. Despite the antibiotics, he was not strong enough to recover from the infection because his immune system was severely compromised due to the e-coli, coccidiosis, roundworms, and enterococcus he carried from his time at [the home]. I believe each and every puppy would have had severe problems, including possible death, if not rescued from [the home] on October 26, 2005.

Plaintiff objects to certain portions of the Cochran Declaration on the ground that Cochran is not a licensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and is unqualified to offer any veterinary medical opinions. This objection is without merit. Officer Cochran is a proper lay witness and has specialized knowledge gained because of her employment.

Ms. Anderson does not contradict the essential nature of the Officers’ description of the condition of the home or of the animals therein. Rather, she asserts that, although some of the dogs were “not socialized,” none were “vicious.”

She claims that some of the officers were abusing the animals as they were collecting them by poking sticks in their mouths and ensnaring them around the neck. She also maintains that all of the animals were “well fed” and that the “puppies had scrambled eggs for breakfast the day of the incident.”

Finally, she asserts that the puppies “had been dewormed but picked up worms again.” She does not dispute the foul smell, the physical condition of the animals, nor the unsanitary condition of her residence.
Ms. Anderson in fact admitted in her deposition that, at the time of the incident, her sense of smell was not functioning properly.

Ms. Anderson signed a euthanasia form releasing the animals to the custody of Animal Control.

Cochran recalls that, after signing the euthanasia form releasing the animals, Ms. Anderson pointed at her mother and asked “can you euthanize her instead?”

Cochran made sure to have Ms. Anderson sign the euthanasia form because it would relieve her of having to reimburse the City of Clovis for the medical care of the animals pursuant to Penal Code § 597.1.

Ms. Anderson asserts that, although she signed the form, she did not know what she was signing because she was not wearing her glasses. She claims to have told Officer Cochran that she did not have her glasses.

Ms. Anderson claims to have handed only the puppies over on the condition that they would not be killed. She asserts that she did not turn the remainder of the animals over voluntarily.

Defendants attempt to discount Ms. Anderson’s contrary testimony on this point, emphasizing that, initially, Ms. Anderson claimed to have written “no glasses” on the back of the Euthanasia form. She has now changed her story slightly, maintaining that she simply told Officer Cochran that she did not have her glasses.

Defendant also cites to Ms. Anderson’s deposition testimony, in which she was presented a copy of the form and asked to read it without her glasses on. She was able to do so, but only by bringing the form close to her face.

These pieces of evidence go to the weight that a trier of fact would give to Ms. Anderson’s testimony, they do not establish that her version of events is a “sham,” warranting exclusion for purposes of summary judgment.

Despite the fact that the Adult Protective Services worker who arrived on scene to interview Ms. Anderson and Ms. Cloud determined that Ms. Cloud was residing in the residence of her own free will, Corporal Koch and Officer Smith concluded that “conditions of the house were completely uninhabitable and it was not healthy or reasonable to allow Ms. Anderson and Ms. Cloud into the residence.”

Smith, who was a sworn building inspector, “was able to conclude that the home violated multiple codes and was dangerous to any occupants” and exercised his “authority to vacate the home until it was brought up to code.”

Although the home was “obviously uninhabitable,” Smith contacted City of Clovis Building Inspector Ken Baxter “for a second opinion before taking such an extreme measure as vacating the home.”

Mr. Baxter examined the premises and concurred with Smith’s opinion that the residence was not inhabitable and needed to be condemned.

Mr. Baxter red-tagged the residence mandating that no person enter until significant structural and mechanical repairs were made. Both Ms. Anderson and Ms. Cloud were admonished that if they were to re-enter the residence, they would be arrested for trespassing. Building Inspector Baxter explains in his declaration that placing a red tag on a home gives notice to interested parties that there are violations of the code and severe problems within the home.

He does not recall how he became aware that a lender had an interest in the home, but once he became aware of that fact, he was required to send them notice of the red-tagging pursuant to Uniform Housing Code Section 1101.3. Subsequent to the home being “red-tagged” the lender “de funded” the loan.

Steve Baker, a Building Official for the City of Clovis and a state registered quality control engineer, personally visited the residence subsequent to October 26, 2005. He indicates that the conditions there “were the worst [he has] seen in 30 years of building inspection.”

He confirmed that the residence was a “danger to the persons living there.”

He also confirmed that he signed a Notice and Order on October 31, 2005 concerning conditions at the home and that the City was required under the Uniform Housing Code to send copies to all parties with a financial interest in the home.

Officer Smith claims to have helped Ms. Anderson retrieve personal items from the residence. Ms. Anderson disputes this. She states that she was not permitted to retrieve the family car from the garage, nor were they permitted to retrieve personal property, including Ms. Cloud’s identification, loan documents pertaining to the refinance, grooming utensils, undergarments, a cell phone, checkbook, ATM card, and medicine. According to Anderson, the family was told to go to the Clovis Motel and that they would “never” be allowed back in.

Ms. Anderson claims that Defendants refused to provide her with information about the condition of the puppies, access to those animals, or permission to allow Plaintiffs’ veterinarian to examine the animals.

Ms. Anderson alleges that law enforcement Defendants “conspired” with other Defendants to deny her access to this “evidence,” which “prejudice[d][ ] her ability to defend herself in the criminal action.

Ms. Cloud was charged with multiple counts of animal abuse under California Penal Code § 597.1, involving the puppies she brought out of the house voluntarily and the animals found inside the residence. The state trial court granted her motion to suppress all of the evidence collected from inside the home, including any evidence regarding the animals collected therein.

The case was allowed to proceed on the single § 597.1 count involving the puppies Ms. Anderson brought outside the home voluntarily. Ms. Anderson pleaded no contest to the charge.

That is the end of the fact section. I redacted the home’s address. A full version of the case is available on Westlaw: Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2139311