2/14/2017 January 6, 2016 10:00 am Chicago Police Animal Crimes Team Execute Search Warrant 11:00 am Defendant arrives on scene 11:52 am Defendant Mirandized 12:00 pm Defendant placed into custody People v. C.H. 8 Pitbulls 7 Caged 1 Chained 4 Handguns 1 Shotgun Recovered 1
2/14/2017 Charges 8 counts of Cruel Treatment 8 counts of Owner s Duties Defendant s Statement $200 23 Hours Bowls No Heat 2
2/14/2017 Pre-Trial Exercise Order Forfeiture Petition Security Petition Trial P.O. Shepard Defendant s Statement Ruling 3
2/14/2017 Sentencing 1 Year Court Supervision No Companion Animals Enforcement 4
STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SS. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRJMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS VS. ORDER FOR ANIMAL(S TO BE EVALUATED AND EXERCISED NOW COME the People of the State of Illinois, by and through their Attorney, State's Attorney, ANITA ALVAREZ, through her Assistant,, and move that this Honorable Court to order Chicago Animal Care and Control to allow representatives from Safe Humane to evaluate and exercise the following animals : This order is in effect until ownership is determined. ENTER:
Judge, Circuit Court Cook County DATE: STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SS. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRJMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS VS. PETITION FOR FORFEITURE HEARING PRIOR TO TRIAL PURSUANT TO 510 ILCS 70/3.04 (a NOW COME the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by KIMBERLY M. FOXX, State s Attorney of Cook County, through his Assistant, Rory Quinn, Assistant State s Attorney, and respectfully move this Honorable Court pursuant to statue to enter an order of permanent forfeiture of animal(s seized and states the following: 1. Defendant is charged with Animal Cruelty and Possession of Certain Dogs by a felon. 2. As a result of the allegations against defendant the following animal was seized; Male Brown Pitbull under Case #XXXXX Animal Inventory # XXXXX. 3. The Human Care For Animals Act provides that the State s Attorney may, within 14 days after the seizure, file a petition for forfeiture prior to trial before the court
having criminal jurisdiction over the alleged charges, asking for permanent forfeiture of the companion animals seized. 4. The Human Care For Animals Act provides that in a forfeiture hearing the burden is on the prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the person arrested violated Section 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, or 4.01. 5. That the animal(s seized are a unique form of property because they are alive, and because of that, it is in the best interests of the animal(s and the animal control or shelter having custody of the animal(s seized that is this court make a speedy determination of their status prior to the criminal trial. 6. That for humane reasons, the State requests that this court hold a forfeiture hearing regarding the animal(s seized, pursuant to 510 ILCS 70/3.04 (a, wherein this court makes a determination as to the legal status of the animal(s seized. WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfully move this Court to set a date for a forfeiture hearing regarding the animal(s seized. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly M. Foxx State s Attorney of Cook County By: Rory Quinn Assistant State s Attorney
STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SS. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRJMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS VS. COURT ORDER REGARDING ANIMALS IMPOUNDED The Court, after having fully conducted a forfeiture hearing regarding animal(s impounded in the above captioned case, makes the following. findings: 1.. That the defendant was charged with a violation of the Humane Care For Ahimals Act, 510 ILCS70/ XXXXXXX 2. That as a result of these charges animal(s were seized and impounded. 3. That the state proceeded to Forfeiture hearing. 4. That the State (Has or (Has Not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant did in fact commit a violation of the aforementioned Section of the Humane Care For Animals Act. 6. That the defendant was the owner of the animal(s seized within the meaning of the Humane Care For Animals Act in that- defendant is a person who: (a has a right of property in an animal (b keeps or harbors an animal (c has an animal in his care (d acts as custodian of an animal 7. That the defendant's ownership rights in the animal(s"seized are hereby (Terminated or (Upheld 8. The animal(s impounded in this care are hereby ordered (Forfeited or (Not forfeited 9. It is hereby ordered that the organization impounding the animal(s adopt the animal(s or humanely euthanize the animal(s. {May or (may not Date Judge of the Circuit Court
STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SS. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRJMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS VS. COURT ORDER REGARDING ANIMALS IMPOUNDED IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all parties present and advised, the defendant, has voluntarily given up any and all ownership in. These animal are now property of the Animal Care and Control. ENTER: JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY DATED:
STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SS. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRJMINAL DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS VS. PETITION FOR POSTING OF SECURITY PURSUANT TO 510 ILCS 70/3.05 NOW COME the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney of Cook County, through her Assistant, XXXXX. Assistant State's Attorney; and respectfully move this Honorable Court to enter an order requiring that the person from whom the animal(s were seized, or the owner of the animal(s seized, be required to post security for the care of the animal(s seized, and states the following: 1. Defendant is charged with XXXXXXXXXX. 2. As a result of the allegations against defendant the following animals were seized; XXXXXXXXXXXXX. 3. The Human Care For Animals Act provides that the animal control or shelter having custody of the animal(s may file petition with the court requesting that the person from whom the animal(s.are seized, or the owner of the animal(s be ordered to post security. 3.05(a; 4.02(a 4. In a criminal case, the court having jurisdiction over this matte would be the court having jurisdiction over criminal charges. 3.05(a; 4.02(a 5. That the security must be in an amount sufficient to secure payment of all reasonable expenses expected to be incurred by: the animal control or animal shelter in caring for the and providing for the animal(s. during the next 30 days, pending the disposition of the charges. 3.05(a 6. That posting of security ensures that the animal control or shelter acting as custodian of the animal(s will continue to operate without being overburdened by the costs associated with animal(s which have been seized pursuant to this Act. 7. That upon receipt of a petition, the court must set a hearing on the petition, to be conducted within (5 business days after the petition is filed. 3.05(d 8. That the animal control or shelter caring for the animal(s seized, has requested that we file a petition with this court on their behalf in this matter.
WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfully move this Court to set a date for hearing regarding the posting of security for the animal(s seized. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly M. Foxx State's Attorney of Cook County By: Assistant State's Attorney