Dismissal of misdemeanor ordinance violation charges; Probable cause; Territorial jurisdiction & venue; People v Gayheart; People v Houthoofd; Applicability of MCL 762.8

In this interlocutory appeal, the court held that the district court properly found “there was no probable cause to believe defendant violated the” ordinance at issue and was also correct that “it lacked jurisdiction and was the improper venue.” Thus, the court reversed the circuit court’s opinion and order, which had reversed the district court’s orders of dismissal and remanded for reinstatement of the charges. Defendant “operates an animal rescue organization.” The case arose from her efforts to rescue “10 malnourished puppies housed in” a Kentucky animal shelter that were going to be euthanized. She located a couple in plaintiff-Township willing to foster them. They retrieved the puppies from her residence in Pontiac and took them home. The puppies were removed from the home the next day by an officer (P) after an anonymous complaint. While the couple were not charged, defendant was issued 10 citations “for violating Redford Township’s animal cruelty ordinance.” As to the probable cause issue, the court noted the puppies “were only present in Michigan for a brief” time before being seized, and P “was unable to say whether defendant was physically present in Redford Township, how long defendant had custody of the puppies, and when the alleged failure to administer medical care transpired. Rather, the evidence shows that defendant intervened to prevent the euthanasia of the puppies and organized a suitable foster home for [them] before being put up for adoption. Moreover, documents from the Michigan Humane Society reveal that the puppies were healthy and without ticks or fleas upon their intake screening, despite [P] contending otherwise. In light of these circumstances, there is no clear indication as to when, if at all, defendant’s conduct could reasonably be characterized as animal cruelty, and the district court properly determined that there was no probable cause to believe [she] violated the” ordinance. In addition, the “district court also correctly found it lacked jurisdiction and was the improper venue, considering there was no evidence to suggest defendant perpetrated any acts in furtherance of the animal cruelty offense in Redford Township.” The court noted that she “was never physically present in Redford Township during the underlying events, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate otherwise.” The court reinstated the district court’s orders of dismissal.