Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, L.L.C. v. Department of Agriculture, 2008 WL 3980533 (C.A.D.C.). Plaintiff, a supplier of beef products, brought an action against the USDA after the USDA denied Plaintiff’s request to purchase Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) testing kits. The United States Court of Appeals found that the USDA has authority under the Virus Serum Toxin Act (VSTA) to regulate the use of biological products; the USDA’s interpretation of VSTA allowing the USDA to deny an import permit based on the product’s intended use was not inconsistent with the regulation and was therefore entitled to deference by the Court.

Folkers v. City of Waterloo, Iowa, 2008 WL 4703392 (N.D.Iowa). Plaintiff brought civil rights action against the City of Waterloo, Iowa (City) alleging procedural and substantive due process violations after Animal Control Officers seized Plaintiff’s dog and detained the dog for one hundred days while an appeal was pending. On Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the United States District Court found that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause did not apply to Plaintiff’s claim. The Court also found that Plaintiff’s right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment was satisfied by the post-deprivation hearing provided Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claim that the decision to detain Plaintiff’s dog was unreasonable or arbitrary, implicated the “unreasonable seizure” provisions of the Fourth Amendment, though Plaintiff would not have been entitled to relief.

Moden v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2008 WL 4763025 (D.Or.). Plaintiffs filed claim against the USFWS alleging arbitrary and capricious agency action under the APA and failure to perform a nondiscretionary act under the ESA.  The United States District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding  that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ APA and ESA claims. It remains without jurisdiction to mandate action by the agency if rulemaking has not been initiated by the FWS at its discretion, regardless of whether a determination resulting from a five year review suggests a listing status should be changed or should remain the same.

U.S. v. William, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4587250 (D.Virgin Islands). Defendants charged with unlawfully taking and possessing an endangered species in violation of the ESA filed motions to suppress all evidence, including undersized lobsters and a sea turtle seized in connection with their stop and arrest after they had been stopped on suspicion of being illegal immigrants. The District Court of the Virgin Islands suppressed the evidence, finding that although the approaching police officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was taking place at the time the stop was made, the subsequent confinement of Defendants and search of their vehicle exceeded the limited purpose of the investigative stop.

Mouton v. State, 2008 WL 4709232 (Tex.App.-Texarkana). Defendant was convicted of cruelty to an animal, and sentenced to one year in jail, based upon witness testimony and photographs depicting several dogs in varying states of distress. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas found that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for a directed verdict or for a new trial to the extent that both motions challenged evidentiary sufficiency, and that ineffective assistance of counsel had not been shown, because the Court could imagine strategic reasons on Defendant’s counsel’s part for not calling a particular witness to testify on Defendant’s behalf, and for allowing Defendant to testify in narrative form during the punishment phase. 

State v. Overholt, 193 P.3d 1100 (Wash. App. Div. 3,2008). Defendant was convicted of several counts of second degree unlawful hunting of big game after a game agent (“agent”) followed vehicle tracks to Defendant’s home upon finding fresh cow elk gut piles, and Defendant showed the agent two cow elk carcasses hanging in Defendant’s shed.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3 found that because the agent was in fresh pursuit of criminal activity and did not enter Defendant’s property with the intent to obtain consent to search in order to evade a search warrant, the agent was not obligated to issue Ferrier warnings, and that suppressing the seized carcasses from evidence would not have altered the outcome of the case in light of the substantial evidence obtained prior to seizing the carcasses.