NEWS &VIEWSSweeny & Dorsey Case, continued from page 9


T omas Jett, who had provided vet services to the farm and made the recommendation to Animal Control to remove the animals; Anne Arundel County police offi cer Christina Rich, who was part of the initial investigation on January 9, 2013; and Anne Arundel County Police Department Animal Control Offi cer Serena Beckner, who was involved in several of the site visits to the farm between January and May. As a rebuttal witness Wright


presented hunter/jumper trainer and farrier Wilson T. “Butch” Gardner. By the time each side had rested


its case and was ready for closing remarks, it was the end of the judicial day, so closing arguments were scheduled for 2 p.m. the following day, Wednesday, July 31. It had been a long day, with a lot of ground covered.


The Dorsey-Sweeney Relationship


A great deal of time was spent


exploring exactly when Leah Dorsey moved her horses to the farm, her relationship with Donald Sweeney, Jr., who operates


the stable, and her relationship with Sweeney’s aunt, the supposed owner of the farm. Dorsey testifi ed that she is engaged to Sweeney, but the county kept challenging the validity of the engagement claim based on media reports that she was an employee of the farm. To courtroom observers, it was unclear whether the county was attempting to undermine her credibility by pointing out the discrepancy or if somehow employee status was more pertinent than fi ancé status. According to court testimony,


approximately two weeks prior to the May 31 visit by Animal Control, Dorsey was banned from the property. It seemed that the county was trying to establish that, as a result, Dorsey was not a credible witness regarding the care and condition of the horses at the time of the May 31 visit. Dorsey argued that she monitored the activities of the farm from the adjacent park. It seemed that she might have been able to use the fact that she was not allowed on the property in her favor, as she could claim she was not the one who neglected the horses,


What does Maryland Law Require for Horses? Maryland State Law, Title 10, Subtitle 604,


Article 27, Section 59 requires that any person having the charge or custody of an animal must provide the following: “nutritious food in suffi cient quantity,” “necessary veterinary care,” “proper drink,” “air,” “space,” and “shelter” or “protection from the weather.” If appropriately authorized County Animal


Control offi cers determine that horses (or ponies or mules) are suff ering from neglect, they are authorized—following proper legal procedures—to impound (sometimes referred to as “seizing”) those animals. Once the proper county authorities have impounded animals,


the County State’s


Attorney may choose to press legal charges, which can range from misdemeanor to felony neglect. Individuals who have had their animals seized may choose to petition the court to have their animals returned. Once in a courtroom, the interpretation of


Maryland’s minimum legal standards of care often becomes the crux of court case, with each side pitting expert witness against expert witness testifying as to the actual meaning of Maryland law.


In the mid-1990s, in an eff ort to provide the


courts with a useful and authoritative industry interpretation of Maryland’s legal code as it


www.equiery.com | 800-244-9580


and therefore she should be able to have her horses back, but that obviously would have put her at odds with her signifi cant other.


Flipping Horses, Legitimate Sales Barn or Rescue Operation?


Some time was also spent on establishing the type of operation being run at Severn Stables. Witnesses against Sweeney and Dorsey accused them of fl ipping horses. Sweeney frankly admitted that he was in the business of buying and selling horses, as had been his father from whom he inherited the business about four years prior. T e business was established in the 1950s by his grandfather, and had been supplying pony rides to the Maryland Renaissance Festival for 34 years. Sweeney testifi ed that he only recently started accepting boarders. While Sweeney was frank


about buying and selling horses, Dorsey seemed to take a diff erent approach,


claiming instead to


be rescuing and adopting out horses. Evidence supported that the pair were buying low and then attempting to sell high, purchasing horses at established


applies to horses, various county animal control and humane offi cers approached the Maryland Horse Council to provide such a defi nition. After approximately six months of debate,


over 30 horse organizations signed off on the following interpretations of Maryland’s legal code. T is interpretation is regularly submitted as part of the State or County’s evidence. T is interpretation is often credited with the successful prosecution of neglect charges (or the successful defense against petitions to return horses to their original owners).


“nutritious food in suffi cient quantity” Nutritious food is defi ned as wholesome, palatable and free from contamination, such as feces, mold, mildew, insects, etc. Food shall be provided in suffi cient quantity and be of adequate and appropriate nutritive value. Diet shall be prepared with consideration for the age, breed/type, condition, size, work level and quantity of equine(s). Equines should score, by a veterinarian, no less than a body condition score 3 on the Henneke Condition Scoring Chart to be considered of adequate weight. Equines shall have access to adequate natural forage or be fed daily or as recommended by a veterinarian.


“killer” auctions for very little


money, ostensibly fattening them up and rehabilitating them and then reselling them. T e diff erence between a legitimate sales barn that rehabilitates an animal and a “fl ipper” who masks health or behavior problems to make a quick profi t is signifi cant and the county never established which Sweeney was, except to establish that a certain level of neglect persisted in the horses currently under Sweeney’s management. However, the issue of whether or


not Sweeney was a legitimate horse dealer or a “fl ipper” became muddied by Dorsey’s claims that she was “rescuing” horses and “adopting” them for a fee. It was unclear why Dorsey (and her attorney) thought it was somehow better to cloak the business in the aura of rescue, except that maybe it sounds more honorable than being a dealer. Nevertheless, the county seemed to spend a great deal of time discussing with Dorsey the concept of rescuing, when they could have easily dismantled her claim of being a rescue through


continued on page 94 All storage and feeding receptacles shall be


kept clean and free from contaminants, such as feces, mold, mildew, insects, etc. If more than one animal is fed at one time or in one place, it shall be the responsibility of the owner/custodian to ensure that each animal receives nutrition in suffi cient quantity.


“necessary veterinary care” An equine shall be aff orded immediate


veterinary care if known or suspected to have an injury, accidental or deliberate, or exhibiting such signs as shock, colic, founder, tremors, swelling, broken bones, open wounds, inability to eat or drink, blistering as a result of fi re, acid,


etc.,


irregular or abnormal breathing,


partial or total paralysis, abnormal discharge or bleeding, signs of disease, severe parasitic infestation or infection, loss of appetite, weight loss, abnormal skin condition or hair loss, temperature fl uctuation, persistent diarrhea, inability to bear weight on a limb or lameness, or other such sign. T e following is recognized as standard


veterinary care guidelines for equines: • Hoof care maintenance and trimming every six (6) to eight (8) weeks, or as directed by a veterinarian or a farrier. • Parasites kept under control through worming continued on page 94


SEPTEMBER 2013 | THE EQUIERY | 93


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112