Jett v. Municipal Court
JEAN JETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SAN DIEGO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest and Respondent
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Edward T. Butler (author), Don R. Work
Analysis
The trial court denied Jett's motion for the return of his tortoise and ordered the relinquishment of ownership to Mesa College as part of his criminal sentence. The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the writ of mandate, holding that the trial court lacked statutory authority to divest Jett of ownership absent a specific forfeiture provision applicable to non-fighting animals.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of Jett's motion for the return of the tortoise and order to relinquish ownership to Mesa College“We conclude the court had no power to divest Jett of his ownership of Rocky and to require him to convey title to the tortoise to Mesa College.” | de novo | error | agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that the Penal Code provides for liens on impounded animals (Pen. Code, § 597f) and forfeiture only for fighting animals (Pen. Code, § 599aa). Since Jett was not charged with fighting animals and a tortoise is not a fighting animal, the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by ordering the transfer of title. The court properly distinguished property rights in animals from parental custody rights, rejecting the analogy to *In re Angelia P.* |
Authorities
- relied: Buker v. Superior Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1085 — A nonstatutory motion for the return of property in a criminal case is a procedure separate from the criminal trial and is not reviewable on appeal from the judgment of conviction.
- relied: People v. Gershenhorn (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 122 — An order denying the return of property is not appealable; the proper remedy is a writ of mandate or a civil action to recover property.
- relied: Cleaver v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 297 — Warrantless seizure of property may be justified under exigent circumstances, though the court noted this was not contested on appeal.
- relied: Carrera v. Bertaini (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 721 — Due process requires a post-seizure hearing for animal impoundments, but the initial seizure for treatment was proper in the circumstances.
- relied: People v. Untiedt (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 550 — Divestment of title due to abandonment can only occur following procedures for establishing a lien; petitioning for return negates abandonment.
- relied: People v. Treadway (1975) 55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15 — Section 599aa provides for the forfeiture of birds or animals seized in connection with an arrest for violation of Penal Code sections prohibiting fighting birds or animals.
- relied: In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908 — Parental rights must yield when necessary to protect the child's best interest; the court distinguished this from property rights in animals.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the statutory scheme of the Penal Code, distinguishing between liens for impounded animals and forfeiture for fighting animals. It logically rejects the People's arguments by establishing that a tortoise is not a fighting animal and that property rights in animals are distinct from parental custody rights.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe municipal court, after Jett's misdemeanor cruelty conviction, denied his motion for return of his pet tortoise Rocky and ordered him to relinquish ownership to Mesa College, and the superior court denied his petition for writ of mandate to compel Rocky's return. The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of the writ, holding that no statute authorized a court to divest an owner of title to a non-fighting animal, and remanded Rocky to the Humane Society subject to Jett's right to redeem him by paying the Society's lien for costs incurred through the date of the municipal court's denial.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Whether Jett's pending criminal appeal (and later reversal of his conviction) barred his separate mandate action for return of the tortoise“As the order denying return of the tortoise is not appealable, Jett's remedy lies in mandamus or in the institution of a civil action to recover his property.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Buker and Gershenhorn support treating a nonstatutory motion for return of property as a proceeding collateral to the criminal case, reviewable by mandamus rather than on appeal from the judgment. The court's threshold conclusion is consistent with those authorities, although it dismissed the mootness problem created by the reversed conviction only in a footnote. |
Denial of Jett's Penal Code section 1538.5 motion and the legality of the initial warrantless seizure and impoundment of Rocky“In any event, the initial seizure and subsequent impoundment of Rocky for treatment of his various ailments was proper in the circumstances.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Jett did not contest the seizure on appeal, so the court did not need to reach it; its alternative statement that the seizure and impoundment were proper under section 597f and Carrera is supported by the facts recited (an animal in visible distress found in a public petting zoo). The court expressly declined to address the absence of a Carrera postseizure hearing, which was not raised. |
Municipal court order divesting Jett of ownership of Rocky and awarding the tortoise to Mesa College (and denial of his motion for return), and the superior court's denial of mandate“We conclude the court had no power to divest Jett of his ownership of Rocky and to require him to convey title to the tortoise to Mesa College.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court Sections 597a, 597e and 597f create only a lien for care costs on a cruelly treated animal and contemplate redemption by the owner; the only forfeiture provision, section 599aa, applies to birds or animals seized incident to arrests under the fighting statutes (597.5, 597b, 599a), under which Jett was neither arrested nor convicted. Forfeiture of property requires statutory authority, so the sentencing court exceeded its power; the court's reliance on Untiedt to find no abandonment because the lien was reserved is reasonable. |
People's contention that section 599aa (forfeiture of fighting animals) authorized the award of Rocky to Mesa College“Jett was not arrested under any of these bird- or animal-fighting Penal Code sections and he was not charged with nor convicted of a violation of any Penal Code provision relating to the fighting of birds or animals.” | de novo | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court The dispositive reasoning is correct: 599aa forfeiture is triggered only by seizure incident to an arrest and conviction under the fighting provisions, per Treadway, and Jett was charged only under 597(b) and 597f. The court's additional statement that 'animal' in these Penal Code sections means a mammal is unnecessary dicta and sits uneasily with Jett's own 597(b) conviction for cruelty to a reptile, but it does not affect the result. |
People's argument, by analogy to In re Angelia P., that Jett's ownership of Rocky should be terminated in the animal's best interest“Absent statutory authority, a court may not divest an owner of a property interest in a nonfighting animal or bird to effectuate that concern.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Angelia P. concerns termination of parental rights under a statutory dependency scheme; it provides no authority for a court to extinguish a property interest in an animal absent legislation. The court properly left any expansion of divestiture remedies to the Legislature. |
Authorities
- relied: Buker v. Superior Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1085 — A nonstatutory motion in the trial court for return of seized property is an appropriate procedure.
- relied: People v. Gershenhorn (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 122 — A motion for return of property is a proceeding separate from the criminal trial; the order denying it is not reviewable on appeal from the conviction, and the remedy is mandamus or a civil action.
- relied: Carrera v. Bertaini (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 721 — Seizure and impoundment of neglected animals under section 597f is permissible, but due process requires a postseizure hearing.
- relied: Cleaver v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 297 — Warrantless seizures may be justified by exigent circumstances (cited by the People; the court declined to reach the issue).
- relied: People v. Untiedt (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 550 — An owner's demand for return of property, coupled with reservation of a lien, is inconsistent with a finding of abandonment.
- relied: People v. Treadway (1975) 55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15 — Section 599aa forfeiture applies to birds or animals seized in connection with an arrest and conviction under Penal Code provisions prohibiting animal fighting.
- relied: In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908 — Parental rights must yield when necessary to protect a child's best interest; distinguished as inapplicable to ownership of an animal.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly canvassed the statutory scheme (sections 597 through 599aa) and showed that the only forfeiture authority is limited to fighting animals, so the sentencing court lacked power to divest title to a non-fighting tortoise, and it properly rejected the Angelia P. analogy. The opinion, however, dismisses in a footnote the mootness problem flagged by the concurrence (the underlying conviction and its sentence, including the relinquishment order, had already been reversed), and its dicta that 'animal' in these Penal Code sections means only mammals is unnecessary and hard to square with Jett's own section 597(b) conviction for cruelty to a reptile.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
JEAN JETT, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SAN DIEGO JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.
*666 COUNSEL
Boyce & Frausto and Robert E. Boyce for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
John W. Witt, City Attorney, and Steven R. Gustavson, Deputy City Attorney, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
OPINION
BUTLER, J.
Jean Jett owned Rocky, aka J.P., a 50-year-old aldabra tortoise,[1] and his companion for 18 years. The San Diego Humane Society (Society), in response to complaints of cruelty, found Rocky in a petting zoo operated by Jett at a shopping center. Rocky was suffering from infected eyes, a crack on the edge of its shell, diarrhea, dehydration, labored breathing and toenails worn down to the quick. The Society removed Rocky from Jett's custody and treated the tortoise for these various ailments, all indicative of lack of care and attention.
Jett was charged with and convicted by a jury of misdemeanor violation of Penal Code[2] section 597, subdivision (b) (count one, subjecting animal *667 to needless suffering) and section 597f (count two, permitting an animal to be on a street or lot without proper care or attention). He was acquitted on count three which charged a violation of San Diego County Code section 62.673, prohibiting the treatment of an animal in a cruel or inhumane manner or permitting such animal to suffer unnecessary pain.
At sentencing on March 2, 1984, Jett refused probation and the court sentenced him "to pay a fine of $500.00 including penalty assessments by March 30, 1984 and to relinquish ownership of tortoise to Mesa College." The court at the sentencing hearing denied Jett's motion for return to him of Rocky. March 7, 1984, Jett appealed his conviction to the appellate department of the superior court.[3]
Meanwhile, on March 14, 1984, the court signed an order remanding Rocky to Mesa College Animal Health Technicians Program subject to the statutory lien of the Society for reimbursement of its costs (§ 597f). Rocky continues to reside at Mesa College.
March 19, 1984, Jett filed in the superior court his petition for a writ of mandate to compel the municipal court to vacate its order denying his motion for Rocky's return and to enter an order granting his motion. The petition was denied on June 26, 1985, and he appeals.
I
(1) Jett's appeal from his conviction and the judgment of the court sentencing him to a fine, ordering relinquishment of ownership and placing the tortoise in the custody of Mesa College does not bar him from maintaining an action for the return to him of the tortoise. His nonstatutory motion for Rocky's return in the municipal court was appropriate (Buker v. Superior Court (1972) 25 Cal. App.3d 1085, 1091 [102 Cal. Rptr. 494]) and constituted a procedure separate from his criminal trial and is not reviewable on his appeal from the judgment of conviction. (People v. Gershenhorn (1964) 225 Cal. App.2d 122, 125 [37 Cal. Rptr. 176].) As the order denying return of the tortoise is not appealable, Jett's remedy lies in mandamus or in the institution of a civil action to recover his property. (People v. Gershenhorn, supra, at p. 126.) Jett's appeal to the appellate department of the superior court from his criminal conviction and reversal of that conviction does not bar our consideration of his appeal from the denial of the writ of mandate seeking Rocky's return to him. We turn to the merits.
*668 II
Jett's pretrial section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence of maltreatment of the tortoise and for return of the tortoise to him was denied. He does not contest on appeal the initial seizure and impoundment of Rocky by the Society. Accordingly, we do not discuss the contention of the People the warrantless seizure of the tortoise and its retention by the Society was proper under the exigent circumstances described in Cleaver v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 297, 302 [155 Cal. Rptr. 559, 594 P.2d 984], and we are not concerned with the failure of the court to hold the postseizure hearing to comply with due process requirements for animal impoundments mandated by Carrera v. Bertaini (1976) 63 Cal. App.3d 721, 728-729 [134 Cal. Rptr. 14]. In any event, the initial seizure and subsequent impoundment of Rocky for treatment of his various ailments was proper in the circumstances. (Carrera v. Bertaini, supra, at p. 728; § 597f.)
III
(2) We conclude the court had no power to divest Jett of his ownership of Rocky and to require him to convey title to the tortoise to Mesa College. The state's concern for the protection of animals from cruelty is expressed in sections 597 through 597z. The disposition of animals cruelly treated falls into two categories. Cruelly treated animals, seized and impounded, are subject to a lien for reimbursement of costs incurred during impoundment. Fighting animals taken from their owners are subject to forfeiture upon court order. We briefly review these provisions.
A.
A person who carries a domestic animal in a vehicle in a cruel manner or permits it to be tortured commits a misdemeanor and upon such person being taken into custody, the officer must take charge of the vehicle and its contents together with the horse or team attached to it. Any expense incurred in their keeping is a lien recoverable from the owner (§ 597a). A person who fails to supply an impounded domestic animal with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water is guilty of a misdemeanor and if such failure continues for more than twelve consecutive hours, any person may enter the pound and supply the animal and the owner is liable for the costs (§ 597e).
Section 597f, with which Jett was charged in count two, provides any owner who permits an animal to be in a place without proper care or attention is guilty of a misdemeanor, and goes on to permit a humane society to take possession of the animal "so abandoned or neglected" and care for it *669 "until ... redeemed by the owner...." The cost of the care is a lien on the animal. While an abandonment in some circumstances might permit a divestment of title, such divestment could occur only following the procedures for establishing the lien and its amount. Here, Jett petitioned for return of Rocky and the court in denying the motion expressly reserved the Society's lien, thus negating any abandonment by Jett. (People v. Untiedt (1974) 42 Cal. App.3d 550, 555 [116 Cal. Rptr. 899].)
The liens provided for in these sections 597a and 597f are satisfied in the manner and under the procedures set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 1208.5. We turn to forfeiture of fighting animals.
B.
Section 599aa provides any officer making an arrest under section 597.5 (fighting dogs) shall, and as to an arrest under section 597b (fighting animals except dogs) or 599a[4]may, take possession of all birds or animals and paraphernalia and other property used or employed in the violation of any Penal Code provision relating to the fighting of birds or animals. The officer must then file a complaint and deliver the creatures to a magistrate who is required to place them in custody of a proper person. Upon conviction of the person charged, "all property so seized shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court may order." (§ 599aa.)
Section 599aa provides for the forfeiture of birds or animals seized in connection with an arrest for violation of and the conviction under any Penal Code section prohibiting specific activities involving fighting birds or animals. (People v. Treadway (1975) 55 Cal. App.3d Supp. 15 [127 Cal. Rptr. 306].)
Jett was not arrested under any of these bird- or animal-fighting Penal Code sections and he was not charged with nor convicted of a violation of any Penal Code provision relating to the fighting of birds or animals.
IV
(3) The People, nevertheless, seriously contend the forfeiture of fighting animals provided for in section 599aa authorized the court to award Rocky *670 to Mesa College. The argument fails. Rocky is not a fighting animal. He is a reptile of the order Testudinata and of the genus Testudo, characterized as long-lived, slow-moving and herbivorous. (Webster's Third New Internat. Dict. (1981).)
It is true for some purposes a tortoise is deemed an animal. Thus, a motion picture exhibiting the intentional killing of, or cruelty to, an animal, may be enjoined as a nuisance. (Civ. Code, § 3505.) For these purposes, the word "animal" means any amphibian, bird, mammal or reptile, but not a fish[5] or insect. (Civ. Code, § 3504.) "Animal" in its broadest sense includes any organism of the animal kingdom, one of the three divisions into which natural objects are divided, the others being mineral and plant. We conclude the word "animal" as used in these Penal Code sections means a mammal as distinguished from a bird, reptile or other nonmammal. (See Webster's Third New Internat. Dict., op. cit. supra.)
This slow-moving, grass-grazing giant tortoise is not a fighting animal. To say Rocky belongs in the ring is worthy of Mr. Bumble's observation in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist: "If the law supposes that, ... the law is a ass, a idiot." (Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, Rev. (15th ed. 1980) p. 547.)
V
(4) Finally, the People argue Rocky should be equated with a child and under the persuasion of In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 916 [171 Cal. Rptr. 637, 623 P.2d 198], Jett's rights to Rocky should be terminated as parental rights must yield when necessary to protect the child's best interest. While a child preparing for homework or cleaning a bedroom may exhibit turtle-like qualities or creep toward school in turtle pace, we decline to equate title to a tortoise to the relationship between a parent and a child. Jett owns Rocky. Parents have custody of children. The statutory scheme in sections 597 through 597z reflects the state's concern for the protection of the health and well-being of animals. Absent statutory authority, a court *671 may not divest an owner of a property interest in a nonfighting animal or bird to effectuate that concern. If ownership of animals is to be divested by reason of cruel treatment, the remedy lies with the Legislature, not with us.
We conclude Jett is Rocky's owner and the court had no authority to divest him of ownership and to award Rocky to Mesa College. The order denying the writ is reversed and Rocky is remanded to the custody of the Society subject to Jett's right to redeem him upon payment of the costs necessary to discharge the lien, such costs, however, to be limited to those incurred by the Society from the date of Rocky's seizure to the date the municipal court denied Jett's motion for Rocky's return.
Lewis, J., concurred.
WORK, Acting P.J.
I concur. However, the issue is arguably moot; we have lately become aware that Jett's underlying conviction has been reversed. Hopefully our decision will forestall the same problem should we be faced with Rocky II.
NOTES
[1] A giant tortoise found on the Aldabra Islands in the Republic of Seychelles, an archipelago in the Indian Ocean. These tortoises have been protected since 1965 in a natural reserve. (Encyclopaedia Brittanica (15th ed. 1981) Micropaedia, vol. 1, p. 212.)
[2] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
As will later appear, subdivision (b) of section 597, cruelty to animals, is to be distinguished from section 597b, fighting animals or birds.
[3] We take judicial notice of Jett's superior court file (Evid. Code, § 452). On December 20, 1985, the appellate department heard Jett's appeal of his conviction and reversed (CR 72391). We consider the criminal appeal and the reversal not relevant to these proceedings.
[4] Section 599a provides a magistrate must issue a warrant to search a place and to arrest any person who is charged in a complaint under oath that any provision of law "relating to, or in any way affecting, dumb animals or birds" has been violated. While any place may be searched and any person arrested in connection with violation of any law relating to dumb animals or birds, only fighting birds or animals and their paraphernalia seized pursuant to a section 599a arrest are subjected to forfeiture under section 599aa.
[5] Shakespeare, however, considered a tortoise a kind of fish: "I do remember an apothecary, "And hereabouts he dwells, which late I noted "In tatter'd weeds, with overwhelming brows, "Culling of simples; meagre were his looks, "Sharp misery had worn him to the bones: "And in his needy shop a tortoise hung, "An alligator stuff'd, and other skins "Of ill-shaped fishes...."
(Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, act IV, scene v.)
Opinion — Butler
Opinion
BUTLER, J.Jean Jett owned Rocky, aka J.P., a 50-year-old aldabra tortoise,1 and his companion for 18 years. The San Diego Humane Society (Society), in response to complaints of cruelty, found Rocky in a petting zoo operated by Jett at a shopping center. Rocky was suffering from infected eyes, a crack on the edge of its shell, diarrhea, dehydration, labored breathing and toenails worn down to the quick. The Society removed Rocky from Jett’s custody and treated the tortoise for these various ailments, all indicative of lack of care and attention.
Jett was charged with and convicted by a jury of misdemeanor violation of Penal Code2 section 597, subdivision (b) (count one, subjecting animal *667to needless suffering) and section 597f (count two, permitting an animal to be on a street or lot without proper care or attention). He was acquitted on count three which charged a violation of San Diego County Code section 62.673, prohibiting the treatment of an animal in a cruel or inhumane manner or permitting such animal to suffer unnecessary pain.
At sentencing on March 2, 1984, Jett refused probation and the court sentenced him “to pay a fine of $500.00 including penalty assessments by March 30, 1984 and to relinquish ownership of tortoise to Mesa College.” The court at the sentencing hearing denied Jett’s motion for return to him of Rocky. March 7, 1984, Jett appealed his conviction to the appellate department of the superior court.3
Meanwhile, on March 14, 1984, the court signed an order remanding Rocky to Mesa College Animal Health Technicians Program subject to the statutory lien of the Society for reimbursement of its costs (§ 597f). Rocky continues to reside at Mesa College.
March 19, 1984, Jett filed in the superior court his petition for a writ of mandate to compel the municipal court to vacate its order denying his motion for Rocky’s return and to enter an order granting his motion. The petition was denied on June 26, 1985, and he appeals.
I
Jett’s appeal from his conviction and the judgment of the court sentencing him to a fine, ordering relinquishment of ownership and placing the tortoise in the custody of Mesa College does not bar him from maintaining an action for the return to him of the tortoise. His nonstatutory motion for Rocky’s return in the municipal court was appropriate (Buker v. Superior Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1085, 1091 [102 Cal.Rptr. 494]) and constituted a procedure separate from his criminal trial and is not reviewable on his appeal from the judgment of conviction. (People v. Gershenhorn (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 122, 125 [37 Cal.Rptr. 176].) As the order denying return of the tortoise is not appealable, Jett’s remedy lies in mandamus or in the institution of a civil action to recover his property. (People v. Gershenhorn, supra, at p. 126.) Jett’s appeal to the appellate department of the superior court from his criminal conviction and reversal of that conviction does not bar our consideration of his appeal from the denial of the writ of mandate seeking Rocky’s return to him. We turn to the merits.
*668II
Jett’s pretrial section 1538.5 motion to suppress evidence of maltreatment of the tortoise and for return of the tortoise to him was denied. He does not contest on appeal the initial seizure and impoundment of Rocky by the Society. Accordingly, we do not discuss the contention of the People the warrantless seizure of the tortoise and its retention by the Society was proper under the exigent circumstances described in Cleaver v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 297, 302 [155 Cal.Rptr. 559, 594 P.2d 984], and we are not concerned with the failure of the court to hold the postseizure hearing to comply with due process requirements for animal impoundments mandated by Carrera v. Bertaini (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 721, 728-729 [134 Cal.Rptr. 14]. In any event, the initial seizure and subsequent impoundment of Rocky for treatment of his various ailments was proper in the circumstances. (Carrera v. Bertaini, supra, at p. 728; § 597f.)
III
We conclude the court had no power to divest Jett of his ownership of Rocky and to require him to convey title to the tortoise to Mesa College. The state’s concern for the protection of animals from cruelty is expressed in sections 597 through 597z. The disposition of animals cruelly treated falls into two categories. Cruelly treated animals, seized and impounded, are subject to a lien for reimbursement of costs incurred during impoundment. Fighting animals taken from their owners are subject to forfeiture upon court order. We briefly review these provisions.
A.
A person who carries a domestic animal in a vehicle in a cruel manner or permits it to be tortured commits a misdemeanor and upon such person being taken into custody, the officer must take charge of the vehicle and its contents together with the horse or team attached to it. Any expense incurred in their keeping is a lien recoverable from the owner (§ 597a). A person who fails to supply an impounded domestic animal with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water is guilty of a misdemeanor and if such failure continues for more than twelve consecutive hours, any person may enter the pound and supply the animal and the owner is liable for the costs (§ 597e).
Section 597f, with which Jett was charged in count two, provides any owner who permits an animal to be in a place without proper care or attention is guilty of a misdemeanor, and goes on to permit a humane society to take possession of the animal “so abandoned or neglected” and care for it *669“until . . . redeemed by the owner . . . .” The cost of the care is a lien on the animal. While an abandonment in some circumstances might permit a divestment of title, such divestment could occur only following the procedures for establishing the lien and its amount. Here, Jett petitioned for return of Rocky and the court in denying the motion expressly reserved the Society’s lien, thus negating any abandonment by Jett. (People v. Untiedt (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 550, 555 [116 Cal.Rptr. 899].)
The liens provided for in these sections 597a and 597f are satisfied in the manner and under the procedures set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 1208.5. We turn to forfeiture of fighting animals.
B.
Section 599aa provides any officer making an arrest under section 597.5 (fighting dogs) shall, and as to an arrest under section 597b (fighting animals except dogs) or 599a4 may, take possession of all birds or animals and paraphernalia and other property used or employed in the violation of any Penal Code provision relating to the fighting of birds or animals. The officer must then file a complaint and deliver the creatures to a magistrate who is required to place them in custody of a proper person. Upon conviction of the person charged, “all property so seized shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court may order.” (§ 599aa.)
Section 599aa provides for the forfeiture of birds or animals seized in connection with an arrest for violation of and the conviction under any Penal Code section prohibiting specific activities involving fighting birds or animals. (People v. Treadway (1975) 55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15 [127 Cal.Rptr. 306].)
Jett was not arrested under any of these bird- or animal-fighting Penal Code sections and he was not charged with nor convicted of a violation of any Penal Code provision relating to the fighting of birds or animals.
IV
The People, nevertheless, seriously contend the forfeiture of fighting animals provided for in section 599aa authorized the court to award Rocky *670to Mesa College. The argument fails. Rocky is not a fighting animal. He is a reptile of the order Testudinata and of the genus Testudo, characterized as long-lived, slow-moving and herbivorous. (Webster’s Third New Internal. Dict. (1981).)
It is true for some purposes a tortoise is deemed an animal. Thus, a motion picture exhibiting the intentional killing of, or cruelty to, an animal, may be enjoined as a nuisance. (Civ. Code, § 3505.) For these purposes, the word “animal” means any amphibian, bird, mammal or reptile, but not a fish5 or insect. (Civ. Code, § 3504.) “Animal” in its broadest sense includes any organism of the animal kingdom, one of the three divisions into which natural objects are divided, the others being mineral and plant. We conclude the word “animal” as used in these Penal Code sections means a mammal as distinguished from a bird, reptile or other nonmammal. (See Webster’s Third New Internat. Dict., op. cit. supra.)
This slow-moving, grass-grazing giant tortoise is not a fighting animal. To say Rocky belongs in the ring is worthy of Mr. Bumble’s observation in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist: “If the law supposes that, ... the law is a ass, a idiot.” (Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, Rev. (15th ed. 1980) p. 547.)
V
Finally, the People argue Rocky should be equated with a child and under the persuasion of In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 916 [171 Cal.Rptr. 637, 623 P.2d 198], Jett’s rights to Rocky should be terminated as parental rights must yield when necessary to protect the child’s best interest. While a child preparing for homework or cleaning a bedroom may exhibit turtle-like qualities or creep toward school in turtle pace, we decline to equate title to a tortoise to the relationship between a parent and a child. Jett owns Rocky. Parents have custody of children. The statutory scheme in sections 597 through 597z reflects the state’s concern for the protection of the health and well-being of animals. Absent statutory authority, a court *671may not divest an owner of a property interest in a nonfighting animal or bird to effectuate that concern. If ownership of animals is to be divested by reason of cruel treatment, the remedy lies with the Legislature, not with us.
We conclude Jett is Rocky’s owner and the court had no authority to divest him of ownership and to award Rocky to Mesa College. The order denying the writ is reversed and Rocky is remanded to the custody of the Society subject to Jett’s right to redeem him upon payment of the costs necessary to discharge the lien, such costs, however, to be limited to those incurred by the Society from the date of Rocky’s seizure to the date the municipal court denied Jett’s motion for Rocky’s return.
Lewis, J., concurred.
A giant tortoise found on the Aldabra Islands in the Republic of Seychelles, an archipelago in the Indian Ocean. These tortoises have been protected since 1965 in a natural reserve. (Encyclopaedia Brittanica (15th ed. 1981) Micropaedia, vol. 1, p. 212.)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
As will later appear, subdivision (b) of section 597, cruelty to animals, is to be distinguished from section 597b, fighting animals or birds.
We take judicial notice of Jett’s superior court file (Evid. Code, § 452). On December 20, 1985, the appellate department heard Jett’s appeal of his conviction and reversed (CR 72391). We consider the criminal appeal and the reversal not relevant to these proceedings.
Section 599a provides a magistrate must issue a warrant to search a place and to arrest any person who is charged in a complaint under oath that any provision of law “relating to, or in any way affecting, dumb animals or birds” has been violated. While any place may be searched and any person arrested in connection with violation of any law relating to dumb animals or birds, only fighting birds or animals and their paraphernalia seized pursuant to a section 599a arrest are subjected to forfeiture under section 599aa.
Shakespeare, however, considered a tortoise a kind of fish:
“I do remember an apothecary,—
“And hereabouts he dwells,—which late I noted “In tatter’d weeds, with overwhelming brows,
“Culling of simples; meagre were his looks,
“Sharp misery had worn him to the bones:
“And in his needy shop a tortoise hung,
“An alligator stuff’d, and other skins “Of ill-shaped fishes . . . .”
(Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, act IV, scene v.)
Concurrence — Work
I concur. However, the issue is arguably moot; we have lately become aware that Jett’s underlying conviction has been reversed. Hopefully our decision will forestall the same problem should we be faced with Rocky II.
Cites, in this corpus
- Jett v. Municipal Court D001955 · 1986-02-14
- Department of Social Services v. Ronald P. S.F. 24184 · 1981-02-11
- Cleaver v. Superior Court Docket Nos. S.F. 23758, 23759 · 1979-05-23
- Carrera v. Bertaini Civ. 2713 · 1976-11-12
- People v. Untiedt Crim. 13114 · 1974-10-18
- Buker v. Superior Court Civ. 11288 · 1972-06-07
- People v. Gershenhorn Crim. 9605 · 1964-02-24
Cited by
- People v. Baniqued C031869 · 2000-11-29
- People v. a BLUE CHEVROLET ASTRO C030585 · 2000-08-28
- Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation B015913 · 1986-07-15
- Jett v. Municipal Court D001955 · 1986-02-14