• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been handed over to an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying such as the HSUS ?
• Does the state of Indiana or the Indiana Attorney General’s office have a formal arrangement with the HSUS allowing its people to act as law enforcement officers in the State of Indiana?  If so, why is an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying being permitted to act in law enforcement capacity?  If not, why was the HSUS involved in this proceeding with the tacit approval of Indiana Attorney General Zoeller, who has not disavowed the HSUS involvement? 
• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been been given away, preventing the state selling the seized property to offset the outstanding tax debt and prior to the laying of criminal charges or any legal conviction?
• Why was member of the Indiana House of Representatives Linda Lawson permitted to participate in the seizure of property on behalf of the HSUS in a law enforcement operation? Rep. Lawson can be seen in the images below in HSUS t-shirt participating in the raid.

Upon obtaining a copy of the search warrant indicating the terms of the property seizure, the questions of the terms of the sale or gifting of the dogs seized by the Indiana AG’s office to any organization becomes especially troubling.  According to the terms of the search warrant, issued to the “Officers of the Indiana State Police, the Indiana Attorney General and his Agents, and any Law Enforcement Officer of the State of Indiana”, the items that authorities were allowed to seize related to the jeopardy tax assessment included:

h)  Any and all cash, canines, or other inventory or business proceeds found.

The troubling part is the section directly after this portion of the warrant, which reads as follows word for word:  YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED to seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court. 

The warrant gave the authorities the authority to SEIZE the dogs but not to DISPERSE the dogs.  The court order set down immediately after the raid barred the Garwoods’ from giving permission to disperse the dogs.

So if the authorities had no legal authority to disperse the dogs and the Garwoods’ were legally barred from consenting to the dispersal of the dogs, why was Indiana Attorney issuing press releases (see here and here) related to the dispersal of the dogs to rescues around the state of Indiana (and beyond Indiana borders) for adoption?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved