Opinion ID: 1208387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-seizure hearing under Section 47-1-150

Text: Appellants first argue that the circuit court erred by essentially reversing the magistrate's ruling that a post-seizure hearing was required under section 47-1-150. We agree. Section 47-1-150 appears in the chapter entitled Cruelty to Animals and is entitled Issuance of search warrant; purpose of section; motions regarding custody of animal; notice; care, disposal of, or return of animal. It is, admittedly, a confusingly drafted statute, which provides in pertinent part: (A) When complaint is made on oath or affirmation to any magistrate authorized to issue warrants in criminal cases that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been or are being violated in any particular building or place, such magistrate, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a search warrant authorizing [law enforcement] to search such building or place. . . . If an animal is seized pursuant to this section and the South Carolina Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals, or other society incorporated for that purpose is involved with the seizure, the animal may be held pending criminal disposition of the case at a facility maintained or contracted by that agency. (B) The purpose of this section is to provide a means by which a neglected or mistreated animal can be: (1) removed from its present custody, or (2) made the subject of an order to provide care, issued to its owner by the magistrate or municipal judge, any law enforcement officer, or any agent of the county or of the South Carolina Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or any society incorporated for that purpose and given protection and an appropriate and humane disposition made. (C) Any law enforcement officer or any agent of any county or of the South Carolina Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or any society incorporated for that purpose may move before a magistrate for an order to: (1) lawfully take custody of any animal found neglected or cruelly treated by removing the animal from its present location if deemed by the court that removal is necessary to prevent further suffering or ill-treatment, or (2) order the owner of any animal found neglected or cruelly treated to provide certain care to the animal at the owner's expense without removal of the animal from its present location, and shall forthwith petition the magistrate or municipal judge of the county or municipality wherein the animal is found for a hearing, to be set within twenty-four hours after the date of seizure of the animal or issuance of the order to provide care and held not more than two days after the setting of such date, to determine whether the owner, if known, is able to provide adequately for the animal and is fit to have custody of the animal. The hearing shall be concluded, and the court order entered the date the hearing is commenced. No fee shall be charged for the filing of the petition. Nothing herein is intended to require court action for the taking into custody and making proper disposition of stray or abandoned animals as lawfully performed by animal control agents. § 47-1-150 (emphasis added). The above-emphasized language in section 47-1-150(C)(2) is the hearing requirement at issue. Respondent argues, and the circuit court found, that a post-seizure hearing is not required if the animals are seized pursuant to section 47-1-150(A) or (C)(1), because the language regarding the hearing is located in section 47-1-150(C)(2), and the sections 47-1-150(C)(1) and (C)(2) are separated by the word or. However, we agree with appellants, that a hearing was required. [6] The language in section 47-1-150(C)(2) very clearly contemplates that whether the animal is seized and removed (presumably under § 47-1-150(C)(1) and/or arguably under § 47-1-150(A) by search warrant); or the animal is seized but remains on-site for its care (under § 47-1-150(C)(2) which permits an order to provide care to the animal without removing it); a hearing is supposed to be held within three days of the seizure. [7] Accordingly, we hold the magistrate correctly found that a hearing should have been requested by SCARE under § 47-1-150, and therefore, the circuit court erred in finding no hearing was required.