I'm afraid of the responses I will get, especially from some of you (you know who you are), but this is a serious question.

Is it illegal for a woman to have intercourse with her dog in the privacy of her own home? She was the only one present...I don't know how the D.A. knows about the incident, but these are the facts.

It does not fit under animal cruelty or obscenity, or public lewdness (since it was in private).

I do not look forward to most of your repsonses.

Markus, you found the flaw in animal cruelty law. In the 2005 session, Rep. Keel personally killed an improvement to PC 42.09 that would have allowed better protection from animal abusers. But if the door was closed, there is normally no public lewdness offense. Perhaps the animal was "seriously overworked," then you might have a shot.

Ask me sometime about the "Chicken Man". We had trouble finding a crime to charge.

Isn't that behavior enough for a civil commitment?

How much more commitment could she show?

A dogged commitment

even if there were some sort of Brokeback Puppy statute, wouldn't Lawrence v. Texas call the constitutionality of it into question.

hey, she's not using the puppy to smuggle heroine is she?

I will be the only one to seriously respond to your serious inquiry. I will respond with a question (or two): How does the D.A. know about the case? Why did the D.A. tell you about it and not post it himself/herself under the soon to be legend topic of how to get a job at a D.A.'s office -- and the big question:

Who let the cat out of the bag?

I come not to praise Caesar . . .

HB834, HB590, and HB326, which would have made changes to the animal cruelty statute, were referred to the House Agriculture and Livestock committee. HB326 received a hearing, but was left pending. Terry Keel wasn't on that committee.

SB172, which I believe was the Senate companion to HB326, was heard in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee very late in the session and left pending.

My recollection is that there were bunches of rural interest types (read ranchers, farmers, meat industry) in the audience for those hearings, but I don't recall seeing Terry Keel there.

I don't even think those facts qualify for having the animal seized under H&SC Ch. 821 (in this case, for its own good).

p.s. - those animal cruelty statutes died of chronic overreaching by the proponents, as I warned them it would. They went for the whole kit and kaboodle and got nada due the reasons John R. pointed out.

The question is, Did the dog complain?

Perhaps the defendant is so devious that she never trained her dog to speak.

Well, it just begs the question, did she groom him?

Maybe skipped the Ol' Roy for a little Purina One?

At least this doesn't happen only in Texas:

"There oughta be a law" thread

Has anyone else handled cases like those mentioned in these two threads? If so, then maybe there really oughta be a law ... although I'm not sure how to go about finding a sponsor for such legislation ...

Oh, and don't bother posting Mike Fouts' story about the Panhandle case involving the rape kit exam of the horse -- I've already got that one on my list.

About 15 years ago Adult Protective Services called about and elderly gentleman treated a local hospital. It seeams several dogs had been having ....... deviant sexual intercourse ..... in the words of the penal code, with this man. Unfortunately, these dogs had developed such an affinity for .... human companionship .... they began attacking some children in the area. The SO went hunting. Please note this was in another county I was responsible for in my multicounty days.

...and the dog was overheard bragging to his buddies at the bar that they did it "people style"



I'm sorry. Really.

I once had a case against a man for some felony crime (don't remember which one), but he pled only because I had a good extraneous offense to offer at punishment: sex with his neighbor's canine.

As the man was in the military at the time, the military had conducted a very detailed investigation that they shared with me, including eye-flinching photographs and evidence from a complete rape kit done on the victimized pooch.

The defendant simply didn't want his love life exposed to the world. And, I am not making this up, the dog's name was Fluffy.

I guess the owner/suspect won't be surprised when her pooch really GREETS her when she comes home at the end of the day. Perhaps there is a leash law violation you could charge her with...

I just know that Stacey B. has a comment to make on this...

Good luck.

Those of you familiar with comedian Tim Bedore's ongoing commentary about the animal conspiracy against us humans will no doubt recognize this for what it is: espionage a-la Mata Hari. Accordingly, the charging decision is simple. Treason.