| schema:text
| - On Dec. 10, 2024, a screenshot (archived) from a lawsuit titled "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. APPROXIMATELY TWO TERRIER MIX TYPE DOGS, Defendants" was posted on X.
(X user @ArmandDoma)
The post had amassed more than 1.2 million views as of this writing. The claim had also previously circulated on the social media platform BlueSky (archived).
A genuine court filing revealed that the screenshot referred to a real case at a district court in Southern Indiana that was first filed (archived) on Dec. 6, 2024. Therefore, we have rated this claim — that the U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against two dogs — as true.
The dogs seized by the state. (CourtListener.com)
The complaint states that the animals were seized "on or about" Jun. 28, 2024, because the Justice Department believed they "were involved in a violation of the animal fighting venture prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2156" (link added for reference).
The animals were being held in the care of the United States Marshals Service at the time the lawsuit was filed.
The type of suit filed by the Justice Department is called a Complaint of Forfeiture in Rem. This is also known as Civil Judicial Forfeiture, according to the FBI, and is a way for the government to seize assets for reasons that include, "to deter illegal activity" and "to remove the tools of the trade from criminals."
Civil Judicial Forfeiture: Civil judicial forfeiture is a judicial process that does not require a criminal conviction and is a legal tool that allows law enforcement to seize property that is involved in a crime. Referred to as an in rem (against the property) action, it is an action filed against the property itself, rather than a person. In civil judicial forfeiture, an individual has the right to contest the seizure through trial proceedings. The government then must prove that the property facilitated criminal activity or represents criminal proceeds.
Given that the "property" the state wished to seize was the dogs, in this case, the suit named the dogs themselves as the defendants.
The evidence provided by the state included photos of the dogs (above) as well as photos of the equipment the state argued was used for dog fighting training.
On Dec. 9, the court issued a warrant allowing for ownership of the animals to be transferred to the state and for the dogs to be kept in its custody.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)