Judge Denies Owner's Request to Return Dogs Found in Feces-Filled NH Mansion
OSSIPEE — A judge has denied several motions filed regarding the 75 Great Danes seized from a woman's Wolfeboro mansion in June.
Judge Charles Greenhalgh ruled on the motions Friday, but the court order wasn't released to the public until Tuesday.
Defendant Tina Fay filed a motion to amend the confiscation order, instead asking the court to allow about half the dogs re-homed and the other half returned to her. Fay claims the Humane Society of the United States is using the dogs as a fundraising campaign.
She says the dogs have been subjected to unnecessary surgeries for common, non-life-threatening illnesses like cherry eye and papilloma virus. She herself has not been able to see the dogs but, in an agreement with the state, was able to have a friend as a well as a veterinarian from Virginia, Dr. Samantha Moffitt, visit the Great Danes in their undisclosed location.
Moffitt told the judge after her visit, some of the dogs seemed depressed. She also felt some of the enclosures were too small. She said one of the dogs was lying on its bed and had feces under its tail and another had a white substance in his bowl that appeared to be uneaten medicine.
Moffitt expressed concern that wet and dry commercial dog food was stocked on the shelves, and the dogs, who according to court records had previously been fed chicken, have not had their diet slowly transitioned to commercial food. One whistleblower said maggots poured from a box of chicken Fay fed to the dogs when she was at the house.
Moffitt said she did not see an issue with cherry eye or papilloma virus. She said some of the dogs suffered from happy tail, but said, its only a serious problem if the "wound becomes infected and causes exposed bone or nerve damage."
The judge responded by saying the description of the conditions of Fay's home couldn't be more different. Fay described it as a sanitary, orderly environment in which they were receiving proper medical care, while photos and caretakers descriptions describe a feces-filled "deplorable" home. The judge said the risk to the dogs is too great to return them to Fay's care and denied the motion.
The second motion claimed the state failed to identify specific dogs in the complaints, but the judge disagreed saying the defendant has specific facts regarding the complaints against her and she has sufficient detail to prepare for trial.
In the third motion, the judge partially denied Fay's request to return all property, including the dogs. The judge did agree to return Fay's property, excluding the dogs, and any property that will be used in the trial.
The fourth motion asked the judge to supress the search warrant. The judge denied this request saying the state must provide an affidavit that contains sufficient information, not complete information, to establish probable cause.
Fay also filed a motion for discovery. The judge granted this motion, allowing Fay and her attorneys to have access to the prosecutions' documents for viewing and copying.