There is still no decision in the civil Cost of Care case filed by Habersham County against Clarence and Teresa Bramblett.
The county is seeking restitution for the care of 29 dogs that were seized from the couple’s home back in April. They were among more than 400 animals taken from the property after authorities uncovered an alleged puppy mill while checking up on a barking complaint.
Attorneys for both parties filed briefs Monday with the Habersham County Clerk of Court.
County Attorney Donnie Hunt and attorney Ralph Taylor claim in their brief that the burden of proof for the reimbursement is valid due to two reasons. First, “the impoundment was authorized by the execution of search warrants obtained by the county.” And second, the attorneys claim the county proved “its cost incurred in the 30 days prior to the hearing and its anticipated costs for the succeeding 30 day period”.
On April 12, 2017, Habersham County Animal Care and Control Director Madi Hawkins obtained a search warrant for the Bramblett’s Clarkesville property after reporting hearing 50-100 animals that sounded “in distress.” After gaining entry with the first warrant, Hawkins testified to observing “hundreds of animals in rabbit cages outside of the residence,” which appeared to be in poor health and unsafe conditions. Due to the extent of perceived neglect, Hawkins obtained a second warrant which led to a full search of the house and property and the seizure of the animals.
The Brambletts forfeited their rights to all of the animals seized from their property except for 29 dogs they regarded as pets. Since the couple is charged with animal cruelty, the animals can not be returned until and unless the court orders it. The dogs have now been on court hold since April 15, 2017, and Habersham County is having to pick up the tab.
Attorneys Hunt and Taylor assert the county has clearly documented its costs.
On August 9, Hawkins testified during a State Court hearing before Judge Steve Campbell that the overall cost of caring for the dogs from April 15 through August 8 was $37,580.90. This includes a boarding fee of $10 a day for each dog, three months of heartworm and flea medication at a cost of $951.00, rabies vaccinations at $89.90, and an additional undisclosed cost of specialty food and air units. Hawkins states the cost of care from August 8 through an additional 30 days would run $47,582.90.
Defense attorneys Henry Simmons and Kerry Morris argue the Brambletts should not have to pay restitution because their dogs were taken illegally. They question the validity of the search warrants and say the county did not follow proper legal procedures.
While the county contends the search warrants do not pertain to the civil case, the defense disagrees. They claim that without a valid search warrant, none of the events following would have occurred. The defense states it “appears a return was filed on the second search warrant on the 23rd day of May, some 40 days after the search was conducted”. Due to the lapse in timeliness in filing, the defense questions the legality of the warrant.
Additionally, the Bramblett’s lawyers claim that prior to the August 9 hearing, Hawkins was wanting to “make a deal” with the defendants to get their 29 dogs back. In a conversation between Simmons, (Teresa) Bramblett, and Hawkins, Bramblett was advised if she would sign over the livestock and outside animals, she would get her “pets” back. Bramblett proceeded to sign over said animals; however, she was not granted the 29 dogs back. Court records state that Mr. Bramblett had “not in any form or fashion signed or executed any surrender documents for any of the animals seized.”
In their final claim, the defense states that their clients were not served with any of the required paperwork in the seizure, such as a detailed statutory notice of the seizure or opportunity to request a hearing as to the validity of the seizure, and they were never afforded the statutory opportunities of redress.
The defense contends that with all these issues, from the warrant to the filings, the seizure was unlawful, and, therefore, the county’s claim for restitution is unfounded.
No further evidence or briefs have been filed with the court.
Judge Campbell’s office says no final hearing date has been set. There is no indication at this time as to when he will render a ruling in the case.
The Brambletts are charged with 340 counts each of animal cruelty and one count each of holding or possessing a game animal without a permit. All of the charges are misdemeanors. Each count carries with it a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.
Both pled not guilty to the charges during their arraignments on June 14.
