Posted on 07/08/2010 8:15:29 AM PDT by SLB
A Radcliff woman and her seven children are gearing up for battle against Fort Knox for custody of a dog that wound up on the secure post in mid-June, where it was impounded by the post’s stray animal facility, then sold to a new owner 11 days later.
It was after dark June 15 when Kim Church and her family realized their 2-year-old Weimeraner, Riley, had vanished from their home on Kentucky Circle.
Left behind were Riley’s two blue metal tags, which Church said were found in the front yard. How the tags parted from Riley’s flamboyant pink collar remains a mystery, but Church said they couldn’t have been removed without human hands.
Church said she searched all over town for Riley and called city and county pounds listed in a local telephone directory to ask about her missing Weimeraner.
Desperate by July 1, Church posted an advertisement on Craigslist, an Internet personal advertisement site.
That night, she said a solid lead developed when a female caller positively identified the missing dog as the same one she’d seen five days earlier at the Fort Knox PX.
That’s where Fort Knox’s stray animal facility hosted a June 26 adoption fair.
Like many things on post, the stray animal facility is not open to the public. Strays found on post are reported to military police, who pick up the animals and take them to the facility.
Aside from postings on PetFinder.com, adoptions most often are conducted through fairs such as the June 26 event at the PX.
Church said she started calling the facility at 7:30 a.m. to plead with them for details about her dog’s whereabouts, so she could do whatever necessary for a reunion.
Church said she got mixed stories about her dog’s rescue, impoundment and adoption.
Eventually, post officials cited HIPAA — the same federal law which prevents hospitals from disclosing patient information – as reason behind their unwillingness to shed light on Riley’s whereabouts.
Post officials told The News-Enterprise the same thing: The dog was considered a patient of the pound, and that details about it and its adopted owners were not subject to open records laws.
Initially, spokeswoman Anne Torphy said the Weimeraner was found by military police roaming the base and was picked up and taken to the pound.
After further questioning, Torphy clarified that a soldier found the dog around the Wilson Gate, then turned it over to military police.
Church and her family are angry at what they say is the post’s lack of cooperation in reuniting Riley with their family.
The stray animal facility, which did not return calls from The News-Enterprise, will not release the identity or phone number of the adoptive owner, Church said.
At the end of her rope last week, Church filed a report with Radcliff police. She claims her dog was stolen and said whoever now has Riley is in possession of stolen property.
“She has a right to be upset,” RPD Capt. Ken Mattingly said. “We got a report on a stolen dog. It’s been found, but they won’t give it back.”
Torphy said the new owners don’t want to return the Weimeraner.
As of Wednesday morning, the post listed only three dogs available for adoption through PetFinder.com.
Church again is turning to the Internet for help in her fight to regain custody of her family’s dog.
She’s launched a Facebook page geared to rally support for her cause and posted an updated advertisement on Craigslist, explaining the details of Riley’s disappearance and subsequent adoption.
She also said she’s seeking help from the Hardin County Attorney’s Office regarding a criminal investigation into Riley’s disappearance, and seeking legal advice from the Army attorneys with the Judge Advocate General’s staff and private counsel.
“The vet told me I’d have to take this to the Pentagon,” Church said. “If that’s what it takes. ...”
The U.S. Attorney’s office in Louisville was unable to provide a clarification on Fort Knox officials’ claim that HIPAA prevents the pound from disclosing dog or adopter information. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway’s spokeswoman Allison Martin-Gardner referred questions to federal officials.
Mattingly said he’s interested in pursuing a criminal investigation, but said he doesn’t believe prosecutors share his interest.
“They say it’s a civil matter,” Mattingly said. “But I’m not on the same sheet of music. ...”
I would imagine this article was on the desk of the new Ft Knox CG this morning. Wonder what the outcome will be?
Surely not something as simple as giving the family back their dog.
It sounds like the dog was stolen. She had tags a collar etc. Sickening. They need to give her the dog. Awful.
Post officials told The News-Enterprise the same thing: The dog was considered a patient of the pound, and that details about it and its adopted owners were not subject to open records laws.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
It certainly sounds like, if they can prove they owned the dog, they should get the dog back. How can someone, no matter who, have the right to decide your property, when lost, can be given away to someone else?
I bet some LTC or full bird has the dog.
I wonder if the dog had ID implant, if so vets can be on the look out!
HIPPA rules????
For a stray dog?
Give me a freaking break Someone saw the dog, took it, released it on base, and either they adopted it or someone they knew did.
The owners need to sue the fullest bird on base until they get their dog back.
That has to be the most creative misuse of HIPPA.
Taking that foolishness a step further - did the dog have all the required immunization shots and security clearances to get on base?
Unless there's more than meets the eye, it seems like this dog should go back.
Weimeraners are beautiful dogs.
This whole thing would have been a lot simpler if the owners had insured the safety of their dog.
Stray dogs (and presumably somebody’s prior property) are given up for adoption all the time. Better than killing them.
This looks like a deliberate dognapping. Someone put in an order for a weimaraner and got one.
Dog stolen June 15th and sold June 26th.
That was so down & dirty - everyone should be investigated for grand larceny. Those dogs are expensive.
http://www.puppyfind.com/weimaraner.php
Dog doesn’t sound like a stray. In addition, Animal Rights crazies aside, dogs are property. This dog belonged to the owner, not the shelter.
Dispicable dog-nappings turds. If it was my dog, Ft. Knox and its personnel would know no peace until my dog was returned to me!!
Man, that’s some really crappy local community PR for Knox, if these folks don’t get their dog back. Hopefully someone steps up and does the right thing.
Thanks for the note.
Actually, I agree with you on all counts.
My use of the word “stray”, would be any dog not under the control of its master. Pedigree aside.
Animals are property, but people abandon property all the time. Nonethless; the base personnel should have recognized this dog as special.
Does the base have the legal authority to collect stray dogs on the base and adopt them out? Just like city or county animal control (the pound). Don’t know. If not, then they have some liability here.
The family that adopted the dog has done nothing wrong and if legally adopted should be able to keep the dog. However; if it were me, I would give the dog back.
Bottom line, original owners could have avoided this whole thing by controlling their pet. I have a German Shepherd- Chow mix and a Newfoundland. For ten years they have been great protectors (well, the G/S-Chow anyway, the Newfie doesn’t have a clue)and they have never gotten loose.
There is no such thing as "legal" adoption of stolen property. The stolen property must be returned to it's lawful owners. The fact that the base is obsfucating the issue is disheartening because it indicates that there is some dishonesty being covered up at the expense of the civilians they are sworn to protect.
It's not okay for the military to behave in such a way over a dog. If they can't be trusted with small things, how can we trust them with large ones?
If this is to be believed, the tags were found in the yard; the tags could not be removed without human intervention. It sounds to me like these folks had their dog under control. He was in their yard and somebody came into their yard, removed the tags, and stole him.
In most states, title to property is like water: It cannot rise above its source. If this dog was stolen, he remains the property of the original owner, irrespective of what happens later, absent some statute of limitations.
Why would anybody who is stealing a dog take the time leave the tags on the front lawn and take the collar? Makes no sense. More reasonable scenario is that the original owner did not put the tags on or took them off (maybe they jingled).
Why would somebody steal a nice dog then abandon it on a military base to be picked up? Unless it is an irate neighbor who is tired of the barking (made it up).
Once the base picked up the dog, how do they tell if it is stolen or abandoned? Looks abandoned to me, hard to tell.
I agree regarding stolen property, no act can perfect title on a stolen item. If it is decided that the dog was indeed stolen then the new owners would have to return it.
Regarding statute of limitations, it might be as short as 5 days on a dog. Don't know.
Regarding military base not being cooperative, I think they may know that they have some liability here and hoped the people would just go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.