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. ...”
Any dog with a collar should be presumed lost. The base didn’t even attempt to find an owner. The dog should be returned immediately.
A thieff would leave the tags because they identify the dog, that’s obvious. They kept the collar to clip a leash to. Stolen dogs often run away, trying to get home and then end up lost and without ID, which may be how it ended up on the base. It’s also possible it was stolen by a soldier.
Statute of limitations on recovering stolen property is unlikely to be less than one year. A custom built show saddle stolen her in Oregon in the mid 60’s was recovered after being offered for sale on ebay 35 years later. There is no statute of limitations on some categories of property like art, historical or cultural artifacts.
The behavior of the military officials in this story is disgraceful and dishonorable. They are duty bound to provide the names of the adopting family so the property can be reclaimed by the legal owner, period.
They appear to be shielding or protecting somebody on the base and that is douibly dispicable and unacceptable.
No matter how the dog came to be in possession of the military family it is still property of the original owner. This now becomes an issue of honesty and character. I certainly wouldn’t want to drop my wallet on Fort Knox. Two phone numbers are available to express your thoughts with Fort Knox personnel. They are 502-613-3164 and 502-624-2749
Please take the time to call them and ask why stolen property should not be returned. What Fort Knox officials decide to do will surely say a lot about the state of today’s military.
Then the people that owned the dog moved (about 15 miles away). They took the dog with them. Two days later the dog was back. They came and picked it up, took it home and penned it up. As soon as it got a chance it got loose and came back. They gave up and let the dog stay where it wanted.
But since the post is now commanded by the ultimate in staff weenies, U.S. Army Accessions Command, I don't hold much hope for an honorable solution. But the Army did pull a similar stunt with a 1904 Maxim gun stolen from a New Jersey VFW. When it turned up years later in the museum at West Point, the Army refused to return it. Look up Wheaton v. Caldera. The ATF testified that the NFTR was never intended to reunite stolen property to the owner.
My take is that someone wanted this dog; stole it; dropped it off at the base, knowing that it would be picked up; and, then went to the base pound and “adopted” it. This would give the thief cover if the dog was ever identified.
This is based on the assertion that the owner told the truth about the tags. It is bolstered by the refusal to return the dog by the adopter. If the article misstated the facts, the all bets are off, but the original owner had little incentive to ditch the tags.
The base pound is a government run entity. The 5th Amendment provides that the government cannot deprive me of my life, liberty or property without due process of law. a super short statute of limitations would do just that.
OK, your scenario is as good as any. Maybe we will find out the full story later.
Regarding statute of limitations, I scouted the local Calif Animal Ordinances and all they will guarantee is that the animal will not be “dispositioned” for 72hrs from the time of pick-up.
I do not know if dispositioned means given away or killed.
It does not appear to address the situation of a person showing up to get their dog after 72 hrs. and the dog is gone. Pretty short statute of limitiation on holding one’s property.
Did you notice there is no longer an American flag flying over Brooks Field? I have been associated with Ft Knox for 40 years and this is the first time there has not been a flag there.
It’s gone downhill since they painted over the Armor insignia on the water tank! Brooks Field is no longer the parade field and Post Headquarters is no longer across the way. The names on Knox will have no meaning to those folks. They won’t know, or much care who Skidgel, Sadowski, Wickham, or Yano were or how those places came to bear those names.
I am not even sure that Quarters Six was good enough for the new CG.
On the way to work this morning I was wondering to myself when they will start changing the names of streets. Old Ironsides will be Stapler Ave. Hell on Wheels could be Paper Clip Way.
My father-in-law spent his entire 27 years as a tanker or tank destroyer. I am sure he is rolling in his grave right now at what is happening.
First aid training on paper cuts instead of sucking chest wounds. Fobbits and REMFS!!!!
Any news if the dog has been returned?
Dog returned after month-long adventure
Adopted owner yields to original family
By BOB WHITE
Since disappearing from her Radcliff home last month, 2-year-old Riley has been picked up, dropped off, impounded, injected, micro-chipped, adopted by a Fort Knox soldier, pictured on television and now returned to her original owners.
Riley’s reunion came Friday afternoon after pleading by her owners spurred Fort Knox leaders to arrange a meeting that led to the Weimeraner’s return. Fort Knox officials say the dog was returned with consent from its adopted owner.
The short-haired gray dog went missing in mid-June from James and Kim Church’s Kentucky Circle home.
Shortly thereafter, a soldier found the dog near the U.S. Army post and brought it to Fort Knox and handed it over to military police, who, in turn, gave it to the Fort Knox Stray Animal Facility.
The shelter asks people to deliver strays to MPs, rather than bringing animals directly to the shelter.
Riley arrived at the pound with no tags, so no one knew her name or home address.
The Churches, meanwhile, were calling every pound, veterinarian and shelter for which they could find a phone number. They had no knowledge of the stray facility on Fort Knox, which has not been considered a public facility in recent years.
A “lost dog” Internet ad helped the Churches discover a dog matching Riley’s description at Fort Knox. But the dog was adopted June 26 by a Knox soldier.
Fort Knox officials told the Churches and reporters last week that the adopted owner, a soldier, didn’t want to return the dog. The soldier legally adopted the pet and paid the shelter $85 for shots and microchip tags.
Fort Knox public affairs officials say the adopted owner decided to hand the dog over a day after learning of the Churches’ efforts to find and reclaim their pet.
James Church said post leadership was present, along with Riley and the adopted owner during the handoff.
“Honestly, I don’t know why they gave it back. I’m just glad they did,” James Church said. “I kinda’ felt sorry for that family, since they’d gone through the right channels to get the dog.”
Church said the biggest problem in regaining custody of Riley was misinformation.
“First they said the dog was picked up on Knox and we saw paperwork that said the dog was pickup up on Wilson Road,” Church said. “They told us she had no collar when she came in, but we know she had the collar coming in…”
Church said lack of information bout the Fort Knox Stray Animal Facility complicated the search. Church said he found no number listed for the pound on post. He said no other shelters he phoned provided him information about the facility.
“If you’re not affiliated with Fort Knox, you don’t have any way to know about the (stray facility there),” Church said.
Fort Knox Public Affairs Officer Connie Shaffery said the stray animal facility has revised its hold-time policy, extending the length of mandatory stay prior to adoption to five days, from three.
The five-day delay is the same amount of time Kentucky mandates a facility hold an animal prior to adoption.
Despite complications retrieving the dog, James Church said he was grateful for post leadership’s effort in bringing a happy ending to Riley’s story.
See post 32. I can just picture LTG Freakley handing over the leash with a very concerned look and making a “dogmatic” comment to all involved. Still have to figure out the HIPPA angle.
Mortuary services also come under the Medical Department although those patients rarely come back to bitch about anything, much less violations of their privacy.
I think a very creative JAG officer stretched the HIPPA definition of patient and health care provider to be as “lawyerly” accurate as possible so some Public Information Officer had a dodge to hide behind while someone else tried to figure out how bad it was all going to look and apply enough ‘command influence’ to keep the shit from splashing too high.
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.