Convicted Animal Abuser Challenges Sex Offender Registration
A 36-year-old man formerly of Williston, Vermont, who was convicted of animal cruelty after filming himself performing sexual acts on a 10-year-old pit bull terrier, is fighting to keep his name off New York's sex offender registry. His legal team argues that the state's sex offender laws apply only to crimes against human beings, not animals.
The man was convicted last year on two misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty following an investigation by local police and wildlife authorities. Investigators were alerted after receiving tips about bestiality websites showing the man having sex with a large pit bull. Court documents noted that distinctive tattoos on the man matched those seen in the footage, which showed evidence of open-mouth kissing the dog while committing a sex act.
Evidence Seized During Home Search
A search of his home by police and a licensed veterinarian led to the seizure of multiple sex toys, as well as the pit bull, a cat, and a rat. Authorities noted at the time that the dog was in poor health and faced the prospect of being euthanized.
However, after New York's Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders determined in April that he must register under the state's Sex Offender Registration Act, his defense attorney filed a challenge in the New York State Supreme Court to overturn the ruling.
Legal Argument: Animal Not a Person
His lawyer, Joshua Friedman, argues that state officials relied on an incorrect statute equivalent to his Vermont conviction. The board cited a New York law that covers when someone engages in anal sexual contact with another person without such person's consent. In court filings, Friedman wrote: 'Conversely, the Vermont crime for which petitioner was convicted can only be committed based upon sexual conduct with an animal.' He added: 'Thus, it is factually and legally impossible to commit the crime the board cited based on the conduct underlying petitioner's conviction, as the crime of conviction does not fall within the scope of the section cited by officials.'
While New York law contains a separate clause banning sexual conduct with an animal or dead human body, the defense maintains the board cannot simply alter its reasoning after the fact. Friedman said that 'the Court of Appeals and other New York courts have consistently held, judicial review of an administrative determination is strictly limited to the grounds actually invoked by the agency.'
Definition of Sexual Conduct
Furthermore, the legal challenge argues that state legislation defines 'sexual conduct' as applying exclusively to interactions between human beings. 'An animal is unambiguously not a person,' Friedman said in the petition. 'Applying the plain text of Penal Law, it is legally impossible to engage in sexual conduct - an act the Legislature restricted solely to persons - with a non-human animal.'
The lawsuit, brought against the state Division of Criminal Justice Services and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, seeks a court order to annul the registration requirement.
