Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents call for review after St. Clair County animal-control seizure of Tucker family animals
Summary
Multiple residents and family members urged the Board of Commissioners to investigate an animal-control seizure from a Kimball Township property, saying seizures were made without proper notice and arguing for review of protocols; the board agreed to examine options and an advisory process.
Several residents, family members and longtime acquaintances of Ray and Kelly Tucker told the St. Clair County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 21 that County animal-control officers seized animals from the Tuckers’ Kimball Township property and that the family believes the seizure followed flawed processes.
Marsha Collins, who said she has known the Tuckers since the 1980s, asked the commissioners to “research if the search and seizure of the Tucker's animals was executed by following proper protocol and if this egregious act was carried out in accordance with state and county laws.” Collins told the board the incident involved a small number of dead animals and asked the commission to examine whether a warrant and proper procedure were used.
Raymond Tucker addressed the board and said, “They raided our property. They robbed us of our pets and animals and income. They made a travesty of what is supposed to be something for us.” Tucker said he intends to fight the charges in court and rejected offers to enter guilty pleas. Other commenters, including Dave Sherrard and Gary Loker (who identified himself as a frequent visitor to the Tucker property), described the family as hardworking and urged the county to consider alternatives to criminal prosecution.
Board members discussed possibilities for a non-legislative response: Commissioner comments indicated interest in examining animal-control policies, including whether an advisory board or other oversight mechanism is warranted, and inquiring whether staff had followed standard operating procedures. Commissioners and the county administrator also discussed the limits on the board’s authority to influence an active criminal prosecution; County Prosecutor Mike Wendling retains charging discretion. Several commissioners said they would pursue administrative review of the animal-control department to prevent similar outcomes in the future.
No formal action was taken on Aug. 21 to reverse the seizure or to direct the prosecutor; one commissioner objected to board interference with prosecutorial discretion. Commissioners asked staff to prepare information and noted earlier work by county staff to draft documents related to animal-control oversight. The board’s chair and other members said the topic would be discussed further at future committee meetings.
Speakers requested the county consider return of animals where appropriate and to use discretion in enforcement to avoid unduly harsh criminal charges, particularly where illness, heat, or recent family emergencies were factors in animal care lapses. A civil court disposition that defers conviction under MCL 771.1 was discussed during a later part of the meeting as an example of a noncustodial approach for some cases; commissioners said that kind of disposition is in the prosecutor and courts’ authority.
The board did not vote on the matter on Aug. 21 but directed staff to provide details on animal-control policies and potential advisory structures for discussion at a future meeting.
