Hetrick v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture
2017 Ohio 303
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2012 Ohio enacted R.C. Chapter 935 (Dangerous Wild Animals Act) regulating possession, registration, and permitting for dangerous wild animals; after Jan. 1, 2014 possession generally prohibited absent permit.
- Kenneth Hetrick registered multiple large predators in 2012 but did not obtain a permit until October 2014 (rescue facility application).
- ODA inspected Hetrick's property on Nov. 7, 2014 and observed numerous caging and care deficiencies under Ohio Adm.Code Chapter 901:1-4.
- ODA opened an investigation under R.C. 935.20 and issued a transfer order (to ODA holding facility); ODA agents then obtained a search warrant and removed 11 animals on Jan. 28, 2015.
- Hetrick contested (administratively and in the common pleas court) arguing defective service of the transfer order, denial of process to supplement the record, vagueness/arbitrary application of the statute, and insufficiency of evidence of violations; the trial court and appellate court affirmed the ODA director.
Issues
| Issue | Hetrick's Argument | ODA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the transfer order was validly served before animals were removed | Hetrick: ODA did not deliver a transfer order (or produced a fabricated post-hoc order); service was defective | ODA: Agent Hunt hand-delivered the transfer order and search warrant; Exhibit with ODA seal was the operative order | Court: Credited ODA witnesses and seal; reliable, probative, substantial evidence supports personal delivery and validity of transfer order |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Hetrick's motion to supplement the administrative record | Hetrick: Needed to add evidence to support as-applied constitutional claims and rebut evidentiary exclusions at hearing | ODA: Record was adequately developed; R.C. 119.12(K) permits supplementation only for newly discovered evidence not previously obtainable | Court: Hetrick failed to show evidence was newly discovered or unavailable at agency hearing; denial proper (proffers were permitted at hearing) |
| Whether R.C. 935 and ODA enforcement were vague/arbitrary (substantive due process) | Hetrick: ODA applied standards inconsistently and removed animals arbitrarily (pointing to inspector testimony about noncompliance procedures) | ODA: Transfer was justified by observed regulatory violations and need to protect public safety/animal health; action was not arbitrary | Court: Hetrick waived some regulatory-application arguments; substantive due process claim fails because ownership interest is not a fundamental property interest and no protected deprivation shown |
| Whether evidence supported ODA finding that Hetrick violated care/housing standards (Ohio Adm.Code 901:1-4) | Hetrick: Inspector’s observations were stale, limited; after transfer fences were improved and enclosures secure | ODA: Simmerman’s on-site observations showed multiple violations (water contamination, fence/lock/roof defects) sufficient to justify transfer | Court: Credited ODA inspector’s testimony and Hetrick’s own witness (who admitted some violations); substantial reliable evidence supports violation findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (standard for "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence")
- Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St. 275 (trial court must appraise credibility and weight of evidence in administrative review)
- Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466 (deference to agency factual findings but not conclusive; independent legal review)
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (when to discredit agency evidence and reverse)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate review limited to abuse-of-discretion of common pleas court in administrative appeals)
- Bartchy v. State Bd. of Edn., 120 Ohio St.3d 205 (scope of appellate review of administrative orders)
- Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167 (requirements for raising as-applied constitutional challenges before the agency)
- Warren v. Athens, 411 F.3d 697 (substantive due process—arbitrary government action depriving property interests)
- Wilkins v. Daniels, 913 F.Supp.2d 517 (ownership of animals does not necessarily create a fundamental property interest)
- Boggs v. Ohio Real Estate Comm., 186 Ohio App.3d 96 (court discretion to enforce local rule page limits)