Mark Longo and Daniela Bittner, owners of beloved social media stars Peanut the squirrel and Fred the Raccoon, are suing New York State over their seizure and killing by authorities. Their attorney, Nora Constance Marino, joins the podcast today to tell us more about this case.

In this podcast, Nora provides some background on what allegedly happened, possible missteps in how New York State and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation handled the issue, how the matter could’ve been easily resolved, where the case is now, and goals moving forward.

Visit Nora online here: https://marinojustice.com/.

Visit the Legal Action Network for Animals here: https://lanalawgroup.org/.

Visit P’Nuts Freedom Farm here: https://www.pnutsfreedomfarm.com/.

See all episodes or subscribe to the Personal Injury Marketing Minute here: https://optimizemyfirm.com/podcasts/.

Lindsey:

Welcome to the Personal Injury Marketing Minute, where we quickly cover the hot topics in the legal marketing world. I’m your host, Lindsey Busfield.

While many personal injury lawyers exclusively represent car accidents and slip-and-fall cases, there is room in sub-practices to take on cases that stray from the traditional, advocating for justice beyond personal injury. Nora Marino has been actively working on a case that has taken social media by storm, the case of Peanut the squirrel. Marino joins us today to give us an update on the case and the constitutional issues surrounding it. Thank you so much for joining us today.

Nora:

Hi, my pleasure. Thank you.

Lindsey:

So for listeners who haven’t been closely following the Peanut case, can you give us some background and context on what happened?

Nora:

Sure. So my client, Mark Longo, and his wife, Daniella Bittner, originally it was Mark had rescued a squirrel when he was just a baby, literally a couple of inches long. His mother had been hit by a car in front of my client, and he rescued the baby, who would’ve clearly died had Mark not been there. And Mark ended up raising this squirrel, tried to release him, Peanut, and Peanut just did not do well out in the wild and wanted to be in the house. So Mark did what any compassionate person would do, I would hope, and provided shelter, food and a home for this animal.

Him and his wife then actually opened up a sanctuary, where they now have 300 animals that are rescued animals that they are caring for, and they had a raccoon who had been delivered to them, a raccoon in need, an injured raccoon who they were caring for, and apparently the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation got word of Peanut the squirrel and Fred the raccoon. Peanut actually was a social media sensation, so that’s not surprising. But instead of handling this in a way that would’ve been reasonable, in my opinion, they handled it in a way that was very unreasonable.

Technically, there are issues and questions about whether or not people can maintain, quote, “wild animals” in their residences and homes. We are really dissecting the law on that issue, when I say we, I mean my office, as to what constitutes a wild animal, what constitutes a companion animal. The law is always subject to interpretation, as we all know, how one person may read a statute, another person may read that statute differently, so there are going to be questions about that.

But regardless of how the DEC interpreted those laws pertaining to wild animals versus companion animals, they went in and got a warrant to search Mark and Danielle’s property, which they did, and in my opinion, it was a very unreasonable search. It was five hours. We don’t know what information was provided to the judge who signed off on the warrant. We have made freedom of information requests to get that information, which so far have not been responded to. I’m assuming I’ll get that information in discovery down the road, but we were hoping to get it now.

But anyway, the DEC showed up at Mark’s house in full gear, armed, many trucks, many men and/or women, mostly men, I believe. It was ridiculous, for a squirrel and a raccoon, it was just so overkill-

Lindsey:

Overkill, yeah.

Nora:

… such an overreach. And they searched his house for five hours, they did acquire Peanut and Fred, and within a matter of hours, upon information and belief, it was within a matter of hours they killed them. And they claimed that the reason for killing them was that one of the agents had been bitten, which I find very questionable because these are supposed to be professional agents whose job is to deal with wildlife, if you can’t handle a squirrel and a raccoon, there’s a problem there, which will be one of our claims for negligence, negligent hiring, retention and supervision.

I’ve seen teenage vet techs in vet offices who know how to handle feral cats, which are probably far more dangerous than a squirrel or a raccoon. A cat can do a lot of damage, there’s a way to hold them where they can’t get at you. Why did these agents not know that? Why didn’t they have proper gear on, if they did or didn’t? So there was just a lot of questions with that story. And they killed these two animals mercilessly, in my opinion, I believe they have or may refer to it as a euthanasia. That’s not what euthanasia is, euthanasia is killing a very sick animal, it’s like a mercy killing. When you just kill an animal, that’s murder or an execution. And the reason they gave was that this agent was allegedly bit and they had to do a rabies test, and you can only do a rabies test on an animal’s brain, which requires killing the animal.

But we found lots of information that there’s quarantines that can go into effect, there were other options, there were just other options. And the chance of a squirrel having rabies is next to nothing. We can’t even find one documented case throughout the State of New York on the records we found online, there’s no documented case of a squirrel even having rabies. And the fact that Peanut and Fred were indoor animals, they had no way to get rabies. It was just a ridiculous reaction, a tragically ridiculous reaction, that resulted in the deaths of these animals.

Lindsey:

It’s atrocious to hear about all of the overreaching missteps that went in place here, because it wasn’t as though Peanut was out in the backyard, it wasn’t as though he was a wild animal, so yes, the odds of him actually having rabies being slim to none just made this such an overreaction. Looking at the case as a whole, what additional missteps did the DEC take specifically throughout the handling of this case?

Nora:

Well, I just think killing the animals was just a horrible, horrible decision, a horribly unnecessary decision. One of the things I’m hoping this case will bring light to is just our government’s perception of animals. It’s okay to just kill these animals within hours as if their lives are just nothing. Someone loved those animals. Anyone who’s had a dog or a cat or any other type of companion animal that they live with, many, if not most, and hopefully all of us, not everyone, not everyone treats their animals the way they should be treated, but I would hope the majority of people, we love those animals like family members. I’ve seen big strong men bawl over the death of a dog or a cat far more than they did over a family member, and I don’t mean to be sexist in any way, I’m just trying to paint a picture here.

Animals touch our hearts in ways that I think humans can’t, and it’s just so sad to me, and disturbing even, that the Department of Environmental Conservation, whose mission is supposed to be to help animals, had no problem just killing these animals within hours of seizing them instead of exploring options. If you were really afraid that there was a threat of rabies to this agent, quarantine the animals for 10 days, that’s what the information I’m getting online says. Why don’t they know that? Why didn’t they consider that as an alternative, instead of just, oh, we have to cut their heads open, within a matter of hours, kill someone’s beloved animals. Whether they want to dispute whether or not Mark and Danielle should have had them, that’s fine, we’ll work that out in the court system, or we’ll work that out in negotiations. They could have said to my clients, “You know what? We want these animals out of the state,” before getting a warrant to conduct a search and seizure. They went from zero to a 100 with nothing in between.

A search and seizure is such a violation of one’s privacy, and our constitution is an amazing, amazing document, and we’re very blessed to be Americans and live under it, and our founders specifically included the Fourth Amendment because back in the day, when you had King George or King whoever, dictators and czars and emperors throughout human history, the king could just send men into your house and they could just rattle through your stuff and take what they want and leave. They could do that, it was legal. So our founders said, “No, no, no. We have a Fourth Amendment here. We’re going to make a Fourth Amendment, where citizens shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” It’s a great, great thing, that’s really important, so why the DCE agents felt they needed to get a warrant for a search and seizure instead of trying to work this out, it’s absurd.

Lindsey:

You would think that there would be at least several layers of communication before it reached that point.

Nora:

Yeah.

Lindsey:

Peanut, there was some awareness of him, and that probably got leaked to the DEC, and that was a notable catalyst for this, but there should have been communication and correspondence-

Nora:

Exactly.

Lindsey:

… and try to raise awareness of how to do things the right way. And I think if I did a little bit of research, it sounded like there was some paperwork already in progress to make this fall in line with New York State laws.

Nora:

There was, there was. And they should have known about that paperwork because it’s through their own office, so they either knew or should have known. Yeah, it’s heartbreaking that they had to take these actions that resulted in the deaths of these animals. In addition to my client’s damages and injuries and heartbreak, two innocent animals were killed for no reason, two, happy, healthy young animals who had these great lives and they had a lot of fun. Just look at those videos, they were loved and cared for. It’s just terrible that our government thinks so little of animals, that that type of action is okay. It’s not, it’s not okay, and it’s not okay for citizens based on our constitution.

Lindsey:

No, especially somebody who is trying to do things the right way and trying to get the right paperwork in place, but beyond that, trying to care for these animals from a loving place, and instead, having an agency, who is also supposed to have the best interest of these animals at heart, completely be contrary to their own mission and overreach, overstep, and go through it and have such a horrific invasion of privacy, resulting in tragic consequences for these poor innocent animals that clearly had done nothing wrong.

Nora:

Yeah. It just seems like we should be, as a society, we should be rewarding people for doing good deeds, especially for animals, because animals are the most forgotten beings, and they are beings, they’re not things. I hate it when people refer to animals as it. This calculator is an it, an animal is not an it, an animal is a living, breathing, emotional, intelligent being. They need a voice more than anyone, because they’re the most helpless and defenseless next to humans. I just feel like people who show compassion to animals should be rewarded, not punished, we should encourage this.

Lindsey:

Yeah. And they are voiceless, and it is so important, the work that you’re doing, being an advocate not only for the Longos, but also for animals who don’t have the ability to defend themselves in these situations. And so, let our listeners know a little bit about where’s the case now and what are your goals moving forward with it?

Nora:

Well, we filed our notice of claim and our notice of intention to make claim, which if your audience is mostly personal injury lawyers, they’ll know what that means. But for those non-lawyers, whenever there’s a municipality involved in any type of potential litigation, you have to put them on notice. That is a benefit that private entities do not get, only municipal and/or government entities. So for counties, towns, villages, it’s called a notice of claim, cities, towns, villages, it’s a notice of claim, and then for the state, it’s called a notice of intention to make claim, it’s essentially a very similar document. So those have all been filed, and we’re waiting to conduct our 50-H hearings and then we will proceed from there. We have to jump through these hoops first.

Lindsey:

And so, what is the outcome that you’re looking for?

Nora:

Well, we’re looking for justice, we’re looking for just compensation, and we’re also hoping that this case will bring attention to the plight of animals, especially raccoons. And I do want to just say something about raccoons, because Fred was just adorable and people were commenting how cute he was, he’s sweet and cuddly and all these nice things, but raccoons are really demonized by society. A raccoon, if they make the horrific mistake of knocking over your garbage pail in the middle of the night, that’s a death sentence for a lot of them, there will be a trapper at someone’s house the next day. And trappers, by the way, most trappers, when you call an exterminator or a trapper for a raccoon issue, they will catch those raccoons and they bludgeon them to death, or they put them in cages and then put the cages in buckets of water so they drown, they’re horrific deaths.

These animals are so demonized, if they’re seen out during the day, people always say, “Oh, if you see them during day, they’re sick, they have rabies.” That’s all nonsense. If you see a raccoon out during the day, it is likely a mother looking for food while her babies sleep, just like human mothers do.

Lindsey:

Yeah, I can relate to that.

Nora:

When their kids finally are sleeping, like, oh my God, let me run to the grocery store while I have a chance because the kids are sleeping. It’s a normal motherly thing. The mother’s exhausted, she wants to be home sleeping too, but she has to get food for her babies. So when people see raccoons out during the day and they freak out, that’s completely unwarranted, and there’s just a lot of misinformation about these animals.

So I personally, and I know my client as well, we’re hoping that this case will also, in addition to all the other things, we want to bring some light to the plight of raccoons, who should not be demonized, they do not deserve these horrific deaths. If you find a raccoon in your attic or your garage or your shed, call a licensed rehabber, do not call an exterminator or pest control because they will suffer the most horrific deaths. And that might be a mother, and if you kill the mother, you’ve just killed all her babies who will suffer horrible deaths by starving to death in their home.

So we’re hoping to bring attention to all sorts of issues, to help the plight of animals overall, squirrels, raccoons, and all animals, and then we want justice in this case. No government should behave like this. This is America, and America is a very special place because of our constitution, and the lines have been blurred very much over the last couple of decades, maybe longer, where a government seems to forget that they work for us. There is no king here, there is no czar or emperor. This is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and government just seems, I feel like, because I do a lot of constitutional law cases, not just this, I have lots of cases regarding false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, I’ve done First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, I’ve done a lot of constitutional litigation, and government needs to remember its job is working for us, and I just feel the way this was handled was just so off of that path.

Lindsey:

It was so incredibly off of that path, both in terms of working for us as the people, but also contrary to their own mission within this department.

Nora:

Exactly, yeah.

Lindsey:

It was just so wrong on absolutely every level. I thank you so much for being an advocate for the constitution and for our rights, but as well as for these animals who cannot advocate for themselves, and it’s great work that you’re doing and very much appreciated.

Nora:

Well, I appreciate that. I’ve been doing animal law cases for many, many years, and constitutional law cases for many, many years, and personal injury, including the car accidents and the trip-and-falls, and those cases are important too and those cases also involve victims. If it wasn’t for the personal injury lawyers, you’d have a much more dangerous world, because in a lot of ways, the personal injury bar acts as the corporate police, for lack of a better word. That’s why you have really good warning labels on things, that’s why you have safety mechanisms on certain products, that’s why doctors are more careful because of the threat of litigation. And in fact, I have a not-for-profit organization, Legal Action Network for Animals, and we just submitted an amicus brief in a case in Kings County where we are trying to get the zone of danger doctrine, the definition of a close family member, expanded to include the family dog.

Lindsey:

Oh, wonderful.

Nora:

Yeah, it’s really cool. It’s a really cool case, and we have a very cool judge who’s really interested and requested amicus briefs, you don’t see that very often in lower court cases. So Legal Action Network for Animals just submitted an amicus, and that case is pending, so keep an eye out on that, that’ll be a good topic of conversation once that decision comes down.

Lindsey:

Absolutely. Well, we would love to follow up with you on the results of that as that comes through the pipe.

Nora:

It’s really interesting. Deblase is the name of the case, D-E-B-L-A-S-E, Kings County.

Lindsey:

Great. Well, if you have a link to information on that, we’d be happy to put that in the transcript with this podcast as well so that people can keep up to date on what’s happening there. But thank you so much for joining us today, I really appreciate you coming in and giving us an update.

Nora:

Thank you for having me. We’re praying for Peanut and Fred, and justice for Peanut and Fred, and my clients, and for all animals. And everyone, defend the constitution, defend the constitution.

Lindsey:

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.