Dec 31, 2019 3 min read

Members of a Jefferson Township family claim in a lawsuit filed Friday that Washington Area Humane Society lacked sufficient basis to seize several animals – including a puppy that was allegedly euthanized – from them earlier this year.

The federal civil complaint was made on behalf of five people – Sally and James Smith; their daughter Kayla Rotellini and her husband, Michael; and Sally’s mother, Antoinette Maczko – who reside together with the Rotellinis’ children and their pets.

Washington Area Humane Society executive director Kelly Proudfit said her organization’s mission is “to protect the animals we believe to be endangered.”

“To that end we take reports from local law enforcement partners very seriously,” she added. “We will further respond to these allegations through formal procedures.”

The five people are suing the North Strabane Township-based nonprofit and its humane officers Glen Thomson and Maranda Combs, plus Jefferson police chief Gene Karch.

Thomson, Combs and Karch are named as individuals in the suit rather than in their official capacities.

The events at issue started Aug. 25, when the Rottelinis’ puppy escaped and was found by a person not in the family, who turned it over to the humane society three days later.

“No plaintiff was contacted at that time, despite defendants’ knowledge of plaintiffs’ ownership of the puppy,” wrote the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who are from Joel Sansone Law Offices in Pittsburgh.

The animal was diagnosed with the contagious Parvo virus and euthanized by a veterinary center, according to court documents.

On Sept. 4, Thomson executed a search warrant at the family’s home. He and Combs seized kittens, a rabbit, birds and a dog.

Citations for animal cruelty and animal neglect involving the sick puppy were filed against the adult Rotellinis later in September, but withdrawn weeks later, court records show. By then, the seized animals had been returned, having been spayed or neutered.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote there wasn’t probable cause for the search based on a previous investigation that purportedly yielded no evidence of abuse.

“Furthermore, the search warrant did not provide specific direction as to what defendants may or may not search, nor were any locations and/or items specifically identified, rendering a search of plaintiffs’ residence and property illegal,” the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs claim Thomson initiated his search based on false allegations that Karch – who is related to the family by marriage – made against them because of his family’s “unstable and volatile relationship” with them.

Karch said this assertion was “definitely not” true. He said he’s greeted them when he’s seen them on the street, but doesn’t really interact with them otherwise.

“There’s no family animosity here or anything,” Karch said.

He said he referred a resident’s complaint about the puppy to WAHS because his three-person department doesn’t handle that type of case.

“We don’t deal with animals here,” he said. “We don’t have an animal control officer, we don’t have a kennel.”

He said he was at the house for the search at the humane society’s request, but stayed in the kitchen while the humane officers executed the warrant.

The plaintiffs allege $320 went missing from a desk drawer during the search. The money was never returned, court papers say.

The lawsuit includes multiple counts alleging violations of various defendants’ legal and constitutional rights, plus one claiming unlawful seizure of the money and another asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress.