The issue arose after Julio Gonzalez, of North Philadelphia, was arrested for possessing fighting cocks. He was placed on probation after being convicted of cruelty to animals. The birds were seized and put to death by the SPCA, according to court records.
Gonzalez lost his bid for a new trial because the court said his conviction had nothing to do with the roosters' destruction.
And the court upheld the ban on cockfighting, pointing out that Gonzalez ''was prosecuted for owning and possessing roosters for fighting purposes."
"There is no claim here that Gonzalez's animals were being or intended to be fought in a state in which cockfighting is legal, or that the creatures were bred for showing purposes," Montemuro said.
The court said "provisions of Pennsylvania's animal cruelty statute which
allow the police or humane society to destroy animals without offering the owner the opportunity to be heard offend the basic standards of procedural due process" and are unconstitutional.
Montemuro said the law fails to cover animals seized at the time of a person's arrest. He said because of the flaw, there is no provision for "the proper care" of the animal pending the outcome of the trial.
"Thus, the potential for abuse on the part of the police or Humane Society is tremendous," he added.
The court said that even though the state has a legitimate interest in regulating animal cruelty, "we perceive no overriding governmental interest" to destroy animals before a hearing is conducted.
