Broward County Florida state attorneys try to bend the law to protect police officer who 'forgot' his two K9 partners to cook to death in patrol car

FLORIDA -- A veteran Hialeah K9 cop left two police dogs in his patrol car outside his Davie home on a warm May day. The dogs died.

It was a tragedy — was it also a crime?

The Broward State Attorney's office says no.

The decision not to charge Hialeah officer Nelson Enriquez with animal cruelty is understandable, but the way Broward State Attorney Mike Satz and his prosecutors arrived at that conclusion is questionable.

RIP Jimmy. I'm sorry the Broward County DA's office is so corrupt
that nothing will be done about your horrific death.

"Bottom line: It's the right thing to do," assistant state attorney Alex Urruela, who handled the case, told me. "I don't believe the statute is designed to bludgeon people for an accident."

But a few things troubled me about the official report Urruela wrote to explain the decision. The law was parsed in a way most favorable to Enriquez, with key parts of the relevant statute omitted. And Urruela cited a 2002 Florida Supreme Court ruling based on an outdated version of the animal cruelty law to bolster his contention that prosecutors needed to prove harmful "intent" to charge Enriquez.

Broward State Attorney Mike Satz needs to retire, clean house get rid of the 40 years of Satz double standard of application of statutes when failing to charge LEO's. There needs to be certainty of punishment for "criminals that wear a badge."



Broward State Attorney Mike Satz

In the "legal analysis" section of the report, Urruela wrote, "The felony [part of the law] requires proof that a person 'intentionally commit(s) an act' which leads to cruel death." He also wrote that Enriquez's "neglectful conduct" doesn't constitute a crime, because the animal cruelty statute doesn't contain a "culpable negligence" provision similar to one found in manslaughter laws.

Is that so? Here's the relevant part of Florida's animal cruelty law (statute 828.12 [2]): "A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal, or a person who owns or has the custody or control of any animal and fails to act, which results in the cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering...commits aggravated animal cruelty, a felony of the third degree."

In this case, didn't Enriquez "fail to act" by failing to remove the dogs from his car?

"You raise some good points," Urruela said in an interview. "Obviously he failed to act. There's no doubt he failed to act."

So why wasn't he charged?

"The statute is awkwardly worded," Urruela said.

He said he consulted with other attorneys and his reading is that the word "intentionally" carries over to the fails-to-act clause. He said if the neglect was "more systemic," like not feeding animals over a period of time, or leaving animals in a dangerous setting repeatedly, then charges might have been warranted.

"He was out on the job, got called back out after he already went home after an overnight shift," Urruela said. "If the facts were more egregious, then it might be a whole other story. If he was out drinking and partying, or if he had just gotten back from two weeks in the French Riviera, then it would be different."

Jimmy is led out of the police car by his partner
Officer Nelson Enriquez in 2011.
Photo: Allison Diaz- Miami Herald file

Urruela didn't include the law's full language, confusing as it is, in his report.

He omitted any mention of the "fails to act" clause, which seems to open the door to negligent acts.
That clause was added to the law after the 2002 Florida Supreme Court ruling about "general intent" that Urruela cited.

"Look, there's no excuse for what he did. It was a tragic oversight," Urruela said. "But whether you like cops or don't like cops, like dogs or don't like dogs, there's a distinction between an accident and culpable negligence. Everyone who knows him says he's been crushed by this."

OK, how many parents are charged when they 'forget' their child in their car and s/he dies as a result? Does Broward County let it go because the parents say it was an accident??

I'm not saying Enriquez is guilty, just that given the facts and the law, perhaps it would have been best for a jury to sort this out.

Instead, it's another case involving a cop that leaves an odd taste, one that makes you wonder if police get breaks not accorded ordinary civilians.

Enriquez wasn't tested for drugs or alcohol after the incident, and he never talked to investigators, giving a written statement about events through his attorney.

Enriquez, who still faces possible disciplinary action from his department, hasn't spoken to reporters since the incident.

"There's an argument you can shoehorn a case into the nebulous part of the statute," Urruela said. "But that's not the right thing to do. That's what we should be governed by in this office."
(Sun Sentinel - Sept 11, 2015)

Earlier:

• Florida officer "forgets" his TWO K9 partners; leaves them to cook to death in hot vehicle
• In Killing of Police K9 Partners, Cops Usually Get Light Punishment