The story starts back in 2009. Katherine Fraze was living in a camper on her property and running a 'dog rescue' business. Fraze refers to herself as 'the dog lady of Indiana' and was running a business called Save That Dog Sanctuary.
Katherine A. Fraze, 44, was charged with four felonies and one misdemeanor for allegedly growing marijuana with intent to sell. She was arrested Friday for two class C felonies — dealing in marijuana and cultivating marijuana — and two class D felonies — possession of marijuana and maintaining a common nuisance. She also was charged with the class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.At the time, she is said to have had more than 40 dogs roaming the property. However, there were no issues - at the time - regarding their health or cleanliness of the property.
Indiana State Police Trooper Barry Brown was flying on marijuana patrol Friday when he noticed a large plot of marijuana plants at Fraze’s residence in the 500 block of Corydon Road just outside New Albany, according to court records. After a search warrant was secured, troopers went to the property and saw three different marijuana plots close to Fraze’s house.
When they went inside, they found rolling papers and other drug paraphernalia. Troopers also stated in court records they found several bags of marijuana packaged for sale, and also found evidence Fraze was using marijuana herself.
The marijuana later was dried and weighed in at more than 10 pounds.
That case may have worsened her stance about what separatists and others consider "government intrustion".
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Katherine Fraze,
Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
The Floyd County Health Department and The City of New Albany Department of
Animal Control,
Appellees-Defendants.
February 13, 2017
Court of Appeals Case No.
22A01-1605-CC-982
Appeal from the Floyd Superior
Court
The Honorable James H. Hancock,
Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
22D02-1001-CC-210
Per the document: In December 2009, two people came to Fraze’s property to inquire about adopting a dog. Whilst there, they were bitten, and a report was made to the Indiana State Department of Health.
In early January 2010, representatives from the county Health Department arrived at Fraze’s property to investigate.
Dr. Luanne Jensen issued this statement in regards to the dog attack:
Ms. Fraze runs a rescue and adoption sanctuary for dogs. She invites people out to her sanctuary to view dogs for adoption. These dogs run freely as a “pack” on her property, but are not restricted by fencing from leaving her property. That living arrangement causes them to behave differently than they would as individuals. They must compete for personal space, food, water and attention. They also will be very defensive of their territory, which can make them behave in a defensive manner that can result in fighting among themselves and biting newcomers to the territory — dog or human. That is just being “canine.”
Ms. Fraze is obviously aware of this, because she asks human visitors (and I quote her) to “keep their arms folded across their chest and not speak to the dogs until they settle down.” She also states, “that you should keep your hands in your pockets, because some of her dogs are mitten-snatchers.”
In my professional opinion as a veterinarian, that suggests to me that they will bite your hands if they are exposed. Now, it is time to look at the facts that caused this chain of events.
Two people, who had good intentions to adopt a dog, were invited out to view the dogs for adoption. (And for the record, I know them personally as their veterinarian, and they take exceptional care of their pets.) They were both bitten multiple times by dog(s) in the pack. (I have seen their injuries and they are serious and could have resulted in life-threatening infections if not attended to by a doctor.) They needed to have those wounds tended to by a medical doctor.
By law, doctors are required to report dog bites to the local Health Department. The Health Department is then required, by law, to visit the site and assess the health of the dog and establish a ten-day period of quarantine. The dog(s) can remain on the premises as long as it is completely confined. Ms. Fraze could not comply with this requirement. She was also unable to identify the dog(s) that had been involved in the attack. Furthermore, not all of her dogs had current rabies vaccinations [which is inexcusable for anyone who claims to be involved in the rescue business].
Additionally, the Health Department found her personal living conditions unfit for habitation until/unless certain repairs are made.
[A news report said 41 dogs were removed to be quarantined because Fraze failed to provide all of her dogs with current rabies vaccinations and she had no accommodations in place to be able to properly quarantine the dogs. Therefore, all the dogs had to be quarantined - it's state law, not local authorities 'picking' on her. This is no one's fault but her own]
Let’s reiterate: People were injured by some of the Fraze dogs. The doctor and the Board of Health and the NAFC Animal Control Authority reacted in the manner they are required by law.
* * * * * *
On January 12, 2010, the Health Department served Fraze with a Notice of Violation and Order to Abate, notifying Fraze that her property was “unfit for human habitation and dangerous or detrimental to life or health” for the following reasons:
- there was dog feces all over the yard
- a holding tank is only allowed to provide onsite sewage disposal for up to one year
- there was miscellaneous debris around and inside the residence and
- the property was in an unsanitary condition, including the lack of running water
Fraze requested an extension for time to comply, which the Health Department denied.
On January 23rd, Fraze posts on her blog:
I'm so tired. But I'm tired in a "fighting the good fight" kind of way. Feels good. I've been told I can't live in my home until the Health Department deems it habitable because I have a 350 gallon holding tank instead of a septic system for a thirty five foot camper. So I'm creating "CAMP CANINE". Where dogs are free of human errors.
On the deadline date - January 27, 2010 - the Health Department returned, saw that she had done nothing she had been ordered to do and served Fraze with a Notice of Violation and Order to Vacate, noting her dwelling is unfit for human habitation because it had no septic system, had dog waste in the yard, and had miscellaneous debris inside and outside the residence.
The next day Fraze filed a petition for review and the court granted her a six-month extension to get running water and a proper septic system installed on the property.
At a review hearing on September 13, 2010, the trial court found Fraze was in
compliance regarding running water, but not yet in compliance regarding the
septic system. She was ordered to “make affirmative steps to conform with the
laws of Floyd Co. within 21 days.”
This is where it gets interesting. Rather than simply getting a septic tank installed on the property and going on her merry way of selling dogs, Fraze hires an attorney and wages a nearly seven-year battle with local authorities.
Does this sound reasonable? You say you love animals and your business sells animals. You're told to get running water on the property - how she managed without running water all that time I don't know. How do you clean/sterilize cages, etc. without hot water? How do you daily provide clean water to animals when you have no running water?
So she finally gets running water installed on her property and all she has to do is get the septic system installed and these health officials will go away. According to this document, she refuses to do it. Instead, she keeps filing documents, asking for more time. But when she's given more time, she does nothing. Instead, she hires an attorney and spends how much money fighting this- for years? Does this sound reasonable?
Meanwhile, six years into this fight, she is continually posting how there is a conspiracy against her, that they have nothing better to do than to keep coming after her. If anything, common sense tells you that they would avoid having to deal with her, knowing her history of ridiculous claims, lawsuits, paperwork, extensions, excuses, etc.
[Fraze] is Ordered to vacate the premises, and is enjoined from using the land at issue as a residence, until such time as she obtains either a sewer connection, or completes the installation of a septic tank and system approved by the [Health Department].
Fraze again refused to get the septic system installed and filed another round of paperwork. The trial court denied both of Fraze's motions and this appeal ensued. In February 2017, SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE DOG BITING INCIDENT, the Indiana court of appeals finalizes the case:
Denial of Motion to Correct Error
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in
denying the motion to correct error because Fraze should not have to comply
with the Health Department’s orders.
Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say the trial court abused its
discretion. The trial court addressed each of Fraze’s contentions, even those it
was not obligated to address because they had long-ago been decided. The court noted that Fraze represented to the court at a review hearing in October
2010 she had contacted an expert regarding a plan for installing a septic system.
The trial court ordered Fraze to consult with her expert to submit a complete
plan and coordinate approval of the plan; however, she never completed the
process so as to obtain a final decision by the Health Department as to a
proposed septic system.
Instead, she continued to reside in her RV using the existing holding tank in defiance of the Health Department’s orders which were confirmed by the trial court on judicial review.
When finally pressed five years later to either actually abate the problem or vacate the premises, Fraze asked the trial court to find her exempt from the requirement that she install a conforming residential sewage disposal system for any number of reasons, including prohibitive cost, impracticability due to the topography of her land, and inapplicability because her living situation is not subject to the sewage disposal requirements, as well as asserting various purported constitutional claims
It does not appear that Fraze ever made an application to the Health Department seeking approval of an alternate system.
The Health Department determined in 2010 that Fraze’s dwelling was unfit for human habitation in its existing state, and ordered her to fix the problem or vacate the premises. The trial court affirmed that determination on judicial review and yet afforded Fraze years to fix the problem without requiring her to vacate the premises.
Despite this, Fraze has not shown that she has fixed the problem in the ensuing six years, nor has she taken the appropriate steps to be relieved of the obligation to fix the problem.
Conclusion
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fraze’s motion to correct
error, and the trial court’s order of March 8, 2016, is affirmed.
