By Josh Magill

Nearly three months ago, Dr. John Diller’s horse farm was raided by Pierce County officials on the word of a DEA agent.  The agent was executing a federal search warrant at Diller’s 99-acre property in Graham, WA when he saw more than three dozen horses living in what officials called deplorable conditions.

The horses were rounded up over a two day process and taken to be housed at nearby Frontier Park.  News of the incident quickly got out after a press conference by county officials and fast-paced chatter throughout the rural areas of south Pierce County. 

Many residents and even local home-grown online news blogs, like the Pierce Prairie Post asked: Is this due process?

Discussion began around the county, as well as on other online publications like The Mountain News, regarding the need for such a raid, so money spent, and could this be a conspiracy toward something else like stealing his precious land for a dump.  News came out from sources about possible over-prescribing of pain medication by Diller, spawning comments that he was a slyly concealed drug dealer. 

Some ridiculed officials for not giving warnings to the “good doctor,” while others applauded those same officials for quickly responding to a possible devastating animal rights issue.

What was the right response?  What was the truth about the doctor?  What was the truth about county motives?

A press release from the Pierce County Attorney’s Office states the following about the raid:

The stalls had excessive accumulations of feces and urine and it appeared that the horses were not allowed outside. In one barn, an officer had to use a flashlight to see, even though the doors were open on both ends of the barn and it was a sunny day. The paddocks had shelters but they contained piles of manure one to two feet high. Most of the horses were underweight, had poor muscle tone and their hooves were overgrown and cracked.

Accounts such as this have been denied by Diller through his own attorney and some close to the doctor.  But in the same breath, those same folks say officials should have given warnings to Diller and allowed him to clean up the barns. 

Why would the barns and stalls need to be cleaned up if so many claim the site wasn’t as bad as described?  There are claims that Diller’s stall cleaner quit and he was looking to hire someone new.  I can believe this because I saw the beat-up wooden sign to the left of Diller’s gate, but it had been a while as the overgrown weeds had begun to assault the clean view of the sign.

A recent editorial by Pierce Prairie Post editor, Marianne Lincoln says:

Why didn’t the county officials first make warnings to the doctor and pay visits to check on his progress toward those standards?

Prior to that Lincoln used the Post’s Facebook page to ask if the initial raid was against due process, saying that officials should not be allowed to remove animals without first citing violators followed by a series of follow-up visits.

I agree there should be a written policy and process for such things.  But I must clearly state that the removal of the animals from the owner’s possession is not a violation of due process.  It wasn’t even a violation of search and seizure. 

The doctor was given clear information about the reasons the horses were being removed and nothing was kept from him.  The horses were held as evidence, similar to a car or clothes in other investigated cases.  The doctor’s lawyer was given access to the “evidence” and allowed to bring in their own vet to review the evidence before charges were filed.  This is the same for any case.

The doctor was given a clear path to appeal the situation and go to court.  Infringing on due process would have been to deny Diller of these processes, not giving him a path to change and correction.  We must understand that if we do not like the process, then we can vote to change it.

Lincoln states in her editorial that:

Then they roped off the barns at the park with yellow tape that said, “do not cross” and only allowed approved personnel near the barns and horses.

Well, of course!  They were evidence in the case and the media or even common citizens are never given unrestricted access to evidence in an ongoing investigation.  They were protecting evidence.  That is like being angry that you aren’t allowed to visit the crime scene of a murder before the evidence is gathered.  (I’m not comparing this case to a murder, just the approach to evidence protection.)

There may be more to this situation – from both sides – than immediately known by the public or media.  No matter what the officials did – wrong or right – that does not immediately make Dr. Diller innocent or guilty.  It also does not immediately make the county officials greedy, sketchy or evil.  Though folks will continue to choose a side … we simply don’t know yet, but it would benefit us all to let it play out. 

I do not doubt Diller loved his horses, but can or should an older man, who keeps a full time job as a medical doctor that has lost his stall cleaner, have nearly 40 horses?  Not a judgment, but a simple question for thought.

We don’t complain when officials remove felines from the “cat lady” with 30-plus cats roaming around her home, nor do we fret when multiple dogs are confiscated from a man’s downtown apartment where feces covers the floor. 

Why then do we scream the loudest in this case when we don’t know all the facts?  Because it is horses, because we believe the government is always out to get us, or because we can’t believe a doctor would neglect them – whether intentionally or unintentionally?

© 2012 Josh Magill