Dorchester man charged with mistreating dogs in illegal, disgusting basement kennel

Boston Police report officers investigating a report of an illegal basement apartment at 8 Glenrose Rd. yesterday found five mistreated dogs:

After knocking on the door for several minutes, the door was finally opened by an individual who stated that he was living in the basement. When the door opened, officers immediately detected a strong odor of what smelled like dog urine and feces. Moreover, officers observed three cages occupied by three separate dogs. Upon seeing the dogs, officers also observed large amounts of feces and urine in and around the cages.

Due to the loud, excessive barking of the dogs and the pungent odors emanating from the basement, officers asked the apartment dweller to step outside in an effort to conduct a more effective conversation. Once outside, the suspect became agitated after officers explained to him that a protective sweep of the basement needed to be conducted to ensure the safety of the officers, as well as, the building inspector who needed to further inspect the location. While clearing the basement, officers located two additional dogs who also appeared to be mistreated.

Tracey Young, 22, was arraigned today in Dorchester District Court on five counts of animal cruelty, operating an illegal kennel and resisting arrest.

The Suffolk County District Attorney's office asked for bail of $5,000; Judge Debra Shopteese released him on personal recognizance but ordered him to stay away from Glenrose Road.

Innocent, etc.



    Free tagging: 


      Bail Statute

      All criminal defendants are entitled to a Presumption of Innocence even if it looks like they were mean to some puppy dogs.

      The purpose of bail is to assure the defendant's appearance in court. If no cash bail is necessary to assure appearance then none is set.

      You know nothing about the defendant or the judge.

      Not sure

      . . . where you got info about two other open cases, didn't see anything about that in the BPD post. Anyway, appearance in court on the new charge is the main concern of any issue of bail. If the ADA wanted a cash bail on him so he'd have to "cool his heels in jail" (which is antithetical to the bail statute which establishes a presumption of personal recognizance) then he or she should have moved that one or both of the previous bails be revoked.

      I certainly agree that this is not an upstanding citizen, but punishment comes after verdict or plea of guilt. Not at arraignment.