Livestock theft: how to prove the animal is yours

It is the law that treats livestock theft as what it is for a rancher: the loss of the main asset. It does two things. It sets hours for moving livestock and presumes that whoever moves it outside those hours holds it illegally. And it punishes theft as a felony, regardless of what the animal was worth or whether it turned up later. What matters most if you are the one legitimately moving livestock is that the presumption can land on you too if you are not carrying the papers.

The Act protects the “Farmer,” defined as any natural or juridical person engaged in raising, buying and selling livestock for the production of meat, milk and other products and derivatives. And it defines “Livestock” more narrowly than people assume: “any group of domestic animals, especially of the same species, such as pigs, bulls, steers, oxen, cows, heifers, calves, goats, kids, sheep, lambs, etc., used for the production of meat, milk and other products and derivatives.” Note two things: the list does not mention horses, and the tie is to use for producing meat, milk and derivatives. If your animal does not fit that definition, this specific Act is not the one that applies, and we will not stretch it for you.

• Move or transport livestock within the livestock movement period whose hours the Secretary of Agriculture sets by regulation.Verified against the official source
• Use a vehicle authorised and certified by the Department of Agriculture under the applicable regulation.Verified against the official source
• Be able to establish and justify ownership of the livestock at the moment of an intervention, under the formalities the regulation sets.Verified against the official source
• If an employee or third party is transporting: carry the owner’s authorisation in the form the regulation provides, in order to justify legitimate possession.Verified against the official source

Information pending verification.

1. 1

   Step 1: The presumption that can land on you too

   It is the heart of the Act and must be read carefully because it does not distinguish between a thief and a careless rancher. Article 5: “A rebuttable presumption is established that any natural or juridical person caught transporting livestock in any type of vehicle, whether or not an authorised vehicle …, or on foot, or by whatever means of transport, outside the hours comprised in the livestock movement period the Secretary of Agriculture establishes by regulation, holds illegal possession and custody of that livestock.” And the second half follows: the same presumption falls on anyone who, even within the hours, transports livestock “in vehicles neither authorised nor certified.” Rebuttable means you can rebut it, but the weight starts against you.

2. 2

   Step 2: What the movement period is and why we give you no hour

   The Act creates the period but leaves the clock to regulation. The article titled “Livestock Movement Period” says that within it “farmers, their employees or any person they authorise must carry out all the business inherent to moving and transporting livestock,” and lists what for: penning, feeding, grazing, milking, mating, veterinary or any other treatment the Secretary requires, exhibition, inventory, disposal of dead animals or animals ready for consumption, cremation, sale, deposit, rental “or any other lawful business.” Article 4 leaves the hours and “the waiver mechanisms to authorise the transport of livestock at special hours” to the Secretary’s regulation. We publish no hour because the Act carries none; we do tell you a waiver route exists and must be requested at the Department.

3. 3

   Step 3: Carry with you the means to prove it is yours

   The Act charges the regulation with four things that are, in practice, your defence on the road. Article 5 requires the Secretary to establish: “(a) an electronic livestock identification system; (b) the formalities to establish and justify ownership of the livestock; (c) the formalities for owners to authorise employees and/or third parties to transport their livestock so that they can establish and justify legitimate possession of it; (d) the requirements to certify vehicles authorised to transport livestock.” Item (c) is the most forgotten: if you send someone to move the animals, that person needs to carry the authorisation — it is not enough that you know they are acting for you.

4. 4

   Step 4: The microchip and the federal help the Act requires seeking

   The Act does not leave the identification method open. Article 5: “As regards electronic identification of livestock, the technology based on the use of a passive electronic device called a microchip shall be used.” And it adds a duty that helps the rancher’s pocket: “the Department of Agriculture of Puerto Rico shall undertake steps before the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in order to identify possible funds to help livestock owners in Puerto Rico cover the expenses they incur from implementing this Act.” If you are asked who pays for the microchips, that effort is a duty of the Department, not a favour.

5. 5

   Step 5: What happens at the stop, step by step

   Article 6 orders it this way. First, who may stop you: “The Police of Puerto Rico, as well as municipal police and inspectors of the Department of Agriculture, are empowered to intervene.” Second, what they take: the livestock whose legitimate possession cannot be established at that moment, “as well as the vehicles in which the livestock is transported.” Third, where you go: “Persons who at the time of the intervention cannot establish or justify legitimate possession or title over the seized livestock … shall be summoned the next working day to the district prosecutor’s office for the corresponding investigation.” Fourth, if theft is confirmed charges are filed, the prosecutor orders confiscation of the vehicles under the Uniform Confiscations Act — the compilation notes Act 93-1988 was repealed and replaced by Act 119-2011 — and orders “the return of the seized livestock” to whoever justified title.

6. 6

   Step 6: If nobody proves ownership, the livestock goes to auction

   Worth knowing because the clock runs. Article 6 closes: even if the investigation identifies no injured party, if the person stopped cannot justify legitimate title or possession, the livestock “shall be left under the custody and care of the Department of Agriculture, which shall dispose of it under the regulation it establishes for those purposes,” a regulation that must set “an agile, quick and economical procedure, with all legal and constitutional safeguards, for the auction of that livestock.” What the auction raises is assigned to the Department “to cover the expenses incurred for the care, custody and preservation.” If animals of yours were seized, title must be proved promptly.

7. 7

   Step 7: While it is investigated, the animal may not be harmed

   Article 7 sets a duty of care that helps anyone whose animals end up seized: the Police, municipal police or inspectors, as soon as they intervene, “shall coordinate, as promptly as possible, with the Department of Agriculture and other pertinent agencies so that the facilities and personnel necessary to handle and guard the seized livestock are assigned, in such a way that it suffers no harm during the investigation process.” And who ultimately pays for that is not you if you are the victim: “the expenses incurred for those purposes shall be imposed as costs at the time of sentencing against the person(s) convicted or fined.”

8. 8

   Step 8: It is a felony, and the value does not matter

   Article 8 is blunt in what it does make clear: “Any person caught stealing livestock or holding illegal possession and custody of stolen livestock, under Article 5 of this Act, commits a felony.” And it removes two common defences: “Neither the value of the seized livestock nor the fact that the livestock in question was recovered shall be a requirement for the offence to be made out.” The six aggravating circumstances the Act itself lists are: a prior felony conviction under this Act; livestock value over ten thousand dollars; significant damage to the livestock or to the facilities it was taken from; bodily harm to any person other than the offenders; taking by violence or intimidation; and harm to any agent or inspector at the moment of intervention. Besides prison, the court may impose restitution and “a fine of not less than five hundred (500) dollars nor more than ten thousand (10,000) dollars.”

9. 9

   Step 9: Two things in the text that do not add up, and we say so

   First, the sentence. Article 8 says literally: “shall be punished with imprisonment for a fixed term of five (5) years. Should mitigating circumstances exist, that penalty may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) years; should aggravating circumstances exist, it may be increased to a maximum of fifteen (15) years.” Read it twice: a five-year sentence cannot be “reduced” to a minimum of ten. The sentence does not work as compiled. We quote it exactly, tell you it is incoherent, and do not guess what the legislator meant: for the penalty that actually applies you need the original text and a lawyer. Second, the numbering: the compilation carries two articles numbered 3 — “Definitions” and “Livestock Movement Period” — and Article 4 refers to the second calling it “Article 3 of this Act.” That is why in this guide we cite by heading and not only by number.

At the Department of Agriculture for everything preventive: the movement period’s hours, the waiver for special hours, electronic microchip identification, the formalities to justify title, the authorisation of employees and third parties, and vehicle certification. For a roadside intervention, the Act empowers the Police of Puerto Rico, the municipal police and the Department’s inspectors. If livestock of yours was seized, the investigation runs at the district prosecutor’s office, where you are summoned the next working day. The Act publishes no form, office, address, telephone or hours, and we do not invent them.

• Moving livestock before dawn without a waiver: outside the movement period’s hours, illegal possession and custody is presumed.
• Believing being within the hours is enough: the same presumption applies if the vehicle is neither authorised nor certified.
• Sending an employee without written authorisation: the regulation must set that formality precisely so they can justify legitimate possession.
• Thinking on foot does not count: the presumption expressly covers transport on foot or by whatever means.
• Assuming a low-value animal is not a felony: the Act says value is not a requirement for the offence.
• Believing recovering the animal closes the case: the Act says it is likewise no requirement that the livestock was not recovered.
• Delaying proof of title after a seizure: if nobody justifies it, the livestock may end up auctioned under the Department’s custody.
• Assuming horses and mules are included: this Act’s livestock definition lists pigs, cattle, goats and sheep for meat and milk production, and does not mention them.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Departamento de Agricultura de Puerto Rico

  Agricultura

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov