Special Prosecutor Jordy Stern responds to the Citizen’s questions on why he failed to prosecute the Forristers’ on criminal charges concerning their dogs

Questions sent by the Citizen:

1. Nolle Prosequi, according to my research, is used when evidence is too scant for the prosecutor to go to trial. But that is not the case here. There is overwhelming evidence that the Forristers were guilty of all 30 criminal counts against them. Why did you withdraw your prosecution?

2. How is it “in the best interest of justice” not to go to trial? Neither side gets to present evidence and argument. The people are blocked from seeing that evidence and argument—which concerns their mayor. Were you somehow instructed to shield her? Because you couldn’t have helped the Forristers more. You have helped them more than their own attorney and have saved them thousands of dollars in putting on a defense.

3. Did you look at the body cam footage? Lane Forrister states “we give them water once a week.” Amanda Forrister states “I signed it,” meaning she signed into law the animal ordinance they violated—with full knowledge.

4. Did you look at the P&Z hearing minutes or the City Commission minutes for the kennel permit for the Forristers?

5. If so, why do you support the city breaking its own law to give the Forristers a kennel permit?

6. Why didn’t you keep ACO Di Giacomo involved? ACO Knull, who tried to talk Di Giacomo out of writing the Forristers up, is whom you spoke to in your supposed evidence gathering. Why use him and not Di Giacomo?

7. You were brought in as a special prosecutor because of the massive conflicts of interest caused by the alleged criminal being the mayor and her husband. Did you interview previous Chief of Police Victor Rodriguez, whom Filosa argued, during arraignment, gave the Forristers “permission to be doing whatever they were doing?” In addition, Amanda Forrister admitted during the P&Z kennel permit public hearing, that she had contacted Rodriguez to act as a “mediator” between her and Di Giacomo. This is admission of a Government Conduct Act violation. Instead of arguing in court, Forrister used her superior authority with an at-will employee to try to get out of or minimize criminal charges.

8. Were you aware that Di Giacomo and another ACO wrote the current animal control ordinance? According to you, the city is having an “interpretation issue” with the ordinance, but City Assistant Manager Traci Alvarez introduced that notion to the P&Z and city commission. Alvarez’ version allows bad actors, puppy mills and exploitative kennels and hunting clubs to have no up-front costs for licensing and vaccinations, no way to monitor how many dogs have died or been sold, etc. Alvarez is not the animal expert. You have added your imprimatur, your approval of this ignoring of the current animal code for Alvarez’ vague claims. Why? Aren’t you obligated to follow the city code in your prosecution?

9. Why didn’t the Forristers show up for the pretrial hearing? Had you assured them they didn’t need to?

10. How much have you been paid by the people for this? What do you think your final bill will be?

11. Are you drafting an order for Judge Sanders? When will it be finished?

Response from Special Prosecutor Jordy Stern:

Nolle Prosequi is the procedural equivalent of a voluntary dismissal of the case. A dismissal may be appropriate in a number of situations. In this particular case, the City’s objective in enforcing animal control ordinances is to obtain compliance for the individual charged, which in this case was only Mr. Forrister. There were four principal charges (1) vaccination of animals (x14); (2) registration of animals (14x); (3) failure to obtain a kennel permit; and (4) the issue of the animals’ water observed in September. After the initial citation in September 2022, Mr. Forrister obtained rabies vaccinations for all of the animals at issue in the case and went through the process of applying for and obtaining a kennel permit from the City. Regarding the issue with the animals’ water, Officer Knull made a subsequent visit to the property, and was satisfied with the condition of the water for the animals. That is three areas in which the Defendant demonstrated intent to get into compliance with the City’s ordinances. The fourth area of issue is the registration of animals in a kennel setting. There is currently uncertainty, even within the City itself, about whether a kennel permit holder is required to register dogs held in the kennel. It is not disputed that the dogs belonging to the Defendant do not continually reside in the City, and are often housed elsewhere for months at a time.

Given that the City is currently debating this exact issue surrounding registration, kennel permit holders, and foster dog owners, it was not an appropriate use of resources to pursue that particular charge in the Municipal Court case. I can get you information pertaining to my billing when I have submitted my final bill. I am sure my compensation is subject to IPRA.

This was a criminal prosecution, not a civil trial. The City held the burden of proof, and the Defendant had no duty to present evidence or argument. The City achieved its objective in obtaining compliance with the law. As well, the City will revisit the issue of dog registration for kennels and foster dogs. Greater clarity in the ordinance will ensure that all City residents know their obligations under the law. These actions were the right actions, and it would not matter whether Mr. Forrister had more attorneys, no attorneys or who he happened to be married to. My concern was that justice is done, which includes that the Defendant be treated fairly within the rules and the law.

I reviewed all evidence that was collected in this case including body cam footage and spoke with both of the responding officers about the incident. While it did not pertain to the events of September 2022, I also looked at both sets of minutes from the P&Z hearings. I did speak with Officer Di Giacomo about the incident. You may be aware that Officer Di Giacomo is no longer an animal control officer with the City and is now living out of state. While not insurmountable, these factors may have added to the expense and complication of the prosecution.

Subsequent to the arraignment, I was brought into represent the City on these two Municipal Court cases, later consolidated into one case, arising from a visit to the Defendant’s property in September 2022. I spoke with Animal Control Officer Knull, former Animal Control Officer DiGiacomo, the Forrister’s attorney, and reviewed the available video and photo footage.

The Defendant obtained a valid kennel permit. That is exactly what Citizens should want: compliance with the law. My charge was to handle the prosecution against Mr. Forrister and I was never consulted about the issuing of that permit. He has a valid permit and I must accept that fact.

The kennel permitting process actually offers the City an additional avenue to protect the animals at the property. Under Section 3-8.1(m), “kennel permit holders must allow the animal control officer, police officer, designated zoning official or administrator or other city official to enter and inspect the premises for compliance with this section and/or any other city municipal code or ordinances during normal business hours.” That is incredible transparency and access the City has for all kennel permit holders. Hence, when a resident comes into compliance by obtaining a kennel permit, the City assumes a tremendous oversight role and can better monitor animals’ conditions. This is greater access than the City has for a dog owner with a regular registration. The City equally retains the authority under the ordinance, Sec. 3-8.1(n) to revoke a kennel permit under the animal control chapter. All permit holders, must stay in compliance. If a permit holder falls out of compliance, then the City has the ability to revoke a permit, issue citations, or file charges in the relevant jurisdiction.

The Nolle Prosequi does not require an additional order for Judge Sanders’ signature. I will submit a Notice to that effect, advising that no subsequent order is needed following the Nolle’s filing. Prior to the pretrial hearing, I had electronically filed the Nolle Prosequi and advised opposing counsel of this fact.