Woman uses car wash hose to wash Beagle with muzzle bound shut while still in crate

Los Angeles, Calif. – Netania Anderson (AKA Netania Jordan) went to the car wash, but it wasn’t to wash her car. It was to wash her dog. There is nothing out of the ordinary in having to wash your pet. Anyone who has a pet or pets bathe their animals or bring them to the groomers to have them bathed. Either way, it is one of the responsibilities of having a pet.

What was not normal – abhorrent, even – was the method she used to wash her pet, which was caught on photo images by a witness (whose name is being withheld) who happened to be at the car wash where the event transpired. He noticed that Anderson’s dog’s muzzle was bound by what appeared to be electrical tape. While still in the crate, Anderson turned the crate on its end, and showered the dog with the car wash’s pressure washer.

13886942_10153629719567312_7440516419779983982_n

Facebook (Unidentified witness)

He could see urine and feces being washed out of the crate, along with the soapy water, from the pressure washer, which is suggestive that the dog is left inside the crate for long periods of time and, as such, has no ability to relieve himself anywhere but in his crate. This is not in a dog’s nature. Canines do not defecate and urinate where they sleep or eat, unless forced to.

High pressure washers used at a car wash are of commercial grade. According to a “Pressure Washing a Car – Best Way to Wash Car with Pressure Washer,” a pressure wash “can provide a pressure delivery of at least 1450 PSI at 3.7 GPM….” That kind of pressure has sufficient force to cause a great deal of pain – and maybe even bodily injury – to a small beagle. That is probably the reason why Anderson taped her dog’s mouth shut. She wanted to make sure he didn’t yelp in pain.

The witness who recorded this incident by photographs confronted Ms. Anderson to explain to her that what she was doing to the dog was cruel and inhumane. It was to no avail. She continued to spray the helpless little dog with the pressure hose and subsequently turned the hose on the witness.

13895513_10153629719477312_7316845436908497255_n

Facebook (Unidentified witness)

13886352_10153629719762312_8287905275916650604_n

The witness took additional photos of Ms. Anderson – one with her trying to hide her face – and posted them on social media in the hopes that someone could identify her and, presumably, to make a citizen’s complaint.

However, the witness was blindsided by being served with a summons initiated by Anderson for a restraining order, which was granted. Details about what was alleged in court by Anderson, as well as her criminal history involving crimes of moral turpitude, can be found on a post made by Marla Tauscher on Facebook.

Before a permanent restraining order is granted, it is preceded by a temporary restraining order (or, TRO). Assuming this is what was before the court, many judges will grant it as a matter of course. Furthermore, except for the facts provided on the Facebook page, nothing else is known. Assuming a hearing for a permanent restraining order is still set to take place, if it can be shown that the only face-to-face confrontation between the witness and Anderson was at the carwash, it is doubtful the restraining order will be made permanent. If there are people – other than the witness – who are harassing Anderson at her home, her issue is with them, not the witness.

13872674_10153629719937312_10394374096484647_nIt should be made clear that these photos were taken in a public place. As a general matter, people in public places do not have the same “expectation of privacy” as they are afforded in the privacy of their own homes, for example. Therefore, the photos taken of Ms. Anderson while out in the public is not illegal. It was not an infringement of her privacy rights.

This is also not a First Amendment issue. According to the Facebook post describing the incident, the witness is ordered to stay 100 yards of Ms. Anderson and her dog. Although being haled into court would have the effect of quelling free speech, it does not mean the witness cannot continue to take photos of her, or anyone else for that matter, in public places.

The animal-loving community is demanding Anderson be investigated and held to answer for her actions. The evidence is there in the form of photos. The evidence is there in the form of eyewitness testimony. This kind behavior towards animals should not be tolerated; otherwise, animal cruelty and welfare will not be taken seriously. More disconcerting is if she treats her pet like this in public, one must wonder how her pet is treated behind closed doors. She should be banned from owning any pets.

It is worrisome that a person with the audacity to treat her pet like this in public view could avoid prosecution. If Anderson could so callously wash her dog in a manner much, much worse than she would hand-wash her dishes and not held accountable for it, then the system is broken. Something is seriously wrong.

A car wash is a facility created to wash cars, not animals. It is a convenience for those who lead busy lives. Although vehicles are prized possessions to some, it is safe to say that vehicles do not feel physical and emotional pain when sprayed by a high-pressured industrial pressure hose.

We live in a civilized society. Even people who are not “animal lovers” agree that washing a pet with equipment intended for vehicles is cruel and barbaric. The community is demanding that Anderson be held to answer to animal cruelty charges. Those who agree are asked to politely request the Los Angeles Animal Service (“LAAS”) to investigate Anderson’s actions on July 3, 2016, the day she washed her small beagle by use of an industrial car wash pressure washer.

Please email Marcia Mayeda at mmayeda@animalcare.lacounty.gov; Officer Gonzalez at LAAS at ani.wlafield@lacity.org; and Brenda Barnett at brenda.barnette@lacity.org. You can also contact LAAS’s Animal Cruelty Task Force by calling (213) 486-0450. After all, it’s mission – as stated on their website – is as follows:

In keeping with our mission to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of animals and people in our city, the City of Los Angeles created the Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF) to investigate and prosecute animal cruelty cases.

Anderson was able to take advantage of the justice system to secure a TRO; so, society should have access to that same justice system where our collective voices to protect the voiceless can be heard. The animal-loving community is voicing its discontent and is intent on protecting the dog Anderson “washed” with little regard for his welfare.

People are urged to stop harassing Anderson, or any of her family members. This is an emotional issue, indeed. However, no matter how egregious Anderson’s actions were towards her pet, harassment is equally unacceptable.

11 Comments on "Woman uses car wash hose to wash Beagle with muzzle bound shut while still in crate"

  1. A 1 year permanent restraining order WAS granted by Judge Mark Juhas. The witness, my friend, did nothing threatening to Anderson…she just didn’t like that he posted her photos and her abuse on social media. In this real travesty of justice, the judge is obstructing the witness’s First Amendment Rights to free speech with this restraining order saying that his posting on social media was “harassment.” Had the media reported on this, they would not be granted a restraining order. We shouldn’t punish people for trying to do the right thing. My friend was simply trying to find the identity of Anderson and asking for guidance of who to call because he wasn’t getting response from law enforcement. Restraining orders are for credible threats of violence, not because someone outed your animal abuse on Facebook.

    • Thank you for the update, Lorna. It was not clear from the FB post whether the restraining order was temporary or permanent. I’m sure your friend just wants to be done with it all, but I would appeal it in a heartbeat. I am not privy to the judge’s rationale for granting a permanent restraining order, or the scope of it. From what I read, it prevents him from coming within 100 yards from her. Again, if she is in the public, he can take as many photos he wants of her, as long as he is not stalking her, or knowingly come within 100 yards of her. Whatever the case, the original post has been shared … what? … 12,000 times. What is Anderson going to do? Sue 12,000 people? This isn’t going away. In addition, this article/blog was written about this incident. The law cannot “restrain” me from publishing it, or compel me to unpublish it. It’s free speech. It does not incite violence. It states facts. People need to contact the individual listed in the article, as well as call LAAS animal cruelty task force.

    • I’m glad he cared enough to approach her and take up for the animal. The Judge NEEDS disbarred!!! And any Law Enforcement that Did NOT help… sHAME on you!!!! No Excuse for Animal Abuse!!

  2. And there was no other contact between the witness and Anderson. It was simply that he posted her photos on social media.

  3. is terrible that the law didn’t protect the dog that was abuse by this woman

  4. Can someone call thew news station to cover this story? What that woman did to the dog is abuse! That’s high pressure washer, for sure it hurts and traumatize the dog. She should be charged with animal abuse! The law should protect the dog, not this horrible person.

  5. Tonia Gregoire | August 16, 2016 at 7:30 pm | Reply

    I sent an email to Marcia – this is horrific.

  6. Not only does the media need to cover this because of the animal cruelty but also the judges granting of the permanent restraining order and violation of his first amendment rights!! There are many layers to this story and any credibile news organization will. Over it!!

  7. We have put together a petition trough care2.com we have over 30.000 signatures you can check and sign the petition at the site under “puppy abused at the car washed” is also available if you google her name Netania Anderson Jordan .
    Thanks

  8. The witness should have taken the crate with dog and proof to the authorities right then and there. If it were a child, would he have left it?? I think not. I don’t care what, it was the right thing to do, and he should have taken that dog right then.

    • I’m the witness. I was on a skateboard. Dogs are considered property. If I had taken the dog, she would have pressed charges against me for theft. California laws and the judicial system are fucking nuts. That’s why I moved away from a beautiful but insane state.

Tell readers what you think