A disbarred attorney and his wife who pleaded guilty to animal cruelty lost their appeal Wednesday of an order to pay more than $300,000 in restitution to Orange County Animal Care.
Edward Barry Reitkopp, who was disbarred in September, and his wife, Josephine Margaret Giametta-Reitkopp, pleaded guilty in January 2024 to a felony count each of animal cruelty and a misdemeanor county of failing to care for animals. The couple had about 150 dogs, including one who had died, taken from their home at 3846 E. Woodbine Road in Orange in May 2019 by Animal Care officials.
They were both sentenced to 90 days in jail, but the punishment was suspended on condition of clearing probation for two years successfully, which the two accomplished in January. Part of the conditions of their probation included performing 200 hours of community service and attending 10 counseling sessions on pet animal care.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Huy Nguyen ordered the couple to pay $300,369.15 in restitution to Orange County Animal Care.
The couple challenged the restitution order on grounds that there was no proof of the agency’s actual costs of impoundment and other expenses, according to a ruling from the First District Court of Appeal Division Three.
The appellate justices ruled that Nguyen “had broad authority to select an appropriate amount of restitution as a condition of probation, there was a factual and rational basis for the amount awarded, and defendants had a full and fair opportunity to contest the amount of restitution and failed to do so.”
Prosecutors relied on a “detailed report from Jennifer Hawkins, a contract veterinarian with (Orange County Animal Care), regarding the condition and treatment of the dogs seized from defendants’ home on May 30, 2019,” the justices said in the ruling.
The records included a “detailed spreadsheet” that “summarized the care provided to each animal,” the justices said.
The expenses included “flea treatment, antibiotics and other medications, bathing and grooming, blood draws, impounding and boarding,” according to the ruling.
“It would be an understatement to say the dogs had been living in horrific conditions and were in bad shape when they were discovered,” the justices said in the ruling. “The dog found to be deceased had been dead for at least two to three weeks and was in a state of severe decomposition. The floors of the premises were covered in urine and feces, and the premises had a high concentration of ammonia, a byproduct of animal waste, which serves as an irritant to the eyes, nose and throat and poses a serious health risk to animals and humans.”
The pets also suffered from “profound flea infestations, including chronic blood loss, life-threatening anemia, overgrown toenails, untreated fractures, dry eye, severely matted fur, feces-soaked fur, skin infections, congenital birth defects caused by inbreeding, poor body weight arising from malnourishment, dehydration, lack of regular access to food and water, lack of access to exercise and absence of veterinary care,” according to the ruling.
“According to Hawkins, the first night they were impounded, it took all night for 23 staff members and volunteers to triage and provide immediate care to 143 dogs, including collecting blood samples, and bathing and grooming,” the justices said in the ruling.
The defendants “provided information from websites regarding how much food a dog requires and a handwritten calculation prepared by defendant Edward Reitkopp regarding the total cost of feeding 150 dogs, which he concluded was $750,” according to the ruling.
“Defendants also submitted articles and a report containing complaints about (Orange County Animal Care) relating to other animals that were not involved in this case, a partial list of fees and charges for impounding animals from another city in California and a document showing `average dog boarding rates’ from another website,” according to the ruling.