Overview:
The Torrington animal control case involving a 35-lb bulldog named Arnez has raised concerns about fees, shelter staffing, and courtroom conduct. Presence News reviewed court proceedings where the City requested more than $1,000 in costs despite earlier citing only $300, and a judge ultimately questioned the city’s approach. A follow-up visit to the animal control facility revealed the shelter was unstaffed for nearly two hours during posted open hours. Key questions remain regarding policy, procedure, and transparency within the City of Torrington’s animal control operations.
NOTICE: Press releases coming out of Torrington Animal Control are unverified.
A Routine Court Appearance Turns Into a Heated Exchange
A Torrington animal control case drew attention this week after City of Torrington counsel Tomasz Kalinowski, appearing alongside attorney Michael Magistrali, asked the court to impose more than $1,000 in fees on a local defendant for the return of their dog—despite the City earlier estimating current costs at about $300.
The dog, “Arnez,” a roughly 35-pound bulldog, has been held at the municipal shelter for three weeks following a neglect complaint filed by Animal Control Handler Caitlin Nield. The officer alleged the dog may have been left outdoors on the night of November 17. Average daytime temperatures at that time were around 51°F in Torrington.
The defendant stated in court that the dog had bedding and a water bowl where Caitlin said it didn’t. Defendant said she had proof, Caitlin said she submitted evidence of pictures – judge and clerk stated that it was false. No evidence of pictures were submitted by animal control handler.
Unusual Fee Request Raises Eyebrows
During the hearing, Attorney Kalinowski requested:
- $1,000 in payment, plus
- An additional 14 days of boarding.
- At a $15 daily rate on top of the 21 days already charged.
The defendant told the court they had not been permitted to see their dog since it was seized.
Judge Roraback questioned the fee request and ultimately ordered that the dog be returned immediately once the final bill was calculated. The total came to $411, which the defendant paid. (Judge gave question to see where the money was going & where the funds will be paid too – council and animal handler did not respond.) – Question was what was the relationship between city and the vet if there was a RFP on file or if it was chosen by Arnez’s dad
The judge also openly questioned why the City was being unusually strict toward the defendant.
Defendant Claims Pre-Existing Medical Care
Animal control records included skin irritation concerns and prescriptions for medications.
However, the defendant told the court that Arnez is an older dog and already had eye drops and skin medication as part of his normal care routine.
The defendant said: “I adopted him over 10 years ago. He already had the medication, but I’m being asked to pay for it all again.”
Presence News Visits the Shelter: No Staff Present
Following the hearing, Presence News visited the Torrington Animal Control facility at 248 Lower Bogue Road to check on the welfare of the dog as part of standard investigative journalism practice.
Although the shelter’s posted hours indicated it should have been staffed, no personnel were present. Another visitor—a woman attempting to donate clothing—also found the building unstaffed.
Presence News confirmed via phone call at 2:58 p.m. that staff had left the facility at 1:00 p.m. and returned at 2:45 p.m., leaving the shelter unattended for approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes.
Most municipal shelters are required to maintain staffing during posted hours and avoid leaving animals unattended for extended periods.
Concerns Over Lines of Questioning in Court
During the hearing, Attorney Kalinowski asked the defendant a series of personal questions—including:
- Where he grew up
- How many children he has
- Who sleeps where in the home
- Even what position he sleeps in at night
These questions appeared to have little connection to the neglect allegation and caused visible confusion and discomfort in the courtroom.
The defendant, a licensed dental professional who relocated to the area for work, maintained a calm and respectful demeanor throughout the exchange.
City Response Still Pending
Presence News reached out to Attorneys Kalinowski and Magistrali via email and LinkedIn requesting comment on:
- The fee calculation and the request for an additional two weeks of boarding
- The three-week denial of access to the dog
- The nearly two-hour period during which the shelter was unstaffed
- Any context not stated publicly in court
- Past due invoices owed to A1 Portable Toilet for city services rendered under prior Mayor Elinor Carbone’s administration and whether Mayor Molly Spino’s office intends to resolve them.
As of publication, no response has been received.
Animal Control stated by phone that owners are not allowed to see their dogs while they are being held after seizure.
Questions That Remain
This case raises several outstanding questions for the City of Torrington:
- Why was the court asked to approve more than triple the stated fees?
- Why was the dog held for 21 days without visitation?
- Why was the animal shelter unattended for 1 hour and 45 minutes during open hours?
- Are Torrington’s animal control policies aligned with Connecticut standards and public expectations?
- And why did courtroom questioning stray into deeply personal, unrelated areas?
Presence News will update this story if the City provides further information.
Editor’s Note:
This case was unexpectedly complex, and some actions observed in court prompted legitimate questions. Presence News has requested clarifications from city counsel to ensure full accuracy and fairness. We remain open to updating this story based on official response.
Have a story from Litchfield Superior Court? Presence News Wants to Hear From You.
Presence News is expanding local reporting across all civil and criminal proceedings held at Litchfield Superior Court — and we’re inviting community members, court observers, and professionals to help us shine light on what happens inside our justice system.
📌 Important: The courthouse prohibits photography or video recordings.
However, note-taking with pen, paper, or notebook is fully permitted, and public access to proceedings is a protected right.
If you witness:
- unusual courtroom conduct,
- questionable legal tactics,
- inconsistencies in public statements,
- stories of public interest,
- or anything you believe the community deserves to know…
Presence News will compensate contributors in cash for verified, publishable leads, eyewitness summaries, or documented observations — now and always.
Your voice strengthens transparency,
Your notes help keep our institutions accountable,
Your contributions support independent journalism in your area.
📩 To submit a tip:
Email Editor@PresenceNews.org
or reach out via any of our social platforms.
All submissions remain confidential.
Godspeed — and thank you for helping us report the truth.
More at Presence News:
