Jasper has been staying with the Raleigh County Humane Society since being determined to be vicious in 2015.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Jasper is just a dog.

Jasper is also someone’s property. Jasper has dropped through the cracks. Jasper has been up and down every rung of the court system. Jasper is surprisingly politically-connected. And Jasper may set legal precedent.

For a 23-pound whippet mix, there are many aspects of Jasper.

Let’s start here: The state Supreme Court has already heard Jasper’s doggie death sentence case twice, both times issuing rulings against him.

Now the attorney for Jasper’s owner, new House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, is petitioning for the Supreme Court to hear Jasper’s case again. Hanshaw contends that in earlier instances, the court system whiffed on major issues having to do with personal property rights.

“Though there is a dog involved in this case, the real issue here is to what extent can the state dispossess a criminal defendant – or for that matter any citizen – of his or her property without due process?” Hanshaw said during a recent interview about the case.

Jasper has been on a doggie version of death row since a 2015 magistrate court ruling following his biting of a 4-year-old girl and an 8-year-old girl three times over several months.

Over that time, Jasper’s case had multiple stops in magistrate court and circuit court, as well as the state Supreme Court. At one point, Gov. Jim Justice looked into weighing in, but determined he didn’t have authority.

Jasper has been staying in solitary confinement at the Raleigh County Humane Society, where he has grown a devoted Facebook following at his page, Justice for Jasper.

“So the dog at issue in this case has been ordered destroyed even though the criminal defendant has, before three different legal proceedings, never been offered an opportunity to put on a defense or offer testimony in support of her own property rights, and that’s not OK,” Hanshaw said.

As Jasper’s case has gone up and down the court system, various judges have ruled that the Humane Society does not have standing to speak up for Jasper.

Various judges have also ruled that his original owner, Brenda Jeffrey, also has no standing to defend her dog.

“Various courts at various levels at various times have held the dog is the property of Brenda Jeffrey, is not the property of Brenda Jeffrey, is the property of the humane society, is not the property of the humane society,” Hanshaw said.

“There’s been no consistency whatsoever in the court’s approach to the ownership issue. But even if you step past the ownership issue, there’s still the question of, can Brenda Jeffrey’s dog – or in any other context, her property – be taken without due process? The answer is no.”

The most recent instance of the state Supreme Court considering Jasper’s case, this past summer, wound up with justices issuing a memorandum decision that his owner, Jeffrey, lacked standing because she relinquished custody of Jasper to the humane society.

Not an acceptable answer, Hanshaw said.

“So the court, rather than looking at the order that we appealed, went into the record and pulled out a surrender form that Brenda Jeffrey signed when she surrendered her dog to the humane society of Raleigh County,” Hanshaw said.

“And on that form she had written very clearly ’10 day bite hold,’ which is what West Virginia law provides when an animal bites a human being. It has to be confined for 10 days for observation to make sure it doesn’t have rabies.”

Jasper’s owner signed that form three years ago.

Hanshaw is a Bowles Rice attorney who, although he does have two dogs, is more attuned to big ideas like property rights. He wound up taking this case as a legal services effort. He has never actually met Jasper.

“This is a private property rights issue,” Hanshaw said.

“This is not simply a matter of what becomes of this dog. If you read the pleadings in this case, and everywhere you see the word ‘dog’ you substitute the word ‘home’ or you substitute the words ‘retirement account’ or you substitute ‘bank account’ then it suddenly becomes a lot more serious to a lot more people because even though there may be a dog at issue here that dog is just a proxy for much broader conversation about property rights.

Over this past summer, Hanshaw filed a petition for re-hearing with the Supreme Court.

That was about the time the Supreme Court started getting into its own uncharted territory. Hanshaw played a part in that as well.

The majority on the House Judiciary Committee, where Hanshaw was the vice chairman at the time, voted to approve 11 articles of impeachment on all the members of the Supreme Court over the public’s lost trust because of a variety of financial decisions by the justices.

The House Speaker at the time, Tim Armstead, resigned soon after because he was appointed to a Supreme Court seat that had been vacated by Justice Menis Ketchum, who pleaded guilty to a wire fraud charge related to his use of a state vehicle to travel to a personal golf outing.

Hanshaw, shortly after that, was selected Speaker by the Republican majority.

So if Hanshaw manages to get the Supreme Court to hear Jasper’s case again, it could be before Justice Armstead, the former Speaker. Or it could be before a couple of remaining justices who might not be too happy with Hanshaw. Or both.

If the West Virginia Supreme Court rules against Jasper again, Hanshaw says he’s ready to take the case to an even higher level.

“We’re fully prepared to continue on with this matter, even on to the Supreme Court of the United States,” Hanshaw said.

He suspects the U.S. Supreme Court may have an interest in Jasper and the legal interests surrounding him.

“We are really talking about asset forfeiture, which the U.S. Supreme Court has hinted in recent opinions as ripe for consideration by that court,” Hanshaw said.

“Our statute and the Supreme Court’s holdings that interpret it make clear that the actual forfeiture itself is a criminal proceeding, which therefore entitles the criminal defendant to all the usual rights that accompany criminal defendants throughout the criminal process and Brenda Jeffrey was afforded none of those rights.”