Page 2 of 4
At McDonald's, he said "She would have chicken salad, and typically, for added protein, I would throw some tuna on the salad. And she has an option of if she wants to eat the dressing or not."
Another favorite, he said, was the Filet-O-Fish sandwich. "She eats it a little different than a human would eat it. She would take it apart. First she would lick off the tartar sauce, then she would eat the cheese, then she would eat the lettuce, then she'd eat the tomato, then she'd eat the fish.
"She likes Taco Bell," he continued. Her favorite item: the Burrito Supreme.
On the stand, Oyer and Archigo outlined four independent mechanisms meant to keep Suco secured in the berth of the cab, including a tether system, bars and sliding doors. It was a system that Oyer said had never failed in the 20 years Suco had spent cruising the interstate with Archigo and Kaumans when she wasn't staying with Oyer.
Archigo and Kaumans spent that October morning preparing to pick up a load and get on the road. They locked Suco in the semi and left the truck in a lot that Oyer owns on Indiana Avenue while they picked up clothes for the trip. While they were gone, Suco got loose.
The defense argued that this was likely the work of somebody breaking into the truck and springing the chimp. Oyer says he thinks that somebody was trying to steal her. Archigo testified that Suco had never breached one of the restraints, much less all four, and that they had been away from her for only 40 minutes when she got out.
After Archigo arrived on the scene, animal-control officers and police testified, he announced himself as Suco's owner and began helping corral the chimp. An animal-control officer attempted to shoot her with a tranquilizer. Soon after that, Archigo successfully cajoled the chimp into the back of the cargo van, which is outfitted with a cage. Then, an animal-control officer testified, Archigo denied owning her, telling authorities that she belonged to Kaumans.
On the stand, Archigo testified that he didn't remember specifically saying he owned Suco, but if he did, it was so that police and animal control would allow him to approach her and secure her in his vehicle.
Defense attorney Hoorfar attempted to establish that Archigo and Kaumans had kept Suco in an undisclosed Cass County location, and that the chimp was within city limits only briefly, before trips in the semi got under way.
Hoorfar and Wilcher argued over the legal definition of the words "keeping" and "harboring" in the city ordinance. Hoorfar quoted the city's definition of keeping or owning: "any person who feeds or shelters any animal for three or more consecutive days or who professes ownership of such animal shall be deemed to be owning or keeping." Plus, he noted, Suco didn't have a habitat, pen or cage within city limits, so the couple couldn't be guilty of keeping her there.
Wilcher hit back with the city's definition of "harboring": "any person who offers asylum, refuge or sanctuary to any animal on a basis so temporary as to not be deemed to be owning or keeping shall be deemed to be harboring." Regardless of whether Suco lived full time in Kansas City, she was being harbored within the city just by waiting in the truck for Archigo and Kaumans to return, he argued.
Ultimately, Bland decided that leaving Suco parked in their semi fit the legal meaning of harboring, and he found Archigo and Kaumans guilty. He sentenced them to two years' probation and ordered them each to pay modest fines — $500 for Archigo and $250 for Kaumans — and $1,524.25 in restitution to the city for repairs to the police car.
Showing 1-4 of 4
