ASHLAND — The pretrials for both defendants criminally charged in the investigation of a Loudonville dog breeding operation are scheduled just 30 minutes apart in October.
Ross C. Rutschilling, 24, of St. Henry, made his initial appearence in Ashland Municipal Court on Tuesday morning before Judge John Good. The 24-year-old is the second individual charged in the case, along with 64-year-old Loudonville dog breeder Daniel Miller.
Rutschilling was not arrested in relation to the six charges he’s facing, appearing in municipal court Tuesday via summons. The charges were filed Sept. 16 by Ashland County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Curtis Hall, who also serves as Ashland County’s dog warden.
Good set Rutschilling’s pretrial date for Oct. 13 at 1:30 p.m. — 30 minutes Miller’s scheduled pretrial at 2 p.m.
The 24-year-old was not represented by an attorney Tuesday, but told the judge he would like to speak with one. Rutschilling told Good he plans to hire an attorney and has the financial means to afford representaiton.
Good entered not-guilty pleas on all counts on behalf of Rutschilling.
His six charges include five counts of aiding/abetting an act involving sexual conduct with an animal and one count of attempt to commit cruelty to companion animals. The alleged offenses occurred on Sept. 12 and Dec. 27, 2025, and Feb. 7, Feb. 27 and March 7, 2026, according to court records.
Under Ohio Revised Code, all six charges are second-degree misdemeanors — which carry a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $750.
Good told Rutschilling if he was found guilty on all charges — and if sentenced consecutively — the maximum sentence is 540 days in the county jail and a fine of $4,500 ($750 per charge).
Rutschilling faces 21 felony charges in separate case in Indiana
According to records from the Wells County Circuit Court in Indiana, Rutschilling is facing 21 additional charges in a separate case. Information from the Wells County Circuit Court and Ashland Municipal Court list the same name and address.
Those 21 charges include 20 counts of possession of child sex abuse material (all fifth-degree felonies) and one count of child solicitation (a fourth-degree felony).
Court records show the case was filed May 15. A $1,000 cash bond was received by the clerk on May 26, according to court records.
According to the Wells County Sheriff’s Office, Rutschilling was booked May 14 on one count of child solicitation and bonded out May 18. The additional 20 charges were not included in his booking.
His next court date in this case is a pretrial conference on Nov. 16, according to the court docket.
Attorney Jeffrey Holland, the special prosecutor assigned to Rutschilling’s case in Ashland Municipal Court, confirmed Tuesday afternoon the prosecution is aware of the defendant’s separate case in Indiana.
Court grants specialized bond condition
Attorney Jeffrey Holland of Holland and Muirden, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, motioned for a joinder — a combination of Rutschilling’s six charges into a single legal proceeding. Good said the court is inclined to join the charges.
Holland also requested special bond requirements for the defendant.
“We would ask that as a condition of bond that the defendant be prohibited from owning, possessing or living at a residence with animals of any kind,” he said.
Good granted the request for a specialized bond condition, requiring Rutschilling to sign a recognizance bond — meaning Rutschilling was free to go following Tuesday’s appearence with the understanding that his written agreement promises he will appear for all future court dates.
Holland, a trial lawyer with 30 years of experience in criminal and civil litigation, told Ashland Source on Tuesday he can tell Good is taking the case seriously and was satisfied that the special bond condition was granted.
“Animals can’t speak for themselves, that’s the troubling thing,” Holland said.
Failure to appear in violation of the bond warrants a first-degree misdemeanor, the judge explained to the defendant. That violation would constitute six months jail and a $1,000 fine.
The judge told the defendant he is not to keep, possess, harbor or have under his control any animal.
Good explained the condition covers any animal, not just companion animals or pets, including livestock, birds, fish, etc.
Rutschilling did present a question to the judge regarding the bond condition. He said he still lives with family members who own cats.
“I don’t know if that’s an issue or not,” he said.
“It is an issue. They’re not to be in your possession,” Good responded. “You’re going to have to find somewhere else for them to go, today. You are not to be in possession of any animal.”
Following a period of silence, the 24-year-old said he could comply with the bond
“(If) I find you in possession of an animal, I’m going to revoke your bond and you’re going to go sit in jail until your trial,” Good said. “You are not to be in possession of any animal as of today and that includes cats.
“I’ll give you until the end of the day to get them out of your possession, but that’s it. There’s going to be zero tolerance. There will be no exceptions and no tolerance for that.”
State document references ‘RR,’ Miller in allegations
Ashland Source, via a public records request, obtained a letter delivered to Miller by hand from the Ohio Department of Agriculture.
The Aug. 27 letter was addressed to Miller’s facility (Happy Mountain K9 Facilities) at 362 County Road 2575, Loudonville. It notified the 64-year-old that the ODA Division of Animal Health, Commercial Dog Breeding Program has proposed revoking his high-volume, dog-breeding license.
The ODA cited the action has been proposed due to “violations that materially threaten the health and welfare of (Miller’s) dogs.”
The letter alleges Miller violated two Ohio Administrative Code rules, both related to the health and welfare of the animals.
In the document, ODA only refers to Miller and a second individual identified by the initials “RR.” It details allegations involving two dogs during fall 2024. The notice did not identify the individual by their full name or state whether they had been criminally charged at the time the letter was delivered.
The letter alleges in the fall of 2024, Miller allowed an individual to engage in sexual conduct with two of his dogs that were part of his commercial dog breeding business.
“(Miller) allowed RR to leave his property with a black male poodle dog and take it to a hotel,” the letter states. “At the time, (Miller) believed that the individual intended to engage in sexual conduct with that dog at another location.”
ODA alleges the next day, “RR” returned to Miller’s property, told him he had engaged in sexual conduct with the dog and requested to engage in sexual conduct with a second dog.
“(Miller) allowed RR to take a female Burmese mountain dog into a private room of his kennel,” the letter said. “(Miller) knew that RR intended to engage in sexual conduct with that second dog.
“(Miller) later learned that RR did engage in sexual conduct with the second dog.”
Failure to prevent or take corrective measures of improper care once the licensee is aware of the improper care is a violation of the OAC, the letter said, along with failure to minimize distress to the licensee’s dogs.
The second count alleges Miller in February 2026 allowed one individual, identified only by the letter “G,” to engage in sexual conduct with one of his dogs, a male standard poodle, in Miller’s kennel.
The notice said this dog was also part of Miller’s commercial dog-breeding business.
“(Miller) knew that G intended to (engage) in sexual conduct with that dog, and (Miller) later learned that G did (engage) in sexual conduct with that dog,” the notice said.
The notice informed Miller of his right to an administrative hearing should he disagree with the ODA’s proposed findings. It was signed by Dr. Melissa Simmerman, an animal health veterinarian with ODA’s Commercial Dog Breeders Office.
