Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallShort answer: not in the literal legal sense. The available records show that a judge signed a warrant authorizing New York officials to search for and seize illegally possessed wildlife. They do not establish that the warrant itself ordered Peanut the squirrel to be killed.
The warrant did, however, place Peanut in state custody and set in motion the chain of events that ended with his euthanasia. Officials cited a reported bite, the presence of a raccoon, and rabies-testing rules that generally require brain tissue from an animal that may have been exposed. Peanut and the raccoon, Fred, were euthanized, and both later tested negative for rabies.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Planet Earth Collection (DVD) | $8.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Seven Worlds, One Planet | $14.54 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
National Geographic: Great Migrations | $5.98 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Nature: My Life as a Turkey | $11.52 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Serengeti (DVD) | $8.97 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Peanut—also styled P’Nut or PNUT—was known online as a tame, hand-raised eastern gray squirrel. Mark Longo said he rescued Peanut in 2017 after the squirrel’s mother was killed by a car in New York City. Longo bottle-fed him, attempted to release him, and ultimately kept him after Peanut returned with a serious tail injury. Those details come primarily from Longo’s account, as reported by The Associated Press, rather than from an independent veterinary or state record.
Recommended Free Tools
That personal history explains the public’s reaction. To Peanut’s followers, he was a familiar animal with a personality and a social-media following. Under New York’s wildlife rules, however, a native gray squirrel is not automatically transformed into a legal pet simply because a person has raised it by hand. The state treated Peanut as unlawfully possessed wildlife subject to wildlife and public-health procedures.
#1 Best Overall
The most accurate way to describe what happened
The claim that Peanut’s “fate was sealed” when the warrant was signed is understandable as a description of the practical consequences. Once officials had judicial authority to search the property and take the animals, Peanut was no longer under Longo’s control.
But it is too strong to say that a judge signed an explicit death warrant. The released material reviewed for this account supports three separate conclusions:
- A judge authorized a search and seizure. The warrant was connected to an investigation into allegedly unlawful possession of wildlife.
- Officials had discussed euthanasia and rabies testing before or during the operation. FOIL-released records describe plans involving animal control and testing, but those discussions do not by themselves prove that euthanasia was irrevocably ordered by the warrant.
- The available record does not show that the warrant itself directed Peanut’s death. Public-health officials later justified euthanasia through rabies-control procedures and a reported bite.
So the clearest summary is this: the warrant authorized the seizure that put Peanut in official custody; a separate public-health decision made the seizure irreversible.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Peanut’s story: a verified timeline
| Date | What the records and reporting show |
|---|---|
| 2017 | According to Longo’s public account, he found Peanut as an orphaned squirrel in New York City, bottle-fed him, and later stopped trying to release him after Peanut returned with a badly injured tail. |
| April 2023 | Longo and Daniela Bittner opened P’Nuts Freedom Farm Animal Sanctuary, according to AP reporting. The sanctuary’s website now describes it as a nonprofit created in Peanut’s memory that cares for rescued wildlife. |
| January–October 2024 | The New York Department of Environmental Conservation investigated complaints concerning allegedly unlawful possession of wildlife and animal conditions. Released records say investigators reviewed Longo’s TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram activity while preparing the case. |
| October 30, 2024 | Approximately 12 DEC personnel executed a judge-signed search warrant at Longo’s Pine City property. The released incident materials identify DEC investigators, Environmental Conservation Officers, and Bureau of Wildlife personnel. |
| During the search | Peanut was reportedly found in a bathtub and Fred, the raccoon, was found in luggage inside the residence. Both animals were listed among the property seized. |
| October 30–November 1, 2024 | Peanut and Fred were euthanized so their remains could be submitted for rabies testing. Officials cited a reported bite involving Peanut and additional concern arising from the raccoon’s presence and contact with the squirrel. |
| November 12, 2024 | Chemung County officials announced that both animals tested negative for rabies. The county’s environmental-health report also records negative results for squirrel and raccoon specimens submitted that month, although its summary table does not name the animals. |
| April 2025 | New York Assembly materials described proposed legislation called “Peanut’s Law: Humane Animal Protection Act.” The proposal would add procedural safeguards before certain seizures or euthanasia decisions involving animals held by qualified sanctuaries. |
| August 2025 onward | Public reporting stated that Longo and Bittner filed a New York Court of Claims action seeking $10 million from governmental defendants. A separate local action was also reported. No final judgment, settlement, or trial outcome was verified in the public sources reviewed through August 12, 2026. |
Why were Peanut and Fred taken?
New York generally restricts private possession of native wildlife. People who rehabilitate, educate, or permanently house wild animals may need specific authorization, permits, or other approval. The issue was therefore not simply whether Peanut behaved like a pet. Officials were investigating whether Longo had the legal authority to possess and display the squirrel and raccoons at all.
The DEC’s investigation reportedly began after complaints about wildlife possession and animal conditions. The released records describe officials researching Longo’s social-media accounts, planning the operation, and assigning a sizable team to execute the warrant. Those records add important detail to the early viral accounts, which focused mainly on Peanut’s popularity and the shock of his death.
A nonprofit or sanctuary designation does not automatically answer the wildlife-permit question. Whether Longo’s possession was unlawful, whether the warrant was properly scoped, and whether officials later had authority to euthanize the animals are separate legal questions.
What happened when authorities executed the warrant?
On October 30, 2024, about 12 personnel went to Longo’s property in Pine City. The released incident records describe Peanut being found in a bathtub and Fred being found in luggage. The animals were taken as seized property during the search.
Planning records reportedly included communications about taking animals to animal control for euthanasia and rabies testing. That detail is significant because it makes the operation look more deliberate than a spontaneous decision made after officials arrived. It still does not prove that the warrant itself contained an order to kill Peanut. The complete operative text of the warrant was not located in an official court repository in the research record available for this article.
Rank #2
The exact sequence is also not fully clear. The records and public statements do not completely establish who made each decision, when the bite was reported, how the county health department and animal control were involved, or whether the final euthanasia decision was made by DEC, local health officials, animal-control personnel, or through a coordinated public-health process.
Why officials said euthanasia was necessary
The reported bite
DEC and county officials said Peanut bit a wildlife biologist during the seizure. They treated the incident as a potential rabies exposure. The bite has been disputed in Longo’s public statements and in later litigation.
The released records contain inconsistent or differently framed descriptions of the incident. One account described the biologist as wearing an intact glove, while a rabies report form recorded broken skin. That discrepancy matters, but the available material does not resolve it. It should not be silently converted into either “there was definitely no exposure” or “the bite definitely broke the skin.”
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rabies testing generally requires brain tissue
Officials said that an approved rabies test generally cannot be completed on a live animal in the way needed for this type of investigation. Testing typically requires brain tissue after death. That is why the decision was irreversible: authorities could not simply hold Peanut for a routine live test and return him if the result was negative.
Officials also cited Fred’s presence as an additional public-health concern. Raccoons are commonly treated as rabies-vector species, meaning they are among the wild animals that public-health authorities take particularly seriously in rabies investigations. That classification does not mean every raccoon has rabies, but it helps explain why officials considered the squirrel-and-raccoon situation more complicated than an isolated contact with a captive animal.
The released records indicate that Peanut was later decapitated for rabies analysis. That detail was reported from the FOIL materials and by the organization that obtained them; it is included here because it describes the testing process, not because it establishes that the warrant ordered it.
Both tests were negative
On November 12, 2024, Chemung County announced that Peanut and Fred had both tested negative for rabies. The county’s environmental-health report provides additional confirmation of negative squirrel and raccoon specimens submitted that month, though the summary table does not identify the animals by name.
A negative result does not prove that officials lacked authority to investigate or test the animals at the time. Authorities had to make a decision based on the information available before the test result. But the negative findings explain the intensity of the backlash: the state made an irreversible decision in response to a feared disease, and the feared infection was not found.
Rank #3
What the FOIL records add to the original story
The initial public narrative was largely about a beloved internet animal being taken from his caretaker. The records released later show a longer investigation and a planned enforcement operation.
- Complaints had been made about allegedly unlawfully possessed wildlife and animal conditions.
- DEC personnel examined Longo’s TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram activity.
- Officials prepared and staffed a multi-person search operation rather than making an isolated visit.
- The operation involved approximately 12 personnel, including investigators, uniformed Environmental Conservation Officers, and Bureau of Wildlife staff.
- Peanut and Fred were found in separate locations inside the residence and were listed among the seized property.
- Officials discussed euthanasia and rabies testing in connection with the animals before or during the operation.
- The records indicate that Peanut was ultimately decapitated for rabies analysis.
These details do not settle whether the state acted lawfully. They do show why the warrant matters: it was the legal mechanism that moved Peanut from a private sanctuary setting into official custody, where public-health rules governed the next decision.
The records were obtained through FOIL and published by Judicial Watch, an advocacy organization. They are valuable because they expose contemporaneous government materials, but Judicial Watch’s description of those records is not the same thing as an independent court finding. The underlying records, official DEC materials, county health statements, and Assembly documents should be distinguished from advocacy framing and from the parties’ competing public statements.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Was the euthanasia legally separate from the warrant?
Based on the material currently available, yes. The warrant and the euthanasia should be analyzed as connected but distinct actions.
| Question | What is supported | What remains unproven |
|---|---|---|
| What did the judge authorize? | A search of the property and seizure of allegedly unlawfully possessed wildlife. | That the judge expressly ordered Peanut’s euthanasia. |
| What had officials discussed beforehand? | Released records describe plans involving animal control, euthanasia, and rabies testing. | That those discussions were a binding order or that no later decision was required. |
| Why was Peanut euthanized? | Officials cited a reported bite, possible rabies exposure, and the need for tissue-based testing. | That every factual detail of the bite account was accurate or uncontested. |
| What did testing show? | Peanut and Fred tested negative for rabies. | That the negative result retroactively made the initial public-health decision unlawful. |
This distinction is more than a technicality. Calling the document a “death warrant” suggests that a judge personally determined Peanut had to die. The currently documented sequence instead points to a judge authorizing a seizure, followed by officials applying rabies-control procedures after a reported exposure.
What did Peanut’s Law propose?
Peanut’s death became part of a debate about what protections should exist when a sanctuary or caretaker holds wild animals and the government believes immediate action is necessary.
New York Assembly materials from April 2025 described the proposed “Peanut’s Law: Humane Animal Protection Act.” The proposal would create additional procedural safeguards before the seizure or euthanasia of an animal held by a qualified wildlife sanctuary. According to the Assembly description, it would call for an administrative hearing before those actions unless officials documented an immediate danger. It also proposed a 72-hour waiting period before euthanasia for testing in specified circumstances.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe proposal addresses the central concern raised by the case: an animal may be gone before a hearing can examine whether the seizure, the claimed exposure, or the euthanasia was necessary. The bill’s introduction demonstrates that lawmakers responded to the controversy; it does not demonstrate that the proposal became law. Its enactment should not be implied without a later legislative record.
Rank #4
- Factory sealed DVD
What is the status of the lawsuits?
Public reporting reviewed for this article states that Longo and Bittner filed a New York Court of Claims action on August 7, 2025, seeking $10 million from New York State, the DEC, and the Department of Health. A separate local lawsuit was also reported.
The plaintiffs’ claims are allegations, not adjudicated findings. They challenge the seizure and the government’s handling of the animals, while the state has defended the public-health rationale for the rabies testing. The public record available through August 12, 2026, did not verify a final judgment, settlement, or trial result. Any later article update should check the New York Court of Claims and Chemung County dockets before describing the litigation as resolved.
Peanut’s legacy today
Longo and Bittner opened P’Nuts Freedom Farm Animal Sanctuary in April 2023, before Peanut’s seizure. The sanctuary’s current website describes the organization as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit created in Peanut’s memory and says it continues to care for rescued wildlife. It also lists donations, calendars, apparel, mugs, stickers, memorial products, and other merchandise.
Readers who want to help the sanctuary’s ongoing work can use its official support P’Nuts Freedom Farm page or store. That is direct support for the organization—not an independent product endorsement and not a claim that every item sold is connected to the legal dispute.
Peanut’s legacy is therefore both personal and institutional. He remains a memorialized animal whose story drew millions of people into a dispute over wildlife possession. He is also now associated with questions about sanctuary licensing, the difference between a wild animal and a legal pet, government seizure powers, rabies procedures, and whether an animal should be euthanized before a caretaker has an opportunity to challenge the decision.
What remains unresolved
Several important questions cannot responsibly be answered more definitively from the available record:
- The complete warrant language: The operative text confirming the warrant’s exact scope and any attached conditions was not located in an official court repository. The available reporting characterizes it as a search-and-seizure warrant, not an explicit order for euthanasia.
- The decision-making chain: The precise sequence between the search, the reported bite, DEC, the county health department, animal control, and the euthanasia decision remains partly reconstructed from released records and public statements.
- The bite evidence: The intact-glove description and the broken-skin entry in the rabies form remain in conflict. No adjudicated finding reviewed for this account resolves the discrepancy.
- The lawsuits: The final procedural status and any disposition of the reported 2025 cases require direct review of the relevant court dockets.
What this case teaches about rescued wildlife
Peanut’s story is not a safe model for privately raising an orphaned squirrel. A person may rescue a wild animal with good intentions and still run into licensing, rehabilitation, housing, public-health, and release requirements. Hand-raising an animal also does not eliminate the legal or biological risks associated with wildlife.
If someone finds an injured or orphaned wild animal, the responsible next step is to contact a licensed wildlife rehabilitator or the relevant state or local wildlife authority rather than attempting long-term care, social-media display, or self-directed release. The Peanut case shows why that distinction matters: a caretaker may see a companion, while the law may see a protected wild animal requiring specialized authorization.
Best Value
- Runtime: 300 minutes
Source note: This account draws on AP reporting based on Longo’s statements and released records; New York DEC incident and FOIL materials; Chemung County public-health announcements and environmental-health reporting; New York Assembly materials describing Peanut’s Law; the P’Nuts Freedom Farm website; and public reporting about the lawsuits. Where the records conflict or do not establish a fact, the uncertainty is stated directly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did a judge sign a death warrant for Peanut the squirrel?
The available records do not establish that. They show a judge-signed warrant authorizing a search and seizure of allegedly unlawfully possessed wildlife. Officials later cited a reported bite and rabies-testing procedures when explaining the euthanasia.
Why was Peanut euthanized if he later tested negative for rabies?
Officials said an approved rabies test generally requires brain tissue and cannot be completed through an equivalent live-animal test. They also cited the reported bite and the presence of Fred, a raccoon. Both animals later tested negative, but that result came after the irreversible decision.
Was Peanut legally a pet or a wild animal?
Peanut was tame and hand-raised, but New York authorities treated him as native wildlife rather than an ordinary domestic pet. Private possession, rehabilitation, education, and sanctuary care can require specific authorization.
Did Peanut’s Law become law?
The available dossier verifies that the proposed Peanut’s Law was described in New York Assembly materials in April 2025. It does not establish that the proposal was enacted.
What happened to the lawsuit over Peanut’s death?
Public reporting stated that Longo and Daniela Bittner filed a New York Court of Claims action in August 2025 seeking $10 million, along with a separate local action. No final judgment, settlement, or trial outcome was verified through August 12, 2026.
The Bottom Line
The warrant did not, on the verified record, function as an explicit death order. It authorized the seizure that placed Peanut in government custody. A disputed bite and rabies-control decision then led to euthanasia before a hearing could test the necessity of that step. Peanut and Fred were negative for rabies, and the case continues to shape debate over wildlife permits, sanctuary protections, and due process.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Leave a Reply