Did Colin Gordon leave his dog with his (ex) wife on a trip and get subsequent animal abuse charges dropped?

1. Why the name “Colin Gordon” appears in court records and news

The name Colin Gordon appears in multiple legal records and news items in the provided search results. A Fourth Circuit federal opinion lists a defendant named Colin Gordon in US v. Gordon, No. 19‑7283 ^[1]. A Colorado Supreme Court decision and related litigation references people with the surname Gordon in a different civil libel case (Gordon v. Boyles) ^[2]. These items show the name exists in public records, but they do not describe an animal‑abuse prosecution tied to the domestic scenario you described ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the animal‑abuse items in the results actually cover

Several items in the search results are contemporary news about animal cruelty investigations and prosecutions — for example, a Fox19 story about a multi‑count cruelty case in Butler County and news of arrests in Big Flats for forcing a dog to ingest coins and thumbtacks ^{[3] [4]}. A case summary on Animal Legal & Historical Center discusses an animal cruelty prosecution where the defendant argued she did not own the dog and cited domestic abuse as context; that case involved issues about responsibility and CPL 170.40 factors ^[5]. None of these pieces tie to a man named Colin Gordon leaving a dog with an ex‑spouse and then having charges dropped ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

3. Missing link: no source confirms the specific “left dog with ex‑wife, charges dropped” story

My review of the provided search results finds no article, opinion, or press release that reports the precise sequence you asked about — leaving a dog with an ex‑wife, subsequent animal‑abuse charges, and later dismissal in a case involving someone named Colin Gordon. Because the assignment rules require using only the supplied material, I must state that this specific allegation is not found in current reporting supplied here (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3] [5]}.

4. Possible reasons for confusion or conflation in public reports

Public confusion can arise when a common name appears across unrelated matters. The supplied records show a federal criminal appeal with a Colin Gordon ^[1], separate civil litigation mentioning Gordons ^[2], and multiple animal‑abuse news items that involve different individuals and jurisdictions ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Mixing these threads could produce an inaccurate narrative that links a person from a federal case to an unrelated animal‑abuse story; the sources supplied do not support such a linkage ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

5. What evidence would be needed to verify the claim

To confirm whether Colin Gordon left a dog with an ex‑wife and later had animal‑abuse charges dropped, reporting or records should include: a police report or charging document naming Colin Gordon; a prosecutor’s statement or court docket showing both the filing and disposition (e.g., dismissal, acquittal, plea); and contemporaneous local news coverage or court opinion that ties those facts together. None of the provided results contain that combination (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3] [5]}.

6. How to pursue verification responsibly

Check local court dockets and prosecutor press releases in the jurisdiction where the alleged incident occurred, and search reliable local news outlets for the person’s full name plus keywords (animal abuse, dog, ex‑wife, dismissal). Confirm identity details (middle name, age, county) to avoid conflating different Gordons. The supplied county and state sources demonstrate these matters are jurisdictional and specific reporting is required; current supplied sources do not provide the necessary confirmation ^{[3] [5]}.

Limitations: This analysis uses only the search results you supplied. If you can provide a specific jurisdiction, date range, or a link to the story you saw, I can re‑check available reporting and court records for that narrower lead.