FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Seven Charged in South Carolina Dog Fighting Case, Largest Single Property Seizure in State History

A federal grand jury indictment, announced on September 4, 2026, charges seven individuals from Chesterfield County with dog fighting and firearm offenses. The case is at the charging stage and remains undecided.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 3:50 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 4, 2026, 3:53 p.m. ET
On September 4, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina announced that a federal grand jury in Florence had returned a nine-count indictment charging seven individuals from Chesterfield County with conspiracy to violate the Animal Welfare Act, possession of pit bull-type dogs for animal fighting ventures, and unlawful possession of firearms. The case is at the charging stage, and the charges have not been decided in court. The indictment alleges that from September 2019 to July 2026, the defendants maintained properties where they bred, housed, and trained pit bull-type dogs intended for dog fighting, and used equipment such as treadmills, bite sticks, heavy metal chains, and breeding stands. Law enforcement seized over 100 dogs and dog fighting paraphernalia between April and July 2026, including approximately 77 dogs from Avery Robinson, 36, in what the U.S. Attorney's Office describes as the largest single property dog seizure in South Carolina history. Those are Lonnie Shane Gaskins, 28, a former Chesterfield County Sheriff's deputy; Terry James Gaskins, 49; Shamar O'Ryan Sutton, 32; Avery Robinson, 36; Derwayne Terry Miller, Sr., also known as "Fuzz," 46; Derwayne Terry Miller, Jr., also known as "DJ," 26; and Kevin Knotts, 46. The defendants face a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for the animal welfare offenses; Miller Jr. and Terry Gaskins face up to 15 years for firearm offenses. U.S. Attorney Bryan Stirling said, "Dog fighting turns suffering into entertainment and violence into a business." The case was investigated by the USDA Office of the Inspector General, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Homeland Security Investigations, and the U.S. Marshals Service. As this matter is only at the charging stage, all charges in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 4, 2026, 3:50 p.m. ETFirst report

    Seven Charged in South Carolina Dog Fighting Case, Largest Single Property Seizure in State History

    A federal grand jury in Florence, South Carolina, returned a nine-count indictment on September 4, 2026, charging seven individuals from Chesterfield County with conspiracy to violate the Animal Welfare Act, possession of pit bull-type dogs for animal fighting ventures, and unlawful possession of firearms, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina. The indictment alleges that from September 2019 to July 2026, the defendants maintained properties where they bred, housed, and trained pit bull-type dogs intended for dog fighting, and used equipment such as treadmills, bite sticks, heavy metal chains, and breeding stands. They also allegedly shared images and videos of dogs fighting and injured dogs.

    Law enforcement seized over 100 dogs and dog fighting paraphernalia from the defendants between April and July 2026, according to the indictment. The seizures included approximately 77 dogs from Avery Robinson, 36, on June 9, 2026, and approximately 27 dogs from Terry James Gaskins, 49, on April 26, 2026. The U.S. Attorney's Office described the seizure as the largest single property dog seizure in South Carolina history.

    The defendants face a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for the animal welfare offenses. Two defendants, Derwayne Terry Miller Jr. and Terry Gaskins, face up to 15 years for firearm offenses. The case was investigated by the USDA Office of the Inspector General, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Homeland Security Investigations, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

    This case is only at the charging stage and has not been resolved. All charges in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 14 Sept 2026, 19:53current

    First published.

  2. Version 14 Sept 2026, 19:50current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.