Public reports now identify the two defendants in the Working Dogs of Nevada case, confirm that both posted bond, and list April 29 as the next court date. Meanwhile, the rescue’s website, nonprofit filings, and public materials still leave an unclear trail about who was publicly associated with the operation, who handled the dogs, and what structure supported the branding.
Reports indicate that both defendants in this case, John Johnstone and Tabitha Berube, have posted bond, and their next court appearance is scheduled for April 29, 2026, in Las Vegas Justice Court. KTNV states that this hearing is mainly a status check on the criminal complaint.
The criminal charges remain serious. FOX5 reports that Las Vegas Metropolitan Police said detectives began investigating the property in early March, working with city and county Animal Protection Services after receiving information about training practices believed to constitute felony animal cruelty.
Police later executed a search warrant at the Working Dogs of Nevada facility near Tenaya Way and Lake Mead Boulevard, issued an emergency suspension of the owner’s business license, and said dogs were taken from the facility to The Animal Foundation for seven-day holds and physical exams.
The front door of Working Dogs of Nevada (Glenn Puit/LV Review Journal)
The defendants publicly identified in the case
Public reporting identifies John Johnstone, 38, and Tabitha Berube, 32, as the two defendants. KTNV reports that Johnstone was booked on four felony counts of willfully or maliciously torturing, maiming, or mutilating an animal kept for companionship or pleasure, and that Berube was booked on one felony count under the same statute. KTNV also reports that both defendants have posted bond.
These are the two individuals publicly identified as defendants in current reports. The public reporting I reviewed does not clearly identify either of them as the formal owner of the operation, and the safest phrasing is to leave that point where the reporting leaves it. FOX5 states the emergency suspension was served to “the owner,” but does not name that person in the same report.
The dog count is not perfectly consistent in public reporting
Police said 35 dogs were seized during the execution of the search warrant. That figure appears in FOX5’s follow-up report and in KTNV’s case coverage. However, KTNV later reported that The Animal Foundation said 36 dogs were taken from the facility, with three already reclaimed by their owners.
FOX5 also separately reported that some dogs had owners because the facility offered behavioral training, and that The Animal Foundation was working to identify and contact owners.
The simplest way to state the record now is this: police publicly reported 35 dogs seized, while KTNV later reported that The Animal Foundation said 36 dogs were taken, with three reclaimed by owners.
This distinction is important because it suggests this was not just a rescue situation. At least some of the dogs involved may have been placed there by members of the public for training.
The website’s public story
Working Dogs of Nevada’s website portrays the organization as a specialized rescue and rehabilitation group. Its homepage states it rescues and rehabilitates dogs with behavioral issues, medical neglect, or abandonment. The About page explains that the ultimate goal is to rehabilitate some dogs sufficiently to donate them as service dogs to people with disabilities. Its adoption and rehabilitation pages detail structured, personalized training and ongoing education for adopters. That is the public-facing story the organization presents.
It claims specialized skills, specific rehabilitation, and a level of trust beyond ordinary rehoming. When an operation presents itself this way, the public has the right to scrutinize who is behind it, how it is structured, and whether the paper trail matches the branding.
A dog confiscated from a Las Vegas home, pictured in a police report for Jason Stuckey (courtesy Metropolitan Police Department)
The nonprofit trail is a separate question from the criminal case
The nonprofit filing presents a different set of information. ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer, referencing the organization's 2024 Form 990, lists Travis McDonald as President, reports $1,877,665 in revenue, $1,842,656 in expenses, $406,400 in professional fundraising fees, $26,000 in executive compensation, and $0 in net assets at year-end. It also identifies the organization as Working Dogs Of Nevada Rescue in Las Vegas.
The same public filing trail reveals governance concerns that should be described carefully and precisely. The 2024 Form 990 shows that the organization had one voting member of its governing body at year- end and zero independent voting members. The filing also indicates that the organization did not contemporaneously document governing- body meetings or written actions, did not provide a complete copy of the Form 990 to all governing- body members before filing, and reported no written conflict- of- interest policy, no written whistleblower policy, no written document retention and destruction policy, and no independent review- and- approval process for compensation.
That is not the same as proving criminal wrongdoing; it is a separate accountability issue. It relates to governance, controls, and the level of independent oversight of a nonprofit that reported unusually rapid financial growth and publicly described itself as a specialized rescue-and-training operation. ProPublica's records show revenue increasing from $341,248 in 2023 to $1,877,665 in 2024.
The filing also reports a major change related to assets. ProPublica's summary indicates $0 in total assets and $0 in net assets at the end of 2024, and the searchable filing record shows Schedule N for liquidation, termination, dissolution, or major asset disposition. The PDF record also lists “DOG KENNELS” on Schedule N at the Kyle Canyon Road address.
There is also an unresolved fundraising discrepancy evident in the filing. ProPublica's extracted data report $406,400 in professional fundraising fees for 2024, while the searchable PDF text shows the filing answering “No” to whether the organization had a written conflict of interest policy and also includes Schedule G text that has raised questions about how the fundraising relationships were reported. At a minimum, the fundraising portion of the filing warrants close review rather than assumptions.
The names on the website are not the same as the names in the case or the filing
The names listed on the rescue’s public website fall into a third category. The testimonials page often features Zachary, and sometimes John and Terry, regarding service-dog matching and training.
One testimonial praises “Zachary” and states, “John has been an absolute rockstar.”
Another mentions a dog being adopted through “Zachary and Terry.”
However, the website does not clearly specify its official titles or explain how these names relate to the nonprofit, its training activities, or the recent headline-making case. Clarifying this distinction is essential for accuracy.
Public records identify John Johnstone and Tabitha Berube as the defendants. The 2024 nonprofit registration or Form 990 lists Travis McDonald as president. The website highlights Zachary, John, and Terry in testimonials.
The public paper trail is still messy
The website and nonprofit records also show different contact information. The About page lists a public phone number of 702-808-2463. ProPublica’s nonprofit filing trail links the organization to 13820 Kyle Canyon Rd and separately names Travis McDonald as president.
Meanwhile, the website promoted Working Dogs of Nevada through its public pages and testimonials without clearly outlining a leadership structure for visitors trying to understand who actually manages what.
That kind of public confusion is not minor when an organization is taking in dogs, soliciting funds, offering training, and presenting itself as a specialized rehabilitation operation. It leaves donors, adopters, and dog owners struggling to piece together the organization’s structure after the fact instead of understanding it up front.
A dog confiscated from a Las Vegas home, pictured in a police report for Jason Stuckey (courtesy Metropolitan Police Department)
Where the case stands now
According to the latest public reports, the defendants are John Johnstone and Tabitha Berube. Both have posted bond, and their next court appearance is scheduled for April 29, 2026. Police publicly announced that 35 dogs were seized during the execution of the search warrant. KTNV later reported that The Animal Foundation stated 36 dogs were taken, with three reclaimed by their owners. The remaining dogs involved in the case are still part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
What remains unclear is the full public chain of responsibility surrounding Working Dogs of Nevada as an organization. The criminal case names two defendants. The nonprofit filing identifies a president, and the website lists other individuals connected to training and service-dog placement. The reporting reviewed does not yet clearly connect all these details. This gap highlights how difficult it has been to understand the operation through publicly available information.
Animal welfare consistently faces this problem. Once a group adopts language around rehabilitation, second chances, behavior work, and service dogs, many people stop asking the basic questions: Who is in charge? Who is handling the dogs? What entity is collecting the money? What is the structure behind the branding? What oversight exists before animals are impacted by this gap?
These are not anti-rescue questions; they are pro-animal questions.
This post is based on publicly available records and reporting, including government records, nonprofit filings, media coverage, and statements published by the organization discussed. It is provided for informational, educational, and public-interest purposes. Any discussion of criminal allegations, investigations, or regulatory action refers to matters publicly reported and does not constitute a determination of guilt or liability. All individuals are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise. Any opinions expressed are based on the disclosed facts and are offered as commentary on matters of public concern. We reserve the right to correct, update, or supplement this post as additional verified information becomes available.
Sources: KTNV, reporting on the charges, bond status, April 29 court date, video allegations, and The Animal Foundation’s later dog count. FOX5 Vegas, reporting on the search warrant, police timeline, 35 dogs seized, seven-day holds, and emergency license suspension. Working Dogs of Nevada website, including the homepage, About page, adoption page, rehabilitation page, and testimonials. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, Working Dogs Of Nevada Rescue organization summary, and 2024 filing data. Searchable 2024 Form 990 PDF text for governance-policy items and Schedule N references.
Discover more from Beezys Rescue
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.