ILNews

Animal cruelty an exigent circumstance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ruling on the issue for the first time in state courts, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided animal cruelty rises to the level of exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search of curtilage. The decision came in a man's appeal of his dog fighting convictions.

In his appeal, Carlton Davis Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 45A03-0808-CR-407, Carlton Davis argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the trial court erred by admitting evidence in violation of Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b).

Davis' neighbors called police after they noticed a strong stench coming from Davis' property and seeing several dogs out in the heat with no food or water. They went to feed the dogs because Davis wasn't home and discovered many animals were injured, malnourished, and living in filthy conditions. The responding officer, Deputy Joiner, noted the conditions of the property and animals and left because his shift ended. Later that day, Detective Weaver, the investigator for animal cruelty cases, came to Davis' property and walked around herself. After speaking with Joiner, Weaver got a search warrant for the property and buildings located on it.

Davis was convicted of promoting or staging an animal fighting contest as a Class D felony, purchasing or possessing an animal for animal fighting contest as a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of animal fighting paraphernalia as a Class B misdemeanor.

Davis argued on appeal the detective had no reason to be on his property to obtain evidence for the search warrant and the trial court should have excluded the evidence recovered during the search pursuant to the exclusionary rule.

Based on Trimble v. State, 842 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2006), and caselaw from other states, the appellate court decided animal cruelty may create exigent circumstances to allow for a warrantless search of the curtilage. Joiner's inspection of the property was valid based on these exigent circumstances, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey, but Weaver's entry onto the property without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, citing Middleton v. State, 714 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind. 1999). The probable cause for approval of the search warrant couldn't be based on her observations on the property; however, the affidavit also included Joiner's observations while he was legally on the property. Because of that, there was sufficient legally obtained evidence to support the search warrant, wrote the judge.

The appellate court also determined that even though there were some discrepancies between the affidavit for warrant and testimony from Joiner and neighbors, there was still a substantial basis supporting the issuance of the warrant and that the language of the warrant wasn't vague and overbroad.

The trial court erred in admitting evidence of a trophy receipt and a handwritten paper because they indicate past actions from which inferences could be drawn concerning Davis organizing dog fights, wrote Judge Bailey. The evidence should have been excluded, but it was a harmless error because there is substantial independent evidence of guilt.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT