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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT