ILNews

COA: Animal seizure allowed without warrant

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Police and animal control officers were justified in removing malnourished animals from a property without a warrant, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals today. The court also overturned a Bartholomew County man's convictions of neglect on four dead horses because of lack of evidence they died of neglect.

In Terry Baxter v. State of Indiana, No. 03A04-0710-CR-596, Terry Baxter appealed his convictions of four counts of Class D felony failure to properly dispose of a dead animal, and 12 counts of Class B misdemeanor neglect of an animal.

Baxter argued the statutes criminalizing the improper disposal of a dead animal were unconstitutional, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing animal control to participate in this case with respect to nine living horses seized from his property, that the seizure of those horses violated his rights under the Indiana Constitution, and the court lacked sufficient evidence to support all of his neglect convictions.

After police were notified about the four dead horses on Baxter's grandmother's property by a worker who went there to pick up a propane tank, they went to Baxter's home and saw nine more horses that appeared to be malnourished. They called the Indiana Hooved Animal Humane Society, which removed the horses and placed them in foster care. The horses were in plain sight and removed without a warrant. A veterinarian who examined them found eight of the nine horses were malnourished.

The Court of Appeals ruled the Indiana Code regarding animal disposal was constitutional, clear, and easily understood. The appellate court affirmed Baxter's four convictions of failure to properly dispose of a dead animal, finding he didn't follow Indiana statute for disposal by leaving the decomposing bodies of four horses on his grandmother's property, which is near his property.

It was wholly appropriate for animal control to intervene on this case, wrote Judge Michael Barnes, for the limited purpose of opposing Baxter's request to sell the neglected animals. The trial court followed Indiana Code regarding the termination of Baxter's rights to the animals, awarding custody of the seized animals to a humane society, and ordering Baxter to pay for the cost of caring for the animals during their pre-trial impoundment, wrote the judge.

The seizure of the nine malnourished animals and four dead horses without a warrant didn't violate Baxter's rights under the Indiana Constitution. Citing Trimble v. State, 842 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. 2006), the appellate court found police officers were justified in going to Baxter's home after they received a tip and removing the horses from Baxter's care. The living horses were in plain sight on the property, and in regards to the dead horses, the police didn't go to the grandmother's property until Baxter's son told police they were there, wrote Judge Barnes.

The appellate court affirmed Baxter's convictions on eight counts of neglect of the living horses, but reversed the four convictions of neglect of the dead horses because they were based on mere speculation. Because the animals were already decomposing when they were found, veterinarians were unable to say the horses died as a result of neglect, wrote the judge.
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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT