Sheriff and animal control took my dog

[justalayman]

Perhaps I am missing something but, based strictly on what was written in the original post, it sounds as if the dog was in a gated yard. It does not appear that animal control entered the house at all.

If animal control did not enter the house, they did not need a warrant to seize the dog. Animal control is allowed to enter onto private property, for a whole host of different reasons. They just cannot enter into any closed building (garage, shed, house) without a warrant.

Yes you are


According to Oliver v. United States (1984), the Fourth Amendment protects homes and the “land immediately surrounding and associated” with homes, known as curtilage, from unreasonable government intrusions. Probable cause is the appropriate standard for searches of the curtilage and warrantless searches of curtilage is unreasonable. The knock-and-talk exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows an officer, without a warrant, to approach a home and knock on the door, just as any ordinary citizen could do. An officer may bypass the front door when circumstances reasonably indicate the officer might find the homeowner elsewhere on the property. The right to knock and talk does not entail a right to conduct a general investigation on a home’s curtilage.

 

[quincy]

Yes you are


According to Oliver v. United States (1984), the Fourth Amendment protects homes and the “land immediately surrounding and associated” with homes, known as curtilage, from unreasonable government intrusions. Probable cause is the appropriate standard for searches of the curtilage and warrantless searches of curtilage is unreasonable. The knock-and-talk exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allows an officer, without a warrant, to approach a home and knock on the door, just as any ordinary citizen could do. An officer may bypass the front door when circumstances reasonably indicate the officer might find the homeowner elsewhere on the property. The right to knock and talk does not entail a right to conduct a general investigation on a home’s curtilage.

I understand Fourth Amendment protections. That is not what I was missing.

Thanks, though.

 

[Zigner]

The right to knock and talk does not entail a right to conduct a general investigation on a home’s curtilage.

But, now we're back at that yip-yipping dog who is probably jumping up and down on the officer already...

 

[tranquility]

Perhaps I am missing something but, based strictly on what was written in the original post, it sounds as if the dog was in a gated yard. It does not appear that animal control entered the house at all.

If animal control did not enter the house, they did not need a warrant to seize the dog. Animal control is allowed to enter onto private property, for a whole host of different reasons. They just cannot enter into any closed building (garage, shed, house) without a warrant.

The curtilage of a home is considered a part of the home whether or not it is specifically mentioned in a warrant. (U.S. v. Gorman, 104 F.3rd 272 (9th cir. 1996))

The "same degree of privacy" is accorded the curilage of a home as in the home itself. (U.S. v. Romero-Bustamente, 337 F.3rd 1104, (9th cir. 2003) and others)

“At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the ‘sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life,’ and therefore has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes. Thus, courts have extended Fourth Amendment protection to the curtilage; and they have defined the curtilage, as did the common law, by reference to the factors that determine whether an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately adjacent to the home will remain private.” (Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) )

We can argue if the fenced in back yard is part of the curtilage or not. I don't think we have enough facts for an answer, but I suspect the basic tests will be fulfilled. I don't think the constable (I assume "animal control officer".) was there for the normal reasons why he would be there. It seems a ruse not envisioned in the ordinance you linked. (Arguendo, Tulane.) I suspect that even if it were not a ruse, the court would find it was meant for private property that was not afforded the same degree of privacy as the home itself.

 

[justalayman]

I understand Fourth Amendment protections. That is not what I was missing.

Thanks, though.

So what do you suspect you are missing? The could not anger the cartilage without a warrsnt or an exception.

The doc people cannot claim a right the constitution prohibits.

 

[justalayman]

But, now we're back at that yip-yipping dog who is probably jumping up and down on the officer already...

I have not sought anything to disagree with tranquility and Carl. . He stated plain view (and as such plain heard) did not remove need for a warrant. If they are correct a warrsnt would be required to enter the curtilage.

 

[Zigner]

I have not sought anything to disagree with tranquility and Carl. . He stated plain view (and as such plain heard) did not remove need for a warrant. If they are correct a warrsnt would be required to enter the curtilage.

However, if they opened the gate in order to approach the door (to knock) and the dog approached them, things change. Carl didn't like my tea pot analogy, so let's put it this way. The officers were told that a small white dog with black ears had been stolen and was being held at the residence. Upon legally entering the yard to approach the door (to knock), a small white dog with black ears ran up to them (probably yipping, that's what small dogs do). The animal control officer pulled out his trusty scanner and scanned the dog, thus discovering that this was the stolen dog. Was the search legal? Probably. Was the seizure legal? Probably, since it's now evidence. I'm not convinced that there is a 4th amendment violation here.

 

[tranquility]

However, if they opened the gate in order to approach the door (to knock) and the dog approached them, things change.

If the gate had to be opened first to get to the front door, it would almost assuredly not be curtilage and the discussion completely in error. However:

"a sheriff deputy and an animal control officer came to my house, knocked, and immediately went to my gate, opened it and took my littlest fragile dog. "

 

[Zigner]

If the gate had to be opened first to get to the front door, it would almost assuredly not be curtilage and the discussion completely in error. However:

"a sheriff deputy and an animal control officer came to my house, knocked, and immediately went to my gate, opened it and took my littlest fragile dog. "

Right - it seems off. Furthermore, the OP really has no idea of what actually transpired, so I am pretty sure this entire thread won't mean anything. I suspect that the version of events that the police will tell will be very different.

 

[justalayman]

If the gate had to be opened first to get to the front door, it would almost assuredly not be curtilage and the discussion completely in error. However:

"a sheriff deputy and an animal control officer came to my house, knocked, and immediately went to my gate, opened it and took my littlest fragile dog. "

Huh, last I knew if the backyard is fenced it more clearly defines what is inside the fence as curtilage.

While there are often concerns of defining curtilage the last one I recall reading spun on the fact the area in question was outside the fenced area and therefor not considers curtilage.


Whoops, I didn't read you were suggesting the gate allowed access for the front door. Ignore me this time.

 

[justalayman]

It seems clear they knocked on the door first and then when not answered proceeded to the gate. That means the gated portion was excluded from the area the public would normally use to seek the occupant come forth.

 

[Zigner]

It seems clear they knocked on the door first and then when not answered proceeded to the gate. That means the gated portion was excluded from the area the public would normally use to seek the occupant come forth.

Considering that the OP wasn't present, I'm not sure that things are clear at all.

 

[justalayman]

Considering that the OP wasn't present, I'm not sure that things are clear at all.

Well, ya have to trust people at some point. If you don't you'll end up being that old creepy guy at the end of the lane that never comes out of his house except to crack open the door a bit to yell at anybody that comes just a little bit too close. Then pokes out a piece of pipe to make you think he has a gun.

Do you want to be that guy zigner?

 

[Zigner]

Well, ya have to trust people at some point. If you don't you'll end up being that old creepy guy at the end of the lane that never comes out of his house except to crack open the door a bit to yell at anybody that comes just a little bit too close. Then pokes out a piece of pipe to make you think he has a gun.

Do you want to be that guy zigner?

I'm just waiting for the day...

 

[Proserpina]

I'm sorry, y'all lost me at "I'm a little teapot, short and stout, and allegedly perhaps having a ding on my side except I also might not".