Sheriff and animal control took my dog

[quincy]

Same issue applies, though. No search warrant, exigency, consent or other exception, no entry.


Not in CA they cannot! Not without exigent circumstances! I know it tends to happen with some frequency, but that's largely because they don't tend to train ACO folks on such legalities, and this, in turn, can result in liability and muck up any criminal cases they might try and pursue.

The fact that it "happens with some frequency" might be the issue that has been bothering me a bit and perhaps tranquility touched on this in his post when he said, "We can argue if the fenced in back yard is part of the curtilage or not."

I know the law (even cited it and provided case law), but the animal control ordinances that I have run across in California appear to be worded in a way that violate federal and state laws. I am wondering if these ordinances have been challenged as unconstitutional - and if not, why not.




(NOT that I want this thread to continue for another 6 pages to address my curiosity - I don't care THAT much about it )

(oh, yikes. I just noticed I made this a 7 page thread ... sorry about that)

 

[Zigner]

The fact that it "happens with some frequency" might be the issue that has been bothering me a bit and perhaps tranquility touched on this in his post when he said, "We can argue if the fenced in back yard is part of the curtilage or not."

I know the law (even cited it and provided case law), but the animal control ordinances that I have run across in California appear to be worded in a way that violate federal and state laws. I am wondering if these ordinances have been challenged as unconstitutional - and if not, why not.




(NOT that I want this thread to continue for another 6 pages to address my curiosity - I don't care THAT much about it )

(oh, yikes. I just noticed I made this a 7 page thread ... sorry about that)

Interestingly enough, your response shows up on page 5 for me...

 

[quincy]

Interestingly enough, your response shows up on page 5 for me...

Hmmm. Odd. Maybe your computer is a self-editing one that eliminates all unnecessary posts.





(if so, you won't be able to read this)

 

[Zigner]

Hmmm. Odd. Maybe your computer is a self-editing one that eliminates all unnecessary posts.

I can only wish for such a thing...

 

[CdwJava]

The fact that it "happens with some frequency" might be the issue that has been bothering me a bit and perhaps tranquility touched on this in his post when he said, "We can argue if the fenced in back yard is part of the curtilage or not."

I have seen a great many ACO folks over the years enter yards absent an exigency and have even been asked to write crime reports regarding the entry ... they don't get filed, but, it happens. They too often are under the mistaken belief that because there may be a stolen or injured animal in a yard, that ALONE gives them the right to make entry.

It's the same with many officers who will enter a backyard where they believe there is underage drinking without both probable cause an an exigency. Many such cases have been lost and agencies put on the hook for overzealous officers making entry to underage drinking parties because there appears to be under-21ers in a yard or inside a residence drinking. While entry may be possible, they far too often enter before they have developed that exception to the warrant requirement.

I know the law (even cited it and provided case law), but the animal control ordinances that I have run across in California appear to be worded in a way that violate federal and state laws. I am wondering if these ordinances have been challenged as unconstitutional - and if not, why not.

Since these ordinances are most often local, I wouldn't be surprised. Many cities and counties have not updated their muni codes in 50 years, so it's no surprise to me that many may be antiquated or do not reflect current case law.