Sheriff and animal control took my dog

[justalayman]

If true, there is no warrant requirement under the 4th amendment to enter a residence. All the police would need is probable cause.

Yeah!!!!




by chance, do you teach law?

Oft times you have taken the steps, as you have here, to walk me or others through the steps to actually learn the matters involved. I truly appreciate the effort and enjoy the discourse. Your methods are...well...methodical such as a trained instructor may utilize which gives rise to my question.

 

[tranquility]

Yeah!!!!




by chance, do you teach law?

Oft times you have taken the steps, as you have here, to walk me or others through the steps to actually learn the matters involved. I truly appreciate the effort and enjoy the discourse. Your methods are...well...methodical such as a trained instructor may utilize which gives rise to my question.

I deleted my post you responded to as I thought discussion was starting to go around and around and didn't want the exchange to get silly. When we write on such things, complex issues garnered from multiple cases each focusing on a single issue often get distilled to some general theory that always has tons of exceptions.

As to teach law, no. (Except on occasion in regards to specific tax issues to small groups.)

 

[CdwJava]

Let's change this to: Silver Tea Pot with a ding one inch below the handle and an inscription that reads: "To my darling, happy anniversary"

And you could read that from outside?

It wouldn't change a darn thing! We can't go busting into a house even to retrieve stolen property absent probable cause AND an exigency, consent, a warrant, or at least search conditions of parole or probation.

I believe that the complainant was able to sufficiently describe the dog so that the police felt it was proper.

See above.

 

[CdwJava]

PC, obviously, does not mean infallible belief but merely a supportable reasonable belief of the fact

Which would still require a search warrant in order to make entry and seize the item.

Let me illustrate this by going a step further. Let's say I have probable cause to believe a suspect with a felony warrant is inside of a house. His car is outside, I have two neighbors saying they saw him go inside, and I even have a text message from the suspect saying, "Come and get me." I still cannot enter that home without an exigency a search warrant, consent, or probation/parole conditions of the resident allowing me to do so.

Merely knowing the object is inside does not grant permission to force entry into a property.

 

[Zigner]

And you could read that from outside?

It wasn't a valid analogy in the first place...

It wouldn't change a darn thing! We can't go busting into a house even to retrieve stolen property absent probable cause AND an exigency, consent, a warrant, or at least search conditions of parole or probation.

Fair enough - however, as you pointed out, what are the damages and what would be the recourse for the OP?

 

[CdwJava]

Fair enough - however, as you pointed out, what are the damages and what would be the recourse for the OP?

A potential civil suit ... though unlikely. Also the possibility of the involved employees being disciplined up to and including termination. At best, they need to be trained on the proper procedure to follow in similar situations ... at worst, they can be fired as these are the kinds of actions that put investigations at risk, and place the agencies involved in positions of liability.

The OP may have a good complaint against the agencies involved, but, the OP may not want to shake too many bushes as there may be enough to pursue criminal charges here for receiving/retaining stolen property or theft ... hard to say, I got confused with the story as to how the animal ended up in the OP's possession and why it remained there.

 

[justalayman]

Which would still require a search warrant in order to make entry and seize the item.

Let me illustrate this by going a step further. Let's say I have probable cause to believe a suspect with a felony warrant is inside of a house. His car is outside, I have two neighbors saying they saw him go inside, and I even have a text message from the suspect saying, "Come and get me." I still cannot enter that home without an exigency a search warrant, consent, or probation/parole conditions of the resident allowing me to do so.

Merely knowing the object is inside does not grant permission to force entry into a property.

I know it's being picky but you don't know he is in the house. You believe him to be in the house. Only a visual observance of him by you would allow you to know he is in the house. Everything else you mentioned gives you a reasonable belief he is in the house but nothing more.

 

[CdwJava]

I know it's being picky but you don't know he is in the house. You believe him to be in the house. Only a visual observance of him by you would allow you to know he is in the house. Everything else you mentioned gives you a reasonable belief he is in the house but nothing more.

Even if I saw him through the window, I'd need a search warrant (or those other exceptions) unless I could articulate a threat to the occupants. Probable cause, yes ... No exigency.

 

[justalayman]

Even if I saw him through the window, I'd need a search warrant (or those other exceptions) unless I could articulate a threat to the occupants. Probable cause, yes ... No exigency.

That wasn't the point of my statement. I was addressing the word; know.

How it affects the right of entry is a different matter.

Yes, I was being pedantic.

If I recall being pedantic was what kept Clinton in office

 

[tranquility]

If I recall being pedantic was what kept Clinton in office

I did not share classified information on that server....

 

[justalayman]

But i was referring to: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

 

[CdwJava]

That wasn't the point of my statement. I was addressing the word; know.

How it affects the right of entry is a different matter.

Yes, I was being pedantic.

If I recall being pedantic was what kept Clinton in office

KNOWING won't change the fact that a warrant or one of the exceptions was required. The point is that the entry absent a warrant does not appear to be lawful in this case as outlined by the OP. There may be something more than is missing, but unless there is some exigency or consent expressed that was not written here, the ACO and the Deputy should never have made entry.

 

[justalayman]

Carl,

I didn't say it would. I was only addressing the word "know"

It was just me being me with the only seriousness being that such fine definitions can and do change what a statement means. I did not intend to suggest it changed the situation at hand.


But to address the matter at hand;

Given the facts as stated, even if there was a warrant required and none available it changes nothing. Op would not be entitled to the dog if given it was in fact not his.

As to whether criminal charges might be possible; that's another discussion and not enough facts present to determine a true answer

 

[quincy]

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.

 

[Zigner]

Wait, did the officers open the gate in order to walk up to your door and knock?

Also, you weren't there so how do you know WHAT transpired?