Sheriff and animal control took my dog

[tranquility]

The plain view seems apparent. The dog warden was to check the chip and give secondary verification.

-The officer may not have been legally in a place where things were seen.

-Perhaps the officer may have had the legal right to access the object. Maybe. (At least, this is not obviously wrong. It would depend on many more facts.)

-Please describe how the illegality is "immediately apparent"? . The fact there would need to be a chip reading might eliminate "plain view" as an argument.

 

[tranquility]

The owners complaint, witnesses and dogs picture or description presented plain sight evidence. The chip confirmed it. Of course if OP also wishes to be charged with possession of stolen property, far be it from me to stop them from complaining and investigating.

The OP will not be charged. The police were being a bit aggressive to settle nonsense. Legally? I suspect none of this gets in.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You can raise all the doubt you wish. I am not going to argue. This was not the Sheriff and animal Control took my dog thread. This was the sheriff recovered stolen property and I want to know if I can steal it back on a technicality thread.

 

[justalayman]

That is not the path of consideration. Otherwise, any currently illegal search of a residence would not require a warrant, but what police "knew".

The key here is the 4th amendment.

Ya lost me. Plain view gives rise to PC if the item viewed is believed to be evidence of a crime. How it is applicable to the situation inside home, I just don't see (get it?). PC allows for a search without a warrant if any of several exceptions apply (exigency, concern of spoilation, etc)

If something is within a home and not viewable, the plain view exception cannot apply regardless.

we have to presume the police knew the missing dog was likely to be at this residence or in the control of the OP wherever that may be. We have to presume the dog could be identified since the complainant would have provided such.

Unless the gate is so large and dense the dog could not be seen, I am missing why the plain view exception wouldn't apply.

 

[justalayman]

=tranquility;3384669-The officer may not have been legally in a place where things were seen.

or they may have. To me, it sounds like access to the gate was likely to be within the lawful reach of the law. If so, then if they identified the dog prior to opening the gate, I don't see any error.

-Perhaps the officer may have had the legal right to access the object. Maybe. (At least, this is not obviously wrong. It would depend on many more facts.)

agreed

-Please describe how the illegality is "immediately apparent"? . The fact there would need to be a chip reading might eliminate "plain view" as an argument.

if they had to access the dog to identify it, that means they would have to breach the limits in place without a warrant ergo; illegal search.

 

[quincy]

If people want to search online for Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society, 45 Cal App 4th 163, 52 Cal Rptr. 2d 777 (1996), it helps to clarify the law. The case tells the tale of a California dog named Toby who escaped chase by animal control officers by entering his house through a back door. Animal control followed Toby inside and seized the dog. The dog's owners sued. The Court was not pleased with the warrantless entry.

Here is a link to one county (Tulare County) in California and its animal control law (see 6.16.020 D):

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dinuba/html/Dinuba06/Dinuba0616.html

 

[justalayman]

If people want to search online for Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society, 45 Cal App 4th 163, 52 Cal Rptr. 2d 777 (1996), it helps to clarify the law. The case tells the tale of a California dog named Toby who escaped chase by animal control officers by entering his house through a back door. Animal control followed Toby inside and seized the dog. The dog's owners sued. The Court was not pleased with the warrantless entry.

Here is a link to one county (Tulare County) in California and its animal control law (see 6.16.020 D):

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dinuba/html/Dinuba/html/Dinuba06/Dinuba0616.html

404 page not found

 

[justalayman]

If people want to search online for Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society, 45 Cal App 4th 163, 52 Cal Rptr. 2d 777 (1996), it helps to clarify the law. The case tells the tale of a California dog named Toby who escaped chase by animal control officers by entering his house through a back door. Animal control followed Toby inside and seized the dog. The dog's owners sued. The Court was not pleased with the warrantless entry.

Here is a link to one county (Tulare County) in California and its animal control law (see 6.16.020 D):

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Dinuba/html/Dinuba/html/Dinuba06/Dinuba0616.html

were they upset with the first entry or the second?

 

[quincy]

404 page not found

Oops.

It should work now. I got carried away and added part of the link twice.

In the Toby case, animal control claimed they thought the dog was a stray and just happened to enter a random house. The Court didn't buy it.

 

[whowelookinfor]

given the description of the situation, I would be surprised the guy is not charged with some criminal offense.


so you are so vindictive you don't want the dog to heal well and be happy? Wow, you are seriously demented.

Whoops, typed that one incorrectly, didn't I.

I meant the opposite. I got a call back from the animal control officer that came by here. I've got to call her back, now...she left voice mail. I should know more about what happened on the other side of this situation.....

 

[quincy]

justalayman, here is a link to Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/45/163.html

 

[justalayman]

D. Authority to Enter Premises. The animal control officer shall have the right to enter upon any private or public property in the city in order to examine or capture any animal thereon or therein, provided, however, that no such officer or employee shall have the right to enter a house which is in use as a residence without first having secured a search warrant therefore. The animal control officer is authorized to enter upon any premises upon which any animal is kept, for the purpose of taking up, seizing or impounding any animal found running at large, or staked, herded or grazing thereon, contrary to the provisions of this code, or for the purpose of ascertaining whether such animal is registered as provided in this code, or for the purposes of inspecting the premises to ascertain whether any law of the city or state relating to the care, treatment or impounding of dumb animals or the prevention of cruelty to dumb animals is being violated.

ok, but we are not talking about seizure of an animal in violation of an animal ordinance but furry evidence of a crime (as opposed to evidence of a crime by or on a furry) and the seizure of evidence of the crime. The complaint was that the OP had stolen the dog. OP claims the dog had not been stolen but that BF acquired the dog through some humanitarian efforts when it was found injured.

and given the story involved, not recognizing the dog would only be possible if the boyfriend is blind.

 

[quincy]

ok, but we are not talking about seizure of an animal in violation of an animal ordinance but furry evidence of a crime (as opposed to evidence of a crime by or on a furry) and the seizure of evidence of the crime. The complaint was that the OP had stolen the dog. OP claims the dog had not been stolen but that BF acquired the dog through some humanitarian efforts when it was found injured.

and given the story involved, not recognizing the dog would only be possible if the boyfriend is blind.

There would still need to be a warrant to enter the home.

 

[justalayman]

There would still need to be a warrant to enter the home.

they didn't enter the home but the curtilage but none the less, I believe the plain view exception would apply (waiting for T to tell me why I'm wrong though). The dog was the stolen merchandise of the alleged crime. If the dog was reasonably believed to be "the" dog, I'm just not seeing why they would have to wait for a warrant to be issued.

 

[whowelookinfor]

OP member profile is...interesting.


ETA Px Hx is a must.

for what do the letters represernt "OP"?

and the other code?