Sheriff and animal control took my dog

[justalayman]

for what do the letters represernt "OP"?

and the other code?

Until you have sent your $10k annual dues to the free advice merriment club we cannot reveal that information to you. Let us know once the check clears and we'll clue you in.

 

[quincy]

OP stands for original poster (you, in this thread) and Px Hx refers to a poster's posting history (yours for the purposes of this thread).

Thank you for submitting the $10,000 annual dues. I will make sure the money gets to where it needs to go.*

As an additional note, animal control officers carry microchip scanners. Animal control could have scanned, and probably did scan, the dog when it was still on the property, before seizing it.




*Beer's on me!

 

[TheGeekess]

*Beer's on me!

I can't unsee that, can I?


Plus, it makes me wish we still had sig lines.

 

[quincy]

I can't unsee that, can I?


Plus, it makes me wish we still had sig lines.

I don't suppose an edit will do much good now either, huh?

I guess the good news is that I have not committed myself to sharing any beer.

 

[justalayman]

I don't suppose an edit will do much good now either, huh?

I guess the good news is that I have not committed myself to sharing any beer.

well, I didn't want to sound rude but once the beer was on you, I really lost all interest in it. I prefer mine in a bottle or glass. This is one time I won't mind if you don't share.

 

[tranquility]

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.

Plain view is not an "exception" it gives rise to probable cause. The curilage of a residence has the same protections of a residence. There is no allegation of exigency here.

 

[Zigner]

They're looking for a little dog...YIP YIP YIP. "Plain view" doesn't exclude sound...and I'm sure the mutt's yipping could be heard from outside the fence.

 

[tranquility]

They're looking for a little dog...YIP YIP YIP. "Plain view" doesn't exclude sound...and I'm sure the mutt's yipping could be heard from outside the fence.

They are not looking for a little dog, they are looking for a specific little dog. Even though there are cases regarding anything sensed (Usually smell, do you have a plain heard example?), the incriminating character must be immediately apparent. There are a lot of little yipping dogs in the world that is not the one the police were looking for.

But, even if we did have plain view, that gives us probable cause. With that and consent, exigent circumstances or a warrant, the police can enter.

 

[Zigner]

They are not looking for a little dog, they are looking for a specific little dog. Even though there are cases regarding anything sensed (Usually smell, do you have a plain heard example?), the incriminating character must be immediately apparent. There are a lot of little yipping dogs in the world that is not the one the police were looking for.

But, even if we did have plain view, that gives us probable cause. With that and consent, exigent circumstances or a warrant, the police can enter.

Given the totality of the circumstances, the police had probable cause to believe they were witnessing a crime in progress. They are allowed to intervene to stop said crime.

 

[Zigner]

Let's take a different tack here. If the police improperly seize a a bag of jewels from a jewel thief, is the jewel thief entitled to have the bag of jewels returned to her?

 

[CdwJava]

I wonder if there is something missing from this tale. But, as a dog is PROPERTY, if we change this scenario from a "dog" to a "silver teapot" the mere observation that the "teapot" is sitting on the living room table would not generally justify forced entry to seize it and return it to the original owner. Now, if the police could articulate that they were unable to secure the residence and seek a search warrant before the evidence might be compromised, MAYBE they could articulate an exigency to justify why they seized it without one.

Unless there is some info missing here, I am thinking that the Animal Control folks and the deputy jumped the gun. What the OP might be able to do about this is a different matter.

 

[Zigner]

I wonder if there is something missing from this tale. But, as a dog is PROPERTY, if we change this scenario from a "dog" to a "silver teapot" the mere observation that the "teapot" is sitting on the living room table would not generally justify forced entry to seize it and return it to the original owner. Now, if the police could articulate that they were unable to secure the residence and seek a search warrant before the evidence might be compromised, MAYBE they could articulate an exigency to justify why they seized it without one.

Unless there is some info missing here, I am thinking that the Animal Control folks and the deputy jumped the gun. What the OP might be able to do about this is a different matter.

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"

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

But, as you point out, it's really all academic since the OP really has no damages, save (at most) the value of the dog.

 

[justalayman]

Plain view is not an "exception" it gives rise to probable cause. The curilage of a residence has the same protections of a residence. There is no allegation of exigency here.

I have read it referred to as an exception. While a misnomer I believe the intent is simply to describe the situation where something that would otherwise be beyond the reach of the police sans warrant (inside a house for example) does in fact allow seizure sans warrant if it is clearly valid evidence that would in fact allow for the issuance of a search warrant.


So, let me correct the terminology:

the plain view doctrine allows the seizure of the animal if it is clearly identifiable as the (alleged) stolen dog if the dog was in fact clearly identifiable as the allegedly stolen animal and it was in view of the police from a vantage point they were legally allowed to be.



In addition, we don't know if there was not a warrant. From the info provided it appears there may have been valid PC to obtain a warrant. If/until the seizure is challenged I don't think OP will ever know.

 

[justalayman]

I wonder if there is something missing from this tale. But, as a dog is PROPERTY, if we change this scenario from a "dog" to a "silver teapot" the mere observation that the "teapot" is sitting on the living room table would not generally justify forced entry to seize it and return it to the original owner. Now, if the police could articulate that they were unable to secure the residence and seek a search warrant before the evidence might be compromised, MAYBE they could articulate an exigency to justify why they seized it without one.

Unless there is some info missing here, I am thinking that the Animal Control folks and the deputy jumped the gun. What the OP might be able to do about this is a different matter.

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

 

[justalayman]

But, as you point out, it's really all academic since the OP really has no damages, save (at most) the value of the dog.

correction: no damages. OP admits it was the complainants dog.