Happy Trails
Senior Member
CdwJava said:
**Didn't mean to imply that it was illegal. But I find it interesting that he would sign the form, when he knew what they would find.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
consent to search house
- Thread starter carla28s
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
**Didn't mean to imply that it was illegal. But I find it interesting that he would sign the form, when he knew what they would find.
CdwJava
Senior Member
Happy Trails said:
Sorry ... didn't mean to come off terse ... still downing that first cup of coffee after a long night of work.
And its amazing what people will consent to even when they know there is stuff to find. That's why they call it 'dope'.
I recall a narc detective from San Jose PD who once told me that because they got so many anonymous referrals that they couldn't possibly do any follow-up on that they would just do 'knock-and-talks' with the 'suspects'. They would knock at the door, tell them that they were there investigating alleged drug activity and then ask for permission to come inside. 3 out of 4 would let them in immediately ... and in many of those cases they found dope or paraphernalia in plain view when they stepped inside thus giving rise to a warrant or even greater consent.
My experience has been similar. When you find the stuff, they usually grimace and mumble something like, "Oooh .... forgot about that."
It's fun.
Carl
two wrongs
california
My reason for being concerned are because he's family. He has livestock at the house they went to and he's there most of the day but this is not his home or where he lives. Yes they did find drugs in the car which was when they searched the entire car and yes drugs in the house but when did he commit a crime at that house. My main concern was the fact that after they hancuffed him and was put in the car, I think that if he was aware of his rights he maybe wouldn't gave them consent to search the house. Now, i'm not here to say if he's guilty or innocent of what he's being accused of, that would be the courts decision but I'm really disgusted on the officers shooting and killing the animals. Two wrongs don't make right. The worst fear I have is that the officer kills these animals (innocent living things) that have no part in this. This is who we look to for safety and protection. Maybe i'm wrong but I'd be very suprised if they would be punished for breaking the law vs. ie. if the suspect commited the same exact crime. Someone as cruel as this I have no regards to and for me to believe what they say they found I have a hard time believing also. They said they found drugs in the home and if he's guilty he should pay the consenquences, but same opinion on the officers as well. Would signing the consent to search home be considered a statement? Also, if assuming he was under observation then what gave them probable cause to search home when doing a routine traffic stop? If under observation they must not have observed enough evidence to accuse someone of a crime, you'd think if so they'd issue a warrant to search the property and it would be seperate rather on a traffic violation. He says the drugs were not his, once again the courts decides this, but w/o proof of this why would they link a routine traffic stop with a home search? I dont see how carrying a consent to search form would be illegal but are there proper procedures when issueing them?
california
My reason for being concerned are because he's family. He has livestock at the house they went to and he's there most of the day but this is not his home or where he lives. Yes they did find drugs in the car which was when they searched the entire car and yes drugs in the house but when did he commit a crime at that house. My main concern was the fact that after they hancuffed him and was put in the car, I think that if he was aware of his rights he maybe wouldn't gave them consent to search the house. Now, i'm not here to say if he's guilty or innocent of what he's being accused of, that would be the courts decision but I'm really disgusted on the officers shooting and killing the animals. Two wrongs don't make right. The worst fear I have is that the officer kills these animals (innocent living things) that have no part in this. This is who we look to for safety and protection. Maybe i'm wrong but I'd be very suprised if they would be punished for breaking the law vs. ie. if the suspect commited the same exact crime. Someone as cruel as this I have no regards to and for me to believe what they say they found I have a hard time believing also. They said they found drugs in the home and if he's guilty he should pay the consenquences, but same opinion on the officers as well. Would signing the consent to search home be considered a statement? Also, if assuming he was under observation then what gave them probable cause to search home when doing a routine traffic stop? If under observation they must not have observed enough evidence to accuse someone of a crime, you'd think if so they'd issue a warrant to search the property and it would be seperate rather on a traffic violation. He says the drugs were not his, once again the courts decides this, but w/o proof of this why would they link a routine traffic stop with a home search? I dont see how carrying a consent to search form would be illegal but are there proper procedures when issueing them?
CdwJava
Senior Member
carla28s said:
Unfortunately for him, he had the drugs in the car. That makes it entirely reasonable to associate him with things found in the house.
It wasn't required under the law. But, as I previously mentioned, he might be able to argue that consent was not freely given. It's a long shot, but a possibility.
Do we know that actually happened? That would seem an incredibly stupid thing to do. Your brother may THINK they were doing that, or maybe they told him that for some dumb reason, but I can't imagine they would have actually shot the animals ... if so, these clowns are too dumb to be in law enforcement.
I have never heard of it considered is such. I doubt anyone will rule that consent is a statement ... but, who knows?
First, there is no such thing as a "routine" traffic stop - that's a figment of the media imagination. Since many officers are killed on these "routine" stops, they are hardly "routine".
Second, they obtained consent ... they did not need probable cause. In theory, I could walk up to everyone I see in a day and ask them for consent to search their residence. It would be inane, but I could legally do it.
Sometimes you have to strike when the iron is hot. And making observations does not alwsy mean there is enough for a warrant. But consent is always a good fallback.
His car, his responsibility. The things found in the house might be harder to tie to him, but the things in the car? He got stuck with those.
And once again - the search was done with consent ... maybe not valid consent, but consent nonetheless. And sometimes, when we don't have a whole lot of anything besides rumor and suspicion, we DO ask for consent.
Sure ... well, sort of. Make sure that you have true and valid consent, and make sure that you do not offer any inducives or incentives that the court might find improper.
The written form is the same as a verbal consent, just that it makes it harder to later dispute the consent unless the defendant argues coersion.
Carl
california
thanks for replies. The reason/s they said he was pulled over first being reckless driving, then they said the car was stolen. The car isn't his and it's not in his name, I don't know if they will hold him responsible for what was found in the car, but if i'm correct because he was driving the vehicle and him being the only one in the car, he's held responsible for it. Am I correct on this? As far as the word "Statement" goes when I looked this word up in the dictionary it says..1. expression in words: the expression in spoken or written words of something such as a fact, intention, or policy, or an instance of this. So wouldn't that mean that when he was arrested, and no one read his rights to him at that point, nothing can be used/held against him? I'm not sure really now what's the point of our miranda rights if only sometimes were told of them. What about the fact that he's not the owner of the car, nor the house and even though they get this consent (with/without) following proper procedures to search the house and by finding drugs in that house, why is it his? I think it was unfair from the moment they stopped him. Also, they had him in the back of the car when they searched the property, and he witnessed along with other witnessess admitting this about the animals. There officers in the toward the front of the property rounding up the animals, while one of the officers was shooting bullets at the one animal in particular because she staued to protect her babies that were in the back. Too bad we couldn't have her replace the officer that did this because that's what I would consider "to protect". She died I believe that following day, and the babies ran into the fields because they were scared. Only 3 of the babies were recovered by neighbors but one died anyways being to weak without it's mother. Im sorry for going on about this, it's really not necessary to this forum but like I said it really upset me and others to know this is what happened and if laws weren't broken and miranda rights wouldn't just be told whenever to whomever, I think maybe a different scenerio would of took place. What are the laws and penalties for animal abuse/killing? What are the chances of them being held responsible and charged for such a crime? How do you make sure you have a true and valid consent? If a consent is not valid then neither would be what they are accusing him of right? If not, then what's the point of a consent for just like the miranda rights it wouldn't make a difference. Its unfair.
thanks for replies. The reason/s they said he was pulled over first being reckless driving, then they said the car was stolen. The car isn't his and it's not in his name, I don't know if they will hold him responsible for what was found in the car, but if i'm correct because he was driving the vehicle and him being the only one in the car, he's held responsible for it. Am I correct on this? As far as the word "Statement" goes when I looked this word up in the dictionary it says..1. expression in words: the expression in spoken or written words of something such as a fact, intention, or policy, or an instance of this. So wouldn't that mean that when he was arrested, and no one read his rights to him at that point, nothing can be used/held against him? I'm not sure really now what's the point of our miranda rights if only sometimes were told of them. What about the fact that he's not the owner of the car, nor the house and even though they get this consent (with/without) following proper procedures to search the house and by finding drugs in that house, why is it his? I think it was unfair from the moment they stopped him. Also, they had him in the back of the car when they searched the property, and he witnessed along with other witnessess admitting this about the animals. There officers in the toward the front of the property rounding up the animals, while one of the officers was shooting bullets at the one animal in particular because she staued to protect her babies that were in the back. Too bad we couldn't have her replace the officer that did this because that's what I would consider "to protect". She died I believe that following day, and the babies ran into the fields because they were scared. Only 3 of the babies were recovered by neighbors but one died anyways being to weak without it's mother. Im sorry for going on about this, it's really not necessary to this forum but like I said it really upset me and others to know this is what happened and if laws weren't broken and miranda rights wouldn't just be told whenever to whomever, I think maybe a different scenerio would of took place. What are the laws and penalties for animal abuse/killing? What are the chances of them being held responsible and charged for such a crime? How do you make sure you have a true and valid consent? If a consent is not valid then neither would be what they are accusing him of right? If not, then what's the point of a consent for just like the miranda rights it wouldn't make a difference. Its unfair.
CdwJava
Senior Member
Regardless of the dictionary meaning, the legal matters for consent do not mean that Miranda was necessary. Again, Miranda (your rights) are only required when you are arrested and when you are being interrogated. Asking consent is not an interrogation ... at least not in any court decision I am familiar with. If he had told them where the dope was, then there might be a problem getting that statement in to evidence. But, that is not the issue here apparently.
The search of the car is proper even if he is not the owner ... if they had a lawful arrest or some other lawful reason to search the car, it does not matter who the owner is because the person driving was the person in control of it. If he is arrested or gives consent, then it's almost a done deal.
The house search might be able to be challenged if he had no connection or access to the house at all ... but, if he was able to come and go as he pleased - and if he stayed there from time to time - it can also be argued that he did have constructive control over the house. If he was just the occasional visitor, then the owners of the house could move to suppress the evidence against them ...not so sure it would be too useful to suppress evidence against our hapless driver, however.
The owner of the cows can sue the police department for killing the cows if indeed they did. They can also file a complaint with the police department and even seek criminal charges if they want. You don't have any standing so you can't do it. And there has to be more to the cow story ... I just can't imagine anyone being so witless as to simply shoot a cow for no reason. Maybe to put it out of its misery, or to keep it from harming someone, but not to just shoot it for no reason.
His only hope that I can see is if he can successfully challenge the search as being coerced consent, or, that he lacked the authority to give consent for a search of the house. But I am sure his attorney will tell him the straight scoop. How come you aren't asking the attorney?
Carl
The search of the car is proper even if he is not the owner ... if they had a lawful arrest or some other lawful reason to search the car, it does not matter who the owner is because the person driving was the person in control of it. If he is arrested or gives consent, then it's almost a done deal.
The house search might be able to be challenged if he had no connection or access to the house at all ... but, if he was able to come and go as he pleased - and if he stayed there from time to time - it can also be argued that he did have constructive control over the house. If he was just the occasional visitor, then the owners of the house could move to suppress the evidence against them ...not so sure it would be too useful to suppress evidence against our hapless driver, however.
The owner of the cows can sue the police department for killing the cows if indeed they did. They can also file a complaint with the police department and even seek criminal charges if they want. You don't have any standing so you can't do it. And there has to be more to the cow story ... I just can't imagine anyone being so witless as to simply shoot a cow for no reason. Maybe to put it out of its misery, or to keep it from harming someone, but not to just shoot it for no reason.
His only hope that I can see is if he can successfully challenge the search as being coerced consent, or, that he lacked the authority to give consent for a search of the house. But I am sure his attorney will tell him the straight scoop. How come you aren't asking the attorney?
Carl
Here is one section of the California Penal Code re death of animals and could find no place allowing peace or public service officer allowances to shoot at will animals without cause, although their animals are protected. While Carla may not be awitness to it, perhaps some of the neighbors could report it, is it possible that the gunshoots were recorded on the viedo tape.
Ca. Penal Code 597.(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section or
Section 599c, every person who maliciously and intentionally maims,
mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and
intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for
not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a) or (c), every
person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks,
tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or
shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or
causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven
when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of
necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, or to be cruelly beaten,
mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge or
custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any
animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon
the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide
the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the
weather, or who drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when
unfit for labor, is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime
punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony or alternatively
punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and by a fine of not more
than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).
(c) Every person who maliciously and intentionally maims,
mutilates, or tortures any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish
as described in subdivision (d), is guilty of an offense punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year, by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(d) Subdivision (c) applies to any mammal, bird, reptile,
amphibian, or fish which is a creature described as follows:
(1) Endangered species or threatened species as described in
Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish
and Game Code.
(2) Fully protected birds described in Section 3511 of the Fish
and Game Code.
(3) Fully protected mammals described in Chapter 8 (commencing
with Section 4700) of Part 3 of Division 4 of the Fish and Game Code.
(4) Fully protected reptiles and amphibians described in Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 5050) of Division 5 of the Fish and Game Code.
(5) Fully protected fish as described in Section 5515 of the Fish
and Game Code.
This subdivision does not supersede or affect any provisions of
law relating to taking of the described species, including, but not
limited to, Section 12008 of the Fish and Game Code.
(e) For the purposes of subdivision (c), each act of malicious and
intentional maiming, mutilating, or torturing a separate specimen of
a creature described in subdivision (d) is a separate offense. If
any person is charged with a violation of subdivision (c), the
proceedings shall be subject to Section 12157 of the Fish and Game Code.
(f) (1) Upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation
of this section by causing or permitting an act of cruelty, as
defined in Section 599b, all animals lawfully seized and impounded
with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane
society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a
public agency shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and
shall thereupon be awarded to the impounding officer for proper
disposition. A person convicted of a violation of this section by
causing or permitting an act of cruelty, as defined in Section 599b,
shall be liable to the impounding officer for all costs of
impoundment from the time of seizure to the time of proper
disposition.
(2) Mandatory seizure or impoundment shall not apply to animals in
properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations
performed under the authority of the faculty of a regularly
incorporated medical college or university of this state.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a defendant is
granted probation for a conviction under this section, the court
shall order the defendant to pay for, and successfully complete,
counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and
treat behavior or conduct disorders. If the court finds that the
defendant is financially unable to pay for that counseling, the court
may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's
ability to pay. An indigent defendant may negotiate a deferred
payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant has
the ability to pay the nominal fee. County mental health departments
or Medi-Cal shall be responsible for the costs of counseling
required by this section only for those persons who meet the medical
necessity criteria for mental health managed care pursuant to Section
1830.205 of Title 7 of the California Code of Regulations or the
targeted population criteria specified in Section 5600.3 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code. The counseling specified in this
subdivision shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of
probation, including any term of imprisonment and any fine. This
provision specifies a mandatory additional term of probation and is
not to be utilized as an alternative in lieu of imprisonment in the
state prison or county jail when such a sentence is otherwise
appropriate. If the court does not order custody as a condition of
probation for a conviction under this section, the court shall
specify on the court record the reason or reasons for not ordering
custody. This subdivision shall not apply to cases involving police
dogs or horses as described in Section 600.
Ca. Penal Code 597.(a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section or
Section 599c, every person who maliciously and intentionally maims,
mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and
intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for
not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a) or (c), every
person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks,
tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or
shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or
causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven
when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of
necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, or to be cruelly beaten,
mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge or
custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any
animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon
the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide
the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the
weather, or who drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when
unfit for labor, is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime
punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony or alternatively
punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and by a fine of not more
than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).
(c) Every person who maliciously and intentionally maims,
mutilates, or tortures any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish
as described in subdivision (d), is guilty of an offense punishable
by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year, by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(d) Subdivision (c) applies to any mammal, bird, reptile,
amphibian, or fish which is a creature described as follows:
(1) Endangered species or threatened species as described in
Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish
and Game Code.
(2) Fully protected birds described in Section 3511 of the Fish
and Game Code.
(3) Fully protected mammals described in Chapter 8 (commencing
with Section 4700) of Part 3 of Division 4 of the Fish and Game Code.
(4) Fully protected reptiles and amphibians described in Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 5050) of Division 5 of the Fish and Game Code.
(5) Fully protected fish as described in Section 5515 of the Fish
and Game Code.
This subdivision does not supersede or affect any provisions of
law relating to taking of the described species, including, but not
limited to, Section 12008 of the Fish and Game Code.
(e) For the purposes of subdivision (c), each act of malicious and
intentional maiming, mutilating, or torturing a separate specimen of
a creature described in subdivision (d) is a separate offense. If
any person is charged with a violation of subdivision (c), the
proceedings shall be subject to Section 12157 of the Fish and Game Code.
(f) (1) Upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation
of this section by causing or permitting an act of cruelty, as
defined in Section 599b, all animals lawfully seized and impounded
with respect to the violation by a peace officer, officer of a humane
society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a
public agency shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and
shall thereupon be awarded to the impounding officer for proper
disposition. A person convicted of a violation of this section by
causing or permitting an act of cruelty, as defined in Section 599b,
shall be liable to the impounding officer for all costs of
impoundment from the time of seizure to the time of proper
disposition.
(2) Mandatory seizure or impoundment shall not apply to animals in
properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations
performed under the authority of the faculty of a regularly
incorporated medical college or university of this state.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a defendant is
granted probation for a conviction under this section, the court
shall order the defendant to pay for, and successfully complete,
counseling, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and
treat behavior or conduct disorders. If the court finds that the
defendant is financially unable to pay for that counseling, the court
may develop a sliding fee schedule based upon the defendant's
ability to pay. An indigent defendant may negotiate a deferred
payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee if the defendant has
the ability to pay the nominal fee. County mental health departments
or Medi-Cal shall be responsible for the costs of counseling
required by this section only for those persons who meet the medical
necessity criteria for mental health managed care pursuant to Section
1830.205 of Title 7 of the California Code of Regulations or the
targeted population criteria specified in Section 5600.3 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code. The counseling specified in this
subdivision shall be in addition to any other terms and conditions of
probation, including any term of imprisonment and any fine. This
provision specifies a mandatory additional term of probation and is
not to be utilized as an alternative in lieu of imprisonment in the
state prison or county jail when such a sentence is otherwise
appropriate. If the court does not order custody as a condition of
probation for a conviction under this section, the court shall
specify on the court record the reason or reasons for not ordering
custody. This subdivision shall not apply to cases involving police
dogs or horses as described in Section 600.
lawyer to busy
california
CdwJava, the attorney he has for some reason doesn't seem to make much effort when it comes to meeting in person. I don't know why. Two different times he tried to speak with him in person and his lawyer told him there's nothing really for him to be worried about at this point. There's been 3 court hearings already and at all 3 there was a stand in or replacement attorney (not sure of the name). Is this common?
california
CdwJava, the attorney he has for some reason doesn't seem to make much effort when it comes to meeting in person. I don't know why. Two different times he tried to speak with him in person and his lawyer told him there's nothing really for him to be worried about at this point. There's been 3 court hearings already and at all 3 there was a stand in or replacement attorney (not sure of the name). Is this common?
gun shots
california
rmet4nzkx, I'm not sure if you were asking or making a statement but as for the possibility of the gun shots caught on video, it could be possible to be on video assuming every part of the video would be shown. Although it's unlikely it would be. I'd be really suprised because after he shot the bird he yelled to an officer in the front of the property he ran out of bullets and if they had any more. The other officers were throwing tortillas to gather them up and some officers were using bean bags apparantly not that officer. It's too bad. Well I thank you for your replies again, it really helps.
california
rmet4nzkx, I'm not sure if you were asking or making a statement but as for the possibility of the gun shots caught on video, it could be possible to be on video assuming every part of the video would be shown. Although it's unlikely it would be. I'd be really suprised because after he shot the bird he yelled to an officer in the front of the property he ran out of bullets and if they had any more. The other officers were throwing tortillas to gather them up and some officers were using bean bags apparantly not that officer. It's too bad. Well I thank you for your replies again, it really helps.
If the question came up for potential evidence aside from spent cartriges,r animal remains, if no timely repors were made aside from aside from witnesses, accounts of the other officers, one would hope that firing a weapon is positively reported but if there is some inconsistancy then the shots might be preserved on the video tape if in fact it was running the whole time, not erased, then they would be specifically looking for the reports of the shots.
It would seem that excesive force was involved considering the man consented to the search and wasn't resisting. That is not to say that there are not other issues but does seem to be "overkill" and might endanger the prosecution's case. What ever the animals were, they were not attacking the officers other than in self defense and provoked at that.
If the animals had to be gathered to secure the scene then animal control should have been called to appropriately gather the animals. It would seem, since there were neighbors who actualy rescued the animals, some of which died, the officers left the scene without gathering them so that would be a lack of due dilligence on their parts. The officer who shot the animals without cause could be charged with CPC 597 and the others with aiding and abetting.
It would seem that excesive force was involved considering the man consented to the search and wasn't resisting. That is not to say that there are not other issues but does seem to be "overkill" and might endanger the prosecution's case. What ever the animals were, they were not attacking the officers other than in self defense and provoked at that.
If the animals had to be gathered to secure the scene then animal control should have been called to appropriately gather the animals. It would seem, since there were neighbors who actualy rescued the animals, some of which died, the officers left the scene without gathering them so that would be a lack of due dilligence on their parts. The officer who shot the animals without cause could be charged with CPC 597 and the others with aiding and abetting.
Happy Trails
Senior Member
carla28s said:
**Was it a rooster or hen?
Emu
california
It was an Emu. Also, not sure about some of the smaller animals that were alive before the supect left the house but were dead upon return if I remember correctly were 2 doves? I'm not certain on this but I know they were smaller birds. There wasn't obvious wounds on the small birds but the Emu had a bullet wound on its side. Also, Animal control probably wasn't sent out at the time because non of the animals died at the scene, the mother emu died I believe that following day. Nonetheless, there's pictures of the animals that were killed/dead.
california
It was an Emu. Also, not sure about some of the smaller animals that were alive before the supect left the house but were dead upon return if I remember correctly were 2 doves? I'm not certain on this but I know they were smaller birds. There wasn't obvious wounds on the small birds but the Emu had a bullet wound on its side. Also, Animal control probably wasn't sent out at the time because non of the animals died at the scene, the mother emu died I believe that following day. Nonetheless, there's pictures of the animals that were killed/dead.
Happy Trails
Senior Member
carla28s said:
**I'm sorry, I thought you had mentioned chickens.
An emu, yikes! Not an inexpensive animal either.
Copy "rmet4nzkx" post and get a copy of that to the owners of the emu.