Illegal Tresspass by Police?

[firemanup]

What is the name of your state? IA

8-13-04 there was an incident at my home while I was at work. Short version is this. My 13 yr old daughter harrassed and pestered a family dog until she was bitten after 30 to 40 minutes and numerous warnings by the dog.

I was called by my 11 yr old son who was also home and told the dog was biting my daughter, I told him to hang up and dial 911 and I would be right home, I called my wife and went home.

When I arrived I found both of my children sitting on the front porch with the two police officers that had responded, and with the paramedics, injuries were minor and one of the police officers had secured the dog in a room in the house.

At this point the reason they were called was handled. The children were outside, the dog was secured inside.

I went inside and moved the dog to a different room where his kennel/crate was located and came back outside.

My wife arrived shortly thereafter and when she tried to go inside the house the police refused to allow her entry into our own house. When asked why they said they wanted her to stay outside.

She went around the house and inside the back door. I went inside the house and the police followed. They were told repeatedly to leave the house, they refused saying they had the right to be there, and we asked what right, they said they needed to see the rabies certificate. They were shown the rabies vaccination paperwork for the dog and again told to leave, very adimately. Again they refused to leave.

Asked what right they had to be in the house they said they needed to know the disposition of the dog. We told them the disposition of the dog was that it was going to be removed and put down. Again they were told to leave and refused.

They continued to refuse to leave until the confrontation escalated and became physical between one of the officers and my wife, she was left with bruising to her upper arm.

My wife had gone inside the room where the dog was to scold him, albeit a little late and didn't do much good her children were just bit by this dog and she was mad at it. The officer waited outside the door of the room until she came out and then met her in the doorway and physically removed her from the room causing the bruising to her arm.

In retrospect we found out the truth and basically found out our daughter had mistreated the dog and been abusive toward him.

This has become an issue now with the local small town police department and this issue of tresspassing or not has come up.

There were no exigent circumstances in the house, they were very, very adimately told to leave the house and refused. They were given what they said they needed and still refused.

In subsequent investigation we found that the town we live in has an ordinance that states when investigating anything in the animal/dog chapter, ie. dog complaints, rabies vaccinations, cruelty to animals, dog bites etc.. that an officer has the legal right to tresspass onto property to investigate these things EXCEPT inside a domicile (which i read to be our house) the ordinance specifically states that to enter a domicile permission from the owner or a search warrant is needed.

I feel with that law on the books they were in violation of the law and illegally tresspassing and one of them actually guilty of battery.

On the other hand even without that ordinance I do not believe they had a right to make entry, they were called for a situation and mitigated that situation and then waited outside for us to arrive home, at that point they had no probable cause to believe a crime was happening inside? Nor any exigent circumstances, there was no evidence here to flush down a toilet or anything and they were repeatedly told to leave the house.

Am I way off base here I feel they were in violation of our rights??

Thanks for your time....

 

[dequeendistress]

Exactly how old was the person in charge while you and your wife were gone?

 

[CdwJava]

All I can say is that the police had a lawful right to be IN the house at the beginning ... a medical emergency, children without supervision of an adult, and a potentially dangerous dog - all add up to an exigency justifying entry.

Why the police might have remained is confusing. What were they seeking? Why were they following anyone around? Were they waiting for Animal Control? I just can't imagine that after all was said and done, the last people there were the cops simply standing in the hallway for no reason. It just doesn't make sense.

Something else seems to be missing here.

But, the officers had a right to be there when they were. Whether they had a need to remain is the question.

However, had it happened out here, the officers would have remained on scene WITH the dog until Animal Control responded to take the dog in to custody for evaluation. So the officers would have had a right to have remained on scene pending the arrival of Animal Control. I suspect something like that was happening here as well.

But, procedures may differ.

Carl

 

[firemanup]

The two children left alone with the dog were 13 and 11, and that issue has already been cleared by Child Protective Services, obviously trying to not make this too lengthy I didn't get into all of that.

This is small town Iowa and there is no animal control, the police handle animal complaint issues. They had no issue with us handling disposition of the dog.

The reason they remained is very obvious for me having been there, it was a "contempt of cop" issue, and they had reason to be a little or alot defensive, but all they did was escalate the problem by remaining for no reason.

They were there for a reason at first I agree, but when the dog was contained and the children removed to outside, they then waited outside also and any reason to be in the house after that point is what i'm wondering about.

After being told to leave the house, this creates an issue then and i can't seem to find the legal stance for them to remain inside or re-enter when they've been told they don't have permission to.

Thanks for helping me with my curiosity

 

[CdwJava]

The police handle dog bites? Nobody quarantines the animals?

I am from small-town CA and the cops here are not trained or equipped to do that ... we wait for the County Animal Control.

All I can say is that you have two courses of action that I can see: (1) Complain to the agency and/or the city about the officers' actions, or, (2) obtain an attorney and sue - that is IF the attorney feels there is something you can sink your teeth in to and obtain compensation for. Sometimes, even if there is an improper action by the police, there just may not be an award in it and the cost for the suit might be borne by the plaintiff.

I just remain bewildered why they would want to lolligag about the house if there was nothing else to be done. Personally, when I'm done with a call, I want to leave. If all I had to do was lock the dog in a bedroom and wait for mom and dad to come get the kids, I'd be waving at you on the way out the door ... after I've made certain that the kids will be cared for and the dog will be taken care of.

- Carl

 

[firemanup]

Carl,

FYI, I'm an ex-cop, (firefighter now) my sister and her husband are cops, and this is the only time in any dealing with law enforcement where I felt officers behaved unprofessionally or inappropriately.

It's been 10 yrs since my academy days and I'm just remembering being taught that forceful entry, or entering a house without permission was a delicate subject, from memory we were always taught that there had to be exigant circumstances, ie. the destruction of evidence, to make entry immediately without getting a search warrant.

Being small town doesn't help the issue much either, the other law enforcement agencies in the area that i've talked to (two) both feel they'd have handled it differently and due to the contempt of cop issue i feel like i have a small town police chief handling issues with the dog in-apprpriately, it's even stronger when i have him on tape as saying he's got a problem with my wife, he used the word "attitude".

The chief is threatening to ban the dog as a "vicious/dangerous dog" when the city has no code's on the book defining a vicious or dangerous dog.

California has tons of them that i've found and other cities in Iowa have them, but this situation does not fit the definition. There was no legal "serious injury", even the doctor's office termed it in their report as minor.

Every other code i've found states "unprovoked attack/attacks" two expert animal behaviorists have reviewed the dog and what happened and state the dog actually had an extreme amount of restraint in both how long he took to bite and in the way he bit. (he bit after the 13 yr old grabbed him by the cheeks and lifted him up off his front feet) (the bites were very minor and minimal compared to what he could have done)

The state of iowa used to have a definition of a Vicious dog and this case doesn't fit that definition either, but it was appealed in 1995.

It included naming several breeds vicious just on the basis of their breed, dog owners finally got it removed.

 

[CdwJava]

I can come up with a number of exigencies to justify the initial entry ... the welfare of the children being the greatest one. Obviously someone called the police or the medics, and thus a response was required ... and entry justified. And, at least in CA, the medics woul dnot have been able to treat the child unless they were taken into our temporary custody.

I have no problem - and I doubt the courts would either - with the entry or even the fact they were there when you got home. The ONLY problem I see is their remaining if there was no further need for the officers to be there. That is what baffles me. Either they are incredibly stupid, or they were involved in something that neither of us is aware.

What is their official justification for being there? If it was to take the dog, then they had a right to remain until the dog was seized. IF that's why they were there.

- Carl

 

[firemanup]

Carl,

I absolutely agree with you about the initial entry, and I thanked them for that and feel they handled it exceptionally well, they seperated the kids from the dog without any incident.

The officer approached the "vicious" dog and extended his expandable baton at the dog, and told the dog to get, it didn't, so he poked the dog with the baton and it then did what he told it to do. "get in there" it went into the room he was herding it into, without any growling, barking, or anything just did as it was told.

They were told to leave, they were asked why they didn't have to leave, they said they had to see the rabies papers, they were shown the rabies papers and told to leave, they said they needed to know the disposition of the dog, they were told what the disposition was going to be, and told to leave and refused.

I don't know if you caught in my initial posting, but this small town has an ordinance on the books that while investigating animal issues officers have the right to tresspass on property, but not into a "domicile" which to me means home, without permission or a search warrant. They're "reasons" for being there both related to the dog, rabies vaccination which is required by law and disposition fall under the animal codes this town has which also say permission or search warrant to be inside.

Finally when they did get out of the house they remained until they saw the dog taken away. Again with that I have no problem and the dog was immediately removed and taken two states away for evaluation by the breeder.

I believe they could have seized the dog I just don't think they knew it.

Again i go back to contempt of cop being the issue, as things escalated they were told to get the F out by my wife, and I know that wasn't the smartest thing in the world, but then her kids were just bitten up basically by one of her other "kids" and she wasn't the calmest person at the time.

It's just always been my opinion that they are the professionals, not the public.

Us, the kids, and the dog are here..

 

[CdwJava]

I don't know if you caught in my initial posting, but this small town has an ordinance on the books that while investigating animal issues officers have the right to tresspass on property, but not into a "domicile" which to me means home, without permission or a search warrant. They're "reasons" for being there both related to the dog, rabies vaccination which is required by law and disposition fall under the animal codes this town has which also say permission or search warrant to be inside.

However, they were not investigating an animal issue, they were there for a medical aid and to determine the welfare of the children that had called for assistance and were left without supervision at the time of the incident.

I would agree that had they been called on a simple case of animal cruelty, they would not have been able to make entry. But, since this was apparently much more than that, they did have the right to enter.

I believe they could have seized the dog I just don't think they knew it.

Maybe. But, being legally able to seize it, and being properly equipped to seize it are two different issues. I know that *I* do not take dogs into my patrol car even if I can. And I don't let my officers do it either. The expense to clean them out after an animal has been there is a little more than my budget can handle for an issue that I do not have to deal with.

Again i go back to contempt of cop being the issue, as things escalated they were told to get the F out by my wife, and I know that wasn't the smartest thing in the world, but then her kids were just bitten up basically by one of her other "kids" and she wasn't the calmest person at the time.

And it may have been that the officers got their egos in a bunch. However, it does not eliminate the possibility that they maintained some (even minmal) legal authority to remain. And if they were remaining to secure the animal, then that was sufficient cause to at least remain where the dog was ... maybe not barring the entire house, but at least to remain where the dog was quarantined.

- Carl

 

[dequeendistress]

Let us know what the patrolmen's supervisor said when you called and placed your complaint with the law enforcement agency.

Since the eldest child was 13 yrs of age, the police may not have been able to determine if this child was old enough to be left with the responsibility of care of self and a sibling. I copied the following from a child neglect website, notice that the age of 12 is mentioned as example of child not being old enough to care for self or others:

Failure to provide supervision is the most frequent form of neglect in Iowa. This form of neglect may cause drug and toxin ingestions, burns, and avoidable accidents, etc. Abandoning a child is a severe form of neglect. Leaving young children in the care of other children under 12 years of age, or leaving a child under 8 years of age at home all alone are other forms of improper supervision. These age limits may vary somewhat depending on reliability of a given supervising child. Medical neglect occurs when a child with diabetes, asthma or kidney problems does not receive proper treatment or comes to medical attention with severe dehydration.

In my opinion the police were within their legal right to remain UNTIL a competent adult arrived, the circumstance involving entry are questionable and without ALL pertininet facts from all sides, I don't think anyone can discern all contributing factors regarding entry of your home.

It appears there was some sort of confrontation between the officers-and your wife?...I just wonder if this began outside and ended up going inside----

(I am wondering about the allegation about battery as well)