« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals decides three today | Main | Environment - Two stories about tire processing facilities today »

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides one today

In Robert Trimble v. State of Indiana, a 7-page opinion, Justice Boehm writes:

We hold that a police officer receiving a credible report of a violation from an identified concerned citizen may properly enter onto private property through the normal route of access to investigate. Once there, publicly viewable evidence of a crime may properly be seized without a warrant, particularly when there is a need to act promptly to protect the health or safety of another, whether human or animal.
The case involved Butchie, a dog tied outside, to a doghouse. Re the 4th Amendment claim, the Court writes:
The Fourth Amendment does not protect objects, activities, or statements that a citizen has exposed to the “plain view” of outsiders because the individual has expressed no intention of keeping those activities private. Trimble argues that Butchie’s doghouse was within the curtilage of his home and therefore not subject to warrantless intrusion. The Court of Appeals agreed, with Judge Sullivan dissenting. * * *

We conclude that there is no legitimate privacy interest in the appearance of a dog that has been tied up outside in an area readily observable by the public. Accordingly, Barger’s ob-servation and inspection of Butchie did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they were made from an area that the public could legitimately be expected to traverse. Once Butchie was examined, Barger had ample reason based on both probable cause (apparent animal abuse) and exigent circumstances (Butchie’s health) to seize the dog.

Re the claim under the Indiana Constituion, the Court writes:
Trimble argues that the warrantless search of Butchie’s doghouse and the seizure of Butchie from within was unreasonable and therefore violated Article I, Section 11, of the Indiana Constitution. * * *

Hence, Barger’s degree of concern that a violation had occurred was reasonable.

Finally, the severity of the law enforcement need embraces proper concern for the health and safety of others, including animals. Where a police officer has received a timely tip concern-ing a possibly dangerous situation, the privacy interest is diminished. * * *

We are not suggesting that the information available to Barger would justify entry into Trimble’s house. But it was sufficient to trigger an investigation that was done from essentially public space, and this investigation justified further action. Once in the yard, the object of his search — an ambulatory animal in open space — is fair game; particularly when there are immediate health concerns regarding the dog. We conclude that Barger’s visit to Trimble’s house and his subsequent actions were reasonable under the Indiana Constitution.

Conclusion. Transfer is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Shepard, C.J., and Dickson and Sullivan, JJ. concur.

Rucker, J., concurs in Part I and concurs in result in Part II without separate opinion.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 21, 2006 11:56 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions