CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. FONDREN
2022 OK CIV APP 17
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2022Background:
- June 22, 2019: City Action Center received complaints of bird noises and strong odor at an apparently abandoned house; referred to Animal Welfare and Health Department.
- June 25, 2019: Animal Welfare officer left a courtesy notice asking owner to contact the City to confirm care of birds; no further action taken that day.
- June 26, 2019: Health inspector and Animal Welfare officer, after observing odor, roach infestation, and exterior signs of filth, coordinated with police/fire and entered the house; they found filth and birds in the garage, catalogued and impounded 14 birds.
- City filed a civil bond/forfeiture action under 21 O.S. § 1680.4 seeking care costs or forfeiture (CV‑2019‑1530); the City later filed felony cruelty charges against Fondren (CF‑2019‑2995).
- Fondren moved to quash/suppress the birds as the product of an unlawful warrantless search; the district court granted suppression, returned the birds, and denied the City’s motion to reconsider. The City appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Fondren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a civil judge could decide Fondren’s suppression motion when a parallel felony prosecution existed | Motion to suppress in felony should be decided on criminal docket per local rule and 22 O.S. § 504.1 | The suppression motion challenged use of evidence in the civil forfeiture proceeding; district court civil division has jurisdiction and may decide admissibility in that civil action | Proceeding under 21 O.S. § 1680.4 is civil; district court had authority to rule on the motion in the civil case; not required to transfer to criminal docket |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure of the birds | Odor of ammonia, roach infestation, water cut-off, and alleged sounds of birds in distress created imminent danger permitting warrantless entry and seizure | Delay between complaint and entry, prior courtesy notice, and lack of observed animal distress at entry show no exigency; warrant should have been obtained | No exigent circumstances shown; warrantless search of dwelling was unlawful; evidence properly excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Lawton, 733 P.2d 375 (OK 1986) (exclusionary rule applies in civil proceedings; art. 2 § 30 broader than Fourth Amendment)
- State ex rel. Campbell v. Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars, 184 P.3d 1078 (Okla. 2008) (civil forfeiture may be remedial and not criminal punishment)
- Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (Fourth Amendment applies to administrative inspections; warrants generally required absent emergencies)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (emergency‑aid exigency permits warrantless entry when officers reasonably believe occupants need immediate assistance)
- Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (2009) (objective‑reasonableness test for emergency‑aid entry)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (homicide investigation did not justify multi‑day warrantless search)
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965) (evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment inadmissible in civil forfeiture)
- State v. Gilchrist, 422 P.3d 182 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017) (distinguishing parallel civil forfeiture and criminal prosecution under the animal‑abuse scheme)