Douglas Alan Wolff v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 87 N.E.3d 528

In Dec 2016 officers found multiple animals in poor condition on Douglas Wolff’s property; one horse was deceased.
State charged Wolff with obstruction, two counts of animal cruelty, and two counts of intimidation; nine animals (five horses, two mules, two miniature donkeys) were impounded and placed with Indiana Horse Rescue.
The shelter estimated first-month care at $3,815 and $3,015/month thereafter; Wolff did not post a bond to cover animal care under I.C. § 35-46-3-6(c).
Wolff posted a $20,000 cash jail bond to secure his release but did not seek to apply those funds to the animal-care bond or execute any agreement allowing the court to retain bail for expenses.
Trial court found probable cause, concluded the animals were validly impounded, and ordered Indiana Horse Rescue authorized to determine disposition of the animals because Wolff failed to post the statutory care bond.
Wolff appealed, arguing the jail bail should have prevented disposition and that the court failed to follow the statute’s requirement to appoint and rely on the state veterinarian (due process claim); the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wolff)	Held
Whether trial court erred by authorizing shelter to determine disposition when defendant posted $20,000 bail	Bail and animal-care bond are distinct; owner must post a separate bond for animal care; State argued shelter may determine disposition after owner fails to post statutory bond	Wolff argued his $20,000 cash bail should be credited/applied to the animal-care bond and thus prevent disposition	Held: Bail serves a different statutory purpose; Wolff did not post the required animal-care bond or request application of his bail funds, so shelter authorization was proper
Whether failure to appoint/adhere to state veterinarian procedure violated due process	State noted the state veterinarian had been involved and probable cause existed; trial court relied on investigative materials and findings	Wolff argued I.C. § 35-46-3-6(e)-(g) requires appointment and recommendation by state veterinarian and that lack of compliance deprived him of due process and just compensation	Held: No preserved due process error; state veterinarian was involved and Wolff failed to timely raise statutory noncompliance in trial court, so appellate relief denied

Day v. State, 57 N.E.3d 809 (Ind. 2016) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and the statute’s plain language controls)
State v. Dugan, 793 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. 2003) (use of statutory text to determine legislative intent)
Miller v. State, 952 N.E.2d 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (failure to timely object to statutory noncompliance waives the claim on appeal)