People v. Williams, B275226

Background

On Oct. 29, 2014 Animal Control responded to a loose, thin horse that stopped at defendants’ residence; officers secured the horse in a trailer and attempted to contact the owners.
While making contact, officers heard dogs barking (including whining from the garage), smelled excessive fecal matter, and observed a broken garage window through which a dog and training equipment (a slat mill) were visible.
Officers walked through an open gate into the fenced backyard and photographed kennels holding numerous pit bulls; defendants were not present then.
Sergeant Montez‑Kemp later emailed photos and reports to Deputy Ferrell, who inspected the property from public roads on Nov. 10 and prepared an affidavit describing prior complaints, observed kennels, the slat mill, and his and the sergeant’s expertise in bloodsports.
A search warrant issued Nov. 24, 2014; on execution officers seized 19 pit bulls (many emaciated/scarred), dead animals, the slat mill, and documents.
Defendants moved to suppress and to quash/traverse the warrant (Pen. Code §1538.5), claiming the initial warrantless curtilage entry/search was unlawful and tainted the later warrant; the trial court denied the motion and defendants pled to counts for dog fighting and animal cruelty.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were officers’ warrantless observations/brief entry into curtilage lawful?	Officers acted reasonably under exigent‑circumstances to secure/assess animal welfare; observations from driveway/window and brief backyard check were justified.	Initial entry/search violated Fourth Amendment; any later warrant was fruit of unconstitutional entry.	The entry/observations were justified by exigent circumstances (concern for animal welfare); looking through broken garage window and brief backyard check were reasonable.
Did the warrant rest on probable cause absent tainted information from the alleged unlawful entry?	Even excising back‑yard observations of injuries/scarring, Deputy Ferrell’s affidavit (expertise, public‑view observations, prior complaints, slat mill, escaped thin horse) supplied probable cause.	Without the information allegedly obtained from the unlawful curtilage intrusion, the affidavit lacked probable cause.	Probable cause existed without the excised material; affidavit valid based on expert interpretation, prior complaints, visible kennels/slat mill.
Were prior complaints/stale information improperly relied on?	Prior calls over a four‑year span about numerous pit bulls and suspected fighting supported an ongoing operation and were not stale.	Prior calls were stale and should not support probable cause.	Prior complaints were sufficiently recent and connected to ongoing activity; not stale given the totality of circumstances.
Were there material omissions or reckless misstatements in the affidavit?	Affidavit presumed valid; no deliberate or reckless omissions shown.	Affidavit contained material omissions creating a false impression.	Defendants failed to show deliberate or reckless omissions; affidavit not undermined.

Key Cases Cited

Camacho v. California, 23 Cal.4th 824 (discusses standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
Rogers v. California, 46 Cal.4th 1136 (exigency and reasonableness standards for warrantless entries)
Chavez v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.4th 1493 (public vantage/plain view and implied access to curtilage)
Dunn v. United States, 480 U.S. 294 (factors for determining curtilage)
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (what is knowingly exposed to the public not protected by Fourth Amendment)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (exigency limits: actions must be circumscribed by the emergency)
Scott v. California, 52 Cal.4th 452 (presumption of validity for affidavits and requirements to show reckless omissions)
Carrington v. California, 47 Cal.4th 145 (probable cause and staleness analysis)