228 Conn.App. 458
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background:
- Joann Connelly operated CT Pregnant Dog and Cat Rescue on a 5.57‑acre residential property; animal control observed filthy, ammonia‑laden conditions and signs of animal disease/skin/respiratory issues.
- An animal control officer entered the property without a warrant on March 23, 2022; a warrant was obtained March 24 and executed March 25, 2022, and the state seized 33 dogs, 28 cats and other animals.
- The Department of Agriculture filed a verified petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22‑329a seeking custody/ownership; the court initially granted temporary custody to the department and later, after hearings, vested permanent ownership in the department.
- Connelly filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence seized following the warrantless entry on Fourth Amendment/exclusionary‑rule grounds; the trial court denied the motion, ruling the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil animal‑welfare proceedings.
- Connelly also argued § 22‑329a violated her state constitutional right to a civil jury trial; she never requested a jury or objected before trial.
- On appeal the court affirmed: (1) exclusionary rule inapplicable to § 22‑329a proceedings under Janis balancing and (2) Connelly waived any jury‑trial claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule bars use of evidence seized after a warrantless entry in a § 22‑329a animal‑welfare proceeding | Exclusionary rule should not apply to this civil, remedial proceeding; deterrent benefit is minimal and societal cost (protecting animals) is high | Exclusionary rule applies because the proceeding effects forfeiture of property (animals) or is quasi‑criminal, so illegally seized evidence must be excluded | Court: exclusionary rule inapplicable — § 22‑329a is remedial (not forfeiture or quasi‑criminal) and Janis balancing disfavors exclusion (societal cost > deterrent benefit) |
| Whether proceedings under § 22‑329a constitute civil forfeiture (triggering exclusionary rule per Plymouth Sedan) | § 22‑329a is a protective, remedial statute, not a forfeiture statute | § 22‑329a results in permanent loss of owner’s property (animals) and so is a civil forfeiture | Court: § 22‑329a is not a civil forfeiture — statute lacks forfeiture language and is focused on animal welfare |
| Whether defendant has a state constitutional right to a jury trial in § 22‑329a proceedings | (Preservation) The defendant contends jury trial right exists and statute’s bench‑only procedure violates article first, § 19 | Plaintiff: defendant never requested a jury and did not preserve the claim; case proceeded as court trial | Court: Claim waived — defendant never timely requested/joined a jury trial and actively participated; Golding review fails on waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976) (formulated balancing test for applying the exclusionary rule in civil proceedings)
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965) (exclusionary rule applies in civil in rem forfeiture when action is punitive/quasi‑criminal)
- Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez‑Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (declined to extend exclusionary rule to deportation proceedings; applied Janis balancing approach)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (refused to apply exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (declined to extend exclusionary rule to parole revocation hearings)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (explained exclusionary rule is a prudential deterrent with significant societal costs)
- In re Nicholas R., 92 Conn. App. 316 (2005) (Connecticut appellate court applying the principle that exclusionary rule generally does not apply to child‑welfare civil proceedings)
- Wethersfield ex rel. Monde v. Eser, 211 Conn. App. 537 (2022) (interpreting § 22‑329a as primarily protective of animals rather than punitive)