State v. Neanover, 2021 Ohio 540

On April 22, 2019, a deputy dog warden went to Neanover's house to welfare‑check a reported emaciated dog. She parked in the driveway and knocked on the front door with no response.
From about two feet from a wooden fence and roughly 15 feet from the dog, the deputy looked through a conspicuous missing fence board and observed an emaciated dog with sores, tied to a short chain on a backyard patio.
The deputy photographed the dog, sent photos to her supervisor, and was instructed to seize the animal. She returned, opened the gate, entered the yard, and removed the dog without a warrant to obtain veterinary care.
The state charged Neanover with animal‑cruelty offenses; he moved to suppress the evidence arguing the deputy’s observation and warrantless seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and Ohio Constitution because the backyard was curtilage.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; Neanover pled no contest to cruelty counts, was sentenced, and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Neanover)	Held
Whether observing the dog through a hole in the fence that opened onto the curtilage was a constitutionally protected "search."	Observation was valid open‑view from a lawful position in the driveway; no search occurred.	Peering through the fence into curtilage violated a reasonable expectation of privacy and was a search.	Observation through the "fortuitous aperture" was open view and not a Fourth Amendment search.
Whether the deputy’s warrantless entry and seizure of the dog was unlawful.	Warrantless seizure was justified by exigent‑circumstances/emergency‑aid: the dog’s condition objectively warranted immediate care.	Seizure required a warrant; entry/seizure into curtilage without warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and Collins prohibits seizures by unlawful trespass.	Seizure was justified under the emergency‑aid exigency exception; objectively reasonable belief the dog needed immediate aid.
Whether the deputy exceeded implied consent to approach the home ("knock and talk").	Driveway and approach to front door are areas impliedly open to the public; deputy acted within permissible scope.	Deputy’s conduct exceeded implied permission and intruded into protected curtilage.	Deputy’s presence on driveway and approach to front door was lawful and within implied permission.

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1986) (observations from a public vantage point that render activities plainly visible do not require Fourth Amendment protection)
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (to invoke Fourth Amendment protection defendant must show a reasonable expectation of privacy)
State v. Buzzard, 112 Ohio St.3d 451 (Ohio 2007) (open‑view doctrine: observation of items exposed to public view is not a search)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (emergency‑aid exigency permits warrantless entry to render aid)
Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45 (U.S. 2009) (police need not have "iron‑clad" proof of exigency; reasonable, on‑the‑spot judgments suffice)
Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (U.S. 2018) (a seizure cannot be justified if effectuated by unlawful trespass)
State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 2012) (Ohio recognizes emergency‑aid exception allowing warrantless entry into home/curtilage to render aid)
United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464 (6th Cir. 2014) (warrantless seizure of animals may be lawful where imminent danger to animals’ health exists)