State v. Powell
2017 Ohio 8669
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Humane Society agent Heather Concannon, investigating ongoing complaints about livestock neglect at 6719 Dayton Liberty Rd., observed pigs in a muddy, ammonia‑smelling pen visible from an access lane on Jan. 3, 2017. The house on the property was uninhabitable and no one lived there, per Concannon.
- Concannon spoke with Henry and Amos Powell on Jan. 3; they agreed to remediate the pen by the upcoming Saturday. Concannon continued to check the animals over the next days.
- Concannon returned Jan. 4 and again on Jan. 6/7, observed the pigs in worsening condition (frozen water trough, chattering piglets, one with a scrotal hernia) and concluded they were ‘‘literally freezing to death.’'
- Because of rapidly dropping temperatures and lack of timely housing/transport, Concannon arranged removal of the pigs without obtaining a warrant. She had previously obtained warrants in other matters.
- Powell moved to suppress all evidence and statements obtained from the property; the municipal court granted the motion. The State appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding observations and seizure were permitted under open‑view and exigent‑circumstances principles, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Powell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Concannon's observations of the pig pen were a Fourth Amendment search | Pen was in open view from an access driveway/field, not within curtilage; no reasonable expectation of privacy | Pen was within the farm's curtilage and partially hidden; repeated surveillance and entry amounted to an unconstitutional search | Observations were not a search: pen was not within curtilage and was openly visible from the lane; no search occurred |
| Whether seizure/removal of pigs without a warrant was unlawful | Exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure to prevent imminent death of animals; open‑view observations supported action | No exigency existed—Concannon observed pigs days earlier, gave time to remediate, and still waited days before seizing; she could have obtained a warrant | Seizure justified: facts (ammonia smell, freezing temps, chattering piglets, medical injury, rapid temperature drop) created exigent circumstances supporting warrantless removal |
| Whether statements by Powell must be suppressed as fruits of illegal search | Statements were voluntary and obtained after lawful contact; not tainted because observation/seizure were lawful | Statements were fruits of an illegal search and should be suppressed | No suppression of statements: contacts were voluntary and tied to lawful investigation and exigent removal |
| Applicability of open‑view / curtilage doctrine | Open‑view and open‑fields principles allow observation from a vantage point where officer may lawfully stand | Curtilage protections extend to outbuildings/areas closely tied to home; officer’s repeated entries and surveillance invade privacy | Open‑view doctrine applied; pen was more like open fields (visible, 100+ yards from vacant house, no privacy measures), so observations lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (open‑fields doctrine: curtilage — not open fields — receives Fourth Amendment protection)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (factors for curtilage analysis)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (de novo review for application of law to suppression findings)
- United States v. Hatfield, 333 F.3d 1189 (observations from a public/open vantage point into curtilage do not constitute a search)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent established exceptions)