Background - Humane agent Heather Concannon investigated ongoing complaints about horses and discovered pigs in a deteriorated pen at 6719 Dayton Liberty Rd.; the house on the property was uninhabitable and no one lived there. - On Jan. 3, 2017 Concannon observed pigs standing in liquid mud, smelled ammonia, and believed the animals were at risk of hypothermia; she spoke with Amos and Henry Powell, who agreed to remediate the pen by the coming Saturday. - Concannon checked the property again (Jan. 4) and found no remediation; temperatures continued to drop. - Concannon returned shortly before a storm and, concluding the pigs were "literally freezing to death," arranged removal of the remaining pigs overnight on Jan. 7 without obtaining a warrant. - The Powells were not arrested and had voluntarily spoken with Concannon; Amos was charged with multiple counts of animal cruelty; the municipal court granted the Powells’ motions to suppress all evidence; the State appealed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Powell) | Held | |---|---:|---|---:| | Whether Concannon’s observation of the pig pen was a Fourth Amendment search | Observation was in open view from an access driveway on non-residential land; no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields/areas not within curtilage. | Concannon traversed private property and walked ~50+ yards over hilly fenced land to view the pen; reasonable expectation of privacy existed. | Court held the pen was not within the residence or curtilage and was openly visible from the lane, so the observation was not a Fourth Amendment search. | | Whether the open-view doctrine justified warrantless seizure/removal of animals | Open-view permitted observation of exposed conditions; nothing protected what was voluntarily exposed to public view. | Even if visible, removal of livestock without consent or a warrant violated property and Fourth Amendment rights. | Court agreed open-view applied to observations and supported intervention. | | Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure of animals | Rapidly falling temperatures and animals "actively freezing to death" created a life-or-death emergency permitting immediate seizure without a warrant. | State had days to obtain a warrant after initial observation and agreement; agent could have secured a warrant rather than seize animals. | Court held exigent circumstances existed (immediate threat to animal life), so warrantless removal was justified. | | Whether statements by Powells and subsequent evidence should be suppressed | Powells voluntarily came, spoke, and were not in custody; no coercion or custodial interrogation requiring suppression. | Any evidence stemming from unlawful entry/seizure (per trial court) should be suppressed. | Court found no basis to suppress the Powells’ voluntary statements and reversed suppression of observational and seizure evidence. | ### Key Cases Cited Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishes reasonable expectation of privacy test) Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (open fields doctrine: curtilage—not open fields—receives Fourth Amendment protection) United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four-factor test for determining curtilage) Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (mixed questions of law and fact in Fourth Amendment review; appellate de novo review of legal application) Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine) United States v. Hatfield, 333 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2003) (observations from open fields/doctrine that viewing into structures from open fields is not a search) * Fullbright v. United States, 392 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1968) (observations from outside curtilage do not generally implicate Fourth Amendment)