She in the performance of here job saw one dog chained up and starving, (skin and bones), was in a back yard looking half dead.
She decided to feed it but another dog in the back yard. A bull dog. Would not let the other dog that was chained to eat.
So she fed both dogs to stop the fighting. After things settled down. She checked out the dog on the chain and decided to take him to
the local vet. She called a police officer to supervise. Since no warrant was issued.
She did this because she considered the dog in imminent danger. Like a dog in a burning building. A warrant would be too little too late.
The police officer showed up and did not dispute her reasoning. The vet even said the the dog was on his last legs.
Now for my gripe. The owner of the said dog is a buddy of the police chief here. He called the police chief and told him my wife had no
right to remove the dog and take it to the vet without a warrant. So the police chief opens a can of worms and my wife is the center of
attention and has to prove that she is in the right. Never mind that our police chief is not educated enough to know the law.
Good Ol Boy Network rules West Texas.
So this Biker had to come to his wifes defense and edjumecate these back woods yahoos.
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.animallaw.info/cases/caustx540sw2d717.htm"
linktext was:"http://www.animallaw.info/cases/caustx540sw2d717.htm"
====================================
What gets to me is that I got to show a city official how to do his job. My wife is a paid peace officer. She is doing her job.
This brings us to the question of whether this evidence was illegally obtained. First, we note that the 'search' on April 15 and the 'seizure' on April 23 were both conducted by the Humane Society or persons acting in their capacity as members of the society and not by police officers. Miss DeStefano testified that the county attorney advised her that the Humane Society was authorized to seize the animals under Art. 184, V.A.C.S. The statute was repealed after the seizure of the animals in the instant case, but appellant concedes that Miss DeStefano may have had the authority to take charge of the animals. It is appellant's contention that once the animal is properly seized by a 'civil authority' for the purpose of protecting the life of the animal, any evidence concerning the animal would not be admissible in a criminal proceeding. To allow the admission, appellant contends, would place the civil authority under Article 184 in direct conflict with the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. It is the determination of this Court that the search in the instant case was not unreasonable.
We find that in the present case a police officer could have done what Miss DeStefano did. It is well recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Long v. State, 532 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). A search means, of necessity, a quest for, a looking for, or a seeking out of that which offends against the law. This implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. It is simply not a search to observe that which is open to view. Turner v. State, 499 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Long, supra.
She had a patrol officer there. But she is in the wrong? __{{emoticon}}__
Don't mess with a Bikers family.
He'll take you to combat. __{{emoticon}}__
