 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Adkisson10/12/2001
The defendant, Patricia Adkisson, who was charged with 253 counts of animal cruelty and one count of tampering with evidence, was convicted on three counts of animal cruelty. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-202, 39-16-503. The trial court imposed three consecutive terms of 11 months, 29 days, and granted supervised probation. As a condition of probation, the defendant was prohibited from owning any caged animals for a period of five years. The defendant appealed. Later, the trial court revoked probation and a second appeal followed. In this consolidated proceeding, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence gathered during the initial search of her property; (2) the evidence was insufficient; (3) the sentence was improper; and (4) the trial court lacked authority to revoke her probation. Because the search of the defendant's premises violated constitutional principles, the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence which led to the convictions. Accordingly, the convictions are reversed and the causes are remanded.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgments of the Trial Court Reversed; Causes Remanded
Gary R. Wade, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Joseph M. Tipton and John Everett Williams, JJ., joined.
OPINION
On December 17, 1998, Kathy Wilkes-Myers and Mary Sexton, the vice-president and president, respectively, of the Hickman County Humane Society, traveled to the residence of the defendant, Patricia Adkisson, to investigate an anonymous complaint regarding the care she provided to her animals. Deputy Richard Warden of the Hickman County Sheriff's Department accompanied Ms. Wilkes-Myers and Ms. Sexton to the site. After viewing the property, Ms. Sexton and Officer Warden left to obtain a search warrant. Although Ms. Wilkes-Myers remained on the property, she did not conduct any further investigation during the absence of Ms. Sexton and the officer. Upon their return and in reliance upon a search warrant, Ms. Sexton photographed the defendant's animals and their living areas. There were one hundred ninety-five animals, consisting mostly of a variety of canine breeds. As a result of the search, nine dogs were removed from the property and taken to a veterinary hospital.
The next morning, Ms. Wilkes-Myers and Ms. Sexton returned to the property, accompanied by a second officer and the defendant's attorney. Upon their arrival, they discovered that a majority of the animals had been moved to another location. Ms. Wilkes-Myers and Ms. Sexton removed those that remained. On advice of counsel, the defendant eventually surrendered a large number of other dogs, which were purportedly those that had been moved during the night. A total of 253 animals were evacuated from the defendant's property.
I.
First, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress the evidence gathered from the initial search of her property. At the hearing on the motion, the defendant contended that the search was illegal because it was conducted without a warrant and without her consent; she also argued, and the state conceded, that the search warrant was inappropriately executed by members of the Humane Society rather than the Hickman County Sheriff or a deputy. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41(c). At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that because the search warrant was improperly executed, all of the evidence collected pursuant thereto would be excluded. The trial court denied the motion, however, as it related to the initial warrantless inspection:
I don't think that the state has carried . . . its burden of proving that ther
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|