State v. Johnson, COA24-336, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 17, 2024)

In this Carteret County case, defendant appealed his convictions for felony and misdemeanor cruelty to animals, arguing error in denying his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless search of his home’s curtilage. The Court of Appeals found no error.

An animal control officer received a report about a strong smell, possibly a dead dog, coming from defendant’s property. When the officer looked up defendant he learned that defendant was on probation for cruelty to animals, and was required to allow reasonable searches of his home and yard concerning animals on his property. The officer called defendant but was unable to reach him and left a voicemail. When the animal control officer and a sheriff’s deputy arrived at defendant’s property, they smelled a strong odor of ammonia and feces, and observed overgrown brush and trash. The officers walked up the driveway to defendant’s home, observing many dogs in the yard and inside the house in terrible physical condition, many lacking food or water, and large piles of feces. The officers applied for and obtained a search warrant based on photographs of the animals they observed. Twenty-one dogs were seized from defendant’s property; the majority of the dogs needed veterinary assistance, and two were euthanized based on veterinary recommendation. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the warrantless search after concluding that the search was reasonable based on exigent circumstances.  

The Court of Appeals first explained that as the officers walked up defendant’s driveway, they were in a place “where the public is allowed to be,” meaning no unreasonable search had taken place at that point. Slip Op. at 10. While still in the driveway, the officers observed many signs of dogs in distress, and “the circumstances abundantly supported a reasonable belief that the dogs on the property needed immediate aid to prevent further serious injury or death such that exigent circumstances justified [the officer’s] warrantless entry.” Id. Additionally, seizing the dogs for emergency treatment to prevent further suffering was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also noted that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied to the dogs in the backyard. Likewise, because the search of the curtilage was not unconstitutional, the warrant to search defendant’s house was not based on an unconstitutional search. The court concluded that because there was no unreasonable search, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.