Warrant issue focus of dogs cruelty evidence hearing

The wretched conditions 54 dogs were allegedly subjected to at the hands of Aleta Rogers were only touched on in an evidentiary hearing that zeroed in on the legality of a police officer's warrantless entrance onto the woman's secluded Thompson Falls-area property.

Rogers, facing 29 counts of animal cruelty for allegedly confining dogs in urine- and feces-saturated trailers, appeared before Justice Court Judge Donald Strine in Thompson Falls last Wednesday. At the conclusion of the hearing, Strine said he would issue a written opinion on the case by the end of the month.

Public Defender Britt Cotter, representing Rogers, and Sanders County Attorney Coleen Magera, tangled over circumstances surrounding Sgt. Jerry McKeen's entrance onto Rogers' property March 13. McKeen, called as a witness for both the prosecution and defense, said he visited Rogers' land - 20 acres located on Cardinal Way outside of Thompson Falls - at the request of state sex offender registry officials who believed an unregistered sex offender might be residing at Rogers' property.

McKeen, a deputy with the Sanders County Sheriff's Office, testified that he drove to Rogers' property March 13 and knocked on the door of the first trailer. McKeen said he heard dogs barking and saw some of the animals through the window. The deputy then reported that he walked around the property, looked into the windows of some of the trailers and made contact with Dave Hedley, a reserve patrol deputy who investigates the department's animal cases, upon returning to the office.

McKeen and Hedley both testified that they returned to Rogers' property the evening of March 14 - McKeen continuing his search for the unregistered sex offender and Hedley following up on the animals McKeen had seen in the trailers.

Responding from a line of questioning from Cotter, McKeen said he drove to Rogers' land March 13 at the speed limit, without backup and with his lights off. The deputy also stated that he drove passed a "road closed" and private property signs and did not have a warrant when he entered Rogers' property without her permission.

Cotter said the prosecution was citing exigent circumstances - an exception to search warrant requirements - as the rational for the warrantless entry of McKeen onto Rogers' property. Cotter, however, argued that there were no schools or parks in the area, and no "sense of urgency" on McKeen's part when he visited the property March 13. Cotter continued that McKeen had the evening of March 13 and all day March 14 to obtain a warrant, but failed to do so.

McKeen said at that juncture he did not have enough information to apply for a search warrant, and was merely investigating whether or not the sex offender was residing on Rogers' property.

Magera added that a sex offender who fails to register is committing a felony offense, and also represents a potential threat to a community. McKeen responded to a question posed by Magera by stating that it would be impractical for officers to obtain a warrant every time they were asked by the state to investigate unregistered sex offenders.

Hedley, called first to testify for the defense, said the animals represented an exigent circumstance when he and McKeen went to Rogers' property March 14 without a warrant. Hedley said if the sheriff's office was mandated to obtain warrants in such cases, "we might as well shut down shop."

Hedley said Rogers was in front of one of the trailers when he and McKeen arrived at the property March 14. He testified that Rogers gave him permission to enter the trailers. Cotter objected when Hedley began describing the condition of the trailers, stating that the information was irrelevant to the central issue in the case - whether or not the warrantless entrance onto Roberts' property violated her privacy rights.

Sanders County Sheriff's Office administrative assistant Donna Neal testified that she is responsible for records concerning sex offenders - including the registration of sex offenders and receiving and passing on to McKeen information from the state about registration violators. Neal said she received the e-mail March 6, in addition to a later e-mail stating that the sex offender had moved to Idaho. The printed e-mails, which were entered into evidence, contained a date for the first e-mail but not the second; Neal said she did not recall when she received the second e-mail and did not know why the date was missing from the document.

Magera and Cotter debated the introduction of photos of the interior of the trailers into evidence. Though the judge ruled that he wouldn't allow the admission of the photos, he agreed to hear testimony from Hedley regarding the conditions in which the dogs were found.

Hedley said each trailer contained numerous dogs - many of smaller breeds and all "covered with fecal matter and urine."

"The smell from the defecation from the dogs themselves having been confined in those trailers was pretty horrific," said Hedley. "Everywhere you stepped you were stepping on a carpet of fecal matter."

Hedley said some of the dogs had soars, and the hair of the longer-haired dogs was matted. Most of the trailers had no heat source, and food and water sources were "hit and miss."

Cotter objected, stating that the condition of the trailers is irrelevant to the case. "How you got there is the question," he said.

In his closing argument, Cotter stated that McKeen's actions at Rogers' property March 13 constituted a search. A search mandates a warrant, he continued, unless an exception exists, such as a probable cause or an emergency. Cotter said the e-mail regarding the sex offender possibly living on Rogers' property did not constitute probable case, and McKeen had time between receipt of the e-mail and March 13 to obtain a warrant.

He also argued that McKeen drove the speed limit without flashing lights or backup to Rogers' land. Coupled with the lack of schools or other places that would attract children in the vicinity, Cotter said the situation was not an emergency.

"This was an illegal search, your honor, plain and simple," the attorney said, continuing, "you're in this tough position because the police didn't do their job."

Magera said public safety can trump privacy rights. The location of Rogers' property and the posted signs do not "heighten the expectation of privacy," she said. The fact that a sex offender had listed Rogers' address as his residence actually lessened the woman's expectation of privacy, Magera argued.

If police were required to obtain warrants every time the state requested that they check on the location of sex offenders, "the burden upon the state would be unreasonable," she said.

McKeen, she continued, had probable cause and exigent circumstances to investigate whether a sex offender was committing a felony crime by not registering. The officers involved "did their jobs," said Magera, adding that she resented comments by Cotter suggesting that the sheriff's office purposely circumvented the law.

Cotter responded that the state of Montana's privacy rights are more stringent than the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

"It's so fundamental; it's so elementary," he said, noting that he believes illegal searches have occurred "many times in this county."

Twelve of the dogs kept on Rogers' property did not survive a rescue by Thompson River Animal Care Shelter and community members.