City of Okla. City v. Fondren
| Decision Date | 28 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 118, 471 |
| Citation | 512 P.3d 392 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF FOURTEEN EXOTIC PARROT-LIKE BIRDS: The City of Oklahoma City, Appellant, v. Paul Fondren, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Rita Douglas-Talley, Jason K. Perez, ASSISTANT MUNICIPAL COUNSELORS, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellant
R. Scott Adams, Robert W. Gray, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Appellee
OPINION BY JOHN F. FISCHER, CHIEF JUDGE:
¶1 The City of Oklahoma City filed this civil proceeding to require a bond for the care or forfeiture of fourteen exotic parrot-like birds seized from Appellee Paul Fondren during a warrantless search of his property. The City appeals the district court's order granting Fondren's motion to quash and/or suppress that evidence. The district court was not required to transfer that motion to the judge assigned to the criminal case filed against Fondren for cruelty to animals. And, the City failed to demonstrate the existence of exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search of Fondren's property. The district court's order suppressing the evidence and the order denying the City's motion to reconsider that order are affirmed.
BACKGROUND
¶2 On June 22, 2019, the Oklahoma City Action Center received a complaint about bird noises and a strong odor coming from the garage of a house that appeared to be abandoned. The Action Center forwarded the complaint to the Animal Welfare Department and the Oklahoma City County Department of Health. On June 25, 2019, an Animal Welfare officer visited the property, knocked on the door, and left a courtesy notice which read,
¶3 On June 26, 2019, an inspector from the Department of Health visited the home, along with an Animal Welfare officer. The health inspector testified that he observed a bad odor coming from the garage door. He observed hundreds of tiny "roach-like" insects crawling on the exterior of the garage door. The inspector coordinated with a neighbor in order to observe the backyard area, which he found to be overgrown and unkempt. The health inspector testified,
¶4 After they entered through the front door of the house, the inspector testified that he observed a "trail of dead roaches that looked like they had been swept up into big piles" and smelled an unpleasant odor. The inspector made his way into the garage and observed:
At that point, which I was able to see the source of the roaches was likely from the filth and the feces that were present in the garage, and once I saw that, that really confirmed that there was a public health nuisance that was here, that was at this property. That, using the other factors that led me to go in, was enough for me to consider the property to be unsafe or unfit for habitation.
The birds were then catalogued and impounded. The City filed a bond/forfeiture proceeding pursuant to section 1680.4 of the Animal Facilities Protection Act, ( 21 O.S.2011 §§ 1680 through 1692 ), case no. CV-2019-1530. The City requested that Fondren be ordered to pay for the care of the birds while in City custody or forfeit their ownership. Approximately one month later, the City caused Fondren to be charged with a felony for cruelty to animals pursuant to section 1685 of the Act, case no. CF-2019-2995.
¶5 In the bond/forfeiture proceeding, Fondren filed a motion to quash and/or suppress the evidence — the fourteen birds — obtained by the City during the search of his property. Fondren argued that the warrantless entry into and search of his property violated his constitutional rights. The City argued that Fondren's motion should be heard by the judge assigned to the felony case. In the alternative, the City argued that its entry into and seizure of Fondren's property was justified under the circumstances. After an evidentiary hearing on Fondren's motion, the district court sustained the motion to quash and/or suppress, ordered the birds returned to Fondren and dismissed case no. CV-2019-1530.
¶6 The City filed a motion to reconsider two days later. The district court denied that motion. The City appeals both rulings.
JURISDICTION
¶7 The City's appeal raises an issue that implicates our jurisdiction to proceed. This Court's jurisdiction "is fundamental ... and cannot be ... waived by the parties, or overlooked by the court." In re M.B. , 2006 OK 63, ¶ 8, 145 P.3d 1040 (footnote omitted). Hall v. GEO Group, Inc ., 2014 OK 22, ¶ 12, 324 P.3d 399 (footnotes omitted).
¶8 The City argues that the district court erred when it decided Fondren's motion to suppress evidence. The City contends that matter should have been decided in the criminal case which charged Fondren with felony cruelty to animals pursuant to section 1685 of the Animal Facilities Protection Act. The City points out that a motion to suppress evidence in a felony case is authorized by 22 O.S.2011 § 504.1(A) of the code of criminal procedure.
¶9 However, the City's right to appeal an adverse ruling from a motion to suppress filed pursuant to that statute is limited. The City can only appeal an adverse ruling in a criminal case "if it is authorized by one of the limited instances listed in Section 1053 of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes." State v. Campbell , 1998 OK CR 38, ¶ 6, 965 P.2d 991 (footnote omitted). Title 22 O.S.2011 § 1053 provides that a municipality may appeal The Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to hear those appeals. See State v. Gilchrist , 2017 OK CR 25, ¶ 11, 422 P.3d 182 ().
¶10 Further, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases ...." Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4. If Fondren's motion to suppress was a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals, this case must be transferred to that Court. Movants to Quash Multicounty Grand Jury Subpoena v. Dixon , 2008 OK 36, ¶ 10, 184 P.3d 546. However, the fact that the Court of Criminal Appeals would have jurisdiction of an appeal from a motion to suppress filed in a felony case does not necessarily preclude this Court's jurisdiction.
¶11 The City filed this case pursuant to section 1680.4 of the Animal Facilities Protection Act. Whether section 1680.4 is civil or criminal in nature is an issue that has not been previously decided. Section 1680.4 is a statute found in the Oklahoma penal code and the same Act, pursuant to which Fondren was charged with a felony. However, the location of the statute in the penal code is not determinative. Mere placement of a statute within Title 22 does not render the provision, "ipso facto," a criminal statute. Parsons v. Dist. Court of Pushmataha Cty. , 2017 OK 97, ¶ 20, 408 P.3d 586. "Title 22 contains multiple provisions which are unquestionably matters of civil law." Id. Id . ¶ 17 (footnote omitted).
¶12 One such example is the civil forfeiture provision of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, 63 O.S.2011 §§ 2-101 through 2-1101. "Proceedings ... involving seizure and forfeiture of vehicles under 63 O.S. §§ 2-503 and 2-506 are in rem and civil in nature."
State ex rel. Turpen v. A 1977 Chevrolet Pickup Truck , 1988 OK 38, ¶ 9, 753 P.2d 1356 (citing Moore v. Brett , 1943 OK 101, 193 Okla. 627, 137 P.2d 539 ). However, civil forfeitures advance "both punitive and remedial goals," and "historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment" and, therefore, the question " ‘is not ... whether forfeiture ... is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment.’ " State ex rel. Campbell v. Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars , 2008 OK 32, ¶ 21, 184 P.3d 1078 (quoting Austin v. United States , 509 U.S. 602, 610, 113 S. Ct. 2801, 2806, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) ). Accord State ex rel. Dugger v. Twelve Thousand Dollars , 2007 OK CIV APP 20, ¶ 19, 155 P.3d 858.
¶13 The distinction between a statutory remedy and punishment is foundational. "Issues concerning the determination of the amount of punishment and questions regarding a prisoner's release from confinement are matters which are, without question, within the Court of Criminal Appeal's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases." State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler , 1990 OK 3, ¶ 15, 786 P.2d 82 ; Smith v. Oklahoma Dep't Of Corrs. , 2001 OK 95, ¶ 6, 37 P.3d 872. But, a civil forfeiture case State ex rel. Campbell v. Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-five Dollars , 2008 OK 32, ¶ 13, 184 P.3d 1078 (citation omitted) ).
¶14 Campbell held that the confiscation of money found in close proximity to a controlled substance, unless the owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial