State v. Voyles

Proper search of real property requires a separate and independent analysis of the search of the real property and seizure of the personal property within it, and the different interests they implicate.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for 18 counts of second­degree animal neglect and one count of felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant did not relinquish her possessory interest in her horses by boarding them with a third party. The trial court erred in concluding the third­party property owners’ consent was sufficient both to permit the deputies to enter the land and the seize Defendant’s horses. Recent Supreme Court case law compels a separate and independent analysis of the search of the real property and seizure of the personal property within it, and the different interests they implicate. The State did invade Defendant’s possessory interest in her horses by seizing them without a warrant and without demonstrating an exception to the warrant requirement. The trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the seizure of the four horses boarded on the third­ party’s property. Further, the error was not harmless because the evidence seized was essential to the State’s theory. Reversed and remanded.