State v. Glowney & Glowney

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 3390

Syllabus

Husband and wife pled no contest in municipal court to cruelty against companion animal. The trial court did not err in denying appellants' motion to suppress the animal control officer's entry on the appellants' property to take custody of an animal at large was reasonable as a community caretaking function. The appellants did not establish that their constitutional due process rights were violated, requiring the exclusion of any evidence, when the officer failed to provide a statutory notice to them when their dog was seized or before their dog was euthanized. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in correcting the transcript of the plea hearing, pursuant to App.R. 9(E), to reflect that wife agreed to a waiver of an explanation of the circumstances. The plea hearing complied with Crim.R. 11 and R.C. 2937.07. Judgments affirmed.