Saturday, December 8, 2012

Judge grants defense motion to suppress evidence in horse case

COLORADO -- A motion to suppress evidence in the upcoming animal cruelty trial of two Bailey men was granted by Fairplay-based County Judge Brian Green on Dec. 3.

Green ruled that evidence obtained by the Park County Sheriff’s Office following the seizure of six horses from the Echo Valley Ranch near Bailey wouldn’t be admissible during the jury trial scheduled to begin on Feb. 25.


Bailey men Ron Swift and Randall Hatlee, each owners of three horses that were seized last February, are facing three counts each of misdemeanor animal cruelty.

According to court documents, Green found that there was “no good-faith mistake exception” in allowing the evidence to be admitted during the trial, and that the “officer withheld material evidence” from an affidavit in support of the original seizure of the horses.

That decision was made after a Dec. 3 hearing. The four-day trial for each man, tried at the same time in separate criminal cases, was supposed to begin on Dec. 3, but it was pushed back to February to resolve the issue about the defendants’ motion to suppress.

Eleventh Judicial District Attorney Thom LeDoux told The Flume that the trial is still scheduled to take place on Feb. 25.

He said the judge’s order only seems to cover evidence collected after the animals were seized, and also testimony from Park County animal control officers that would have supported that evidence.

“They just can’t testify as to the piece that the judge did suppress,” LeDoux said.

Motion to suppress
At the center of the Nov. 14 motion to suppress, filed by Swift and Hatlee’s attorney, Darrel Campbell, is a notice of warning written by Park County Animal Control Officer Cindy Hardy that gave the owners 30 days to improve the condition of their animals, which, Campbell argues, was a guarantee of immunity from criminal charges during that 30 days.

That notice of warning was written on Feb. 16, 2012. Three days later, the six horses were taken into protective custody by the Park County Sheriff’s Office with the consent of the owners.

According to the defense motion, when the horses were taken into protective custody on Feb. 19, they had “not been confiscated, seized, or surrendered.”


On Feb. 23, the six horses were formally seized by the Park County Sheriff’s Office, and Swift and Hatlee were charged with animal cruelty.

Campbell argued that the Park County Sheriff’s Office misled Swift and Hatlee about the true reasons behind taking the horses into protective custody.

“The Notice of Warning, dated February 16, 2012, together with the Protective Custody Agreement dated February 19, 2012, constitute a cooperation agreement between law enforcement and Defendant concerning the six horses alleged to be at risk as a result of their unhealthy body condition scores and thin appearance,” Campbell wrote in his motion.

In the prosecution’s objection to the motion to suppress, Deputy District Attorney Steve Sullivan argued that because the horses were put into the protective custody of the Park County Sheriff’s Office, the protective custody was a good-faith action “by the Park County Sheriff’s Office against the defendants and to protect the horses at issue.”

Sullivan’s six-page objection argued that the notice of warning didn’t constitute a promise of immunity, and that an affidavit that supported the seizure of the animals wasn’t materially deficient.

Pine Resident Eugene Ferraro – who is interested in this case because he adopted a horse seized from the Echo Valley Ranch by the Routt County Sheriff’s Office last February, which eventually led to the investigation by the Park County Sheriff’s Office – said he believes even though the defense succeeded in suppressing some evidence, there is more evidence prosecutors could present to make their case.


Ferraro said the judge said in court that although some evidence wouldn’t be permitted at trial, it didn’t mean that he didn’t find probable cause for the case to be filed in the first place.

“I don’t think that’s the end of the world,” Ferraro said. “It limits the scope of what can be used as evidence in the trial.”

Ferraro said that some community members have been critical of LeDoux’s handling of the case, but he said he was impressed by LeDoux’s handling of the case on Dec. 3.

“We in the community have been somewhat disappointed in LeDoux’s performance to date, but yesterday he rose to the occasion,” Ferraro said.

(The Flume - Dec 7, 2012)

Earlier:

No comments:

Post a Comment