STATE EX REL FIELDS v DISTRICT COU

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13140 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN STATE e x re1 FRED L, FIELDS, Applicant, DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT O THE STATE F AND FOR THE COUNTY O F and THE HONORABLE N T A JUDGE, FIRST JUDICIAL OF MONTANA, I N LEWIS AND CLARK, ALLEN, PRESIDING Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel o f Record: For Applicant : L o b l e , P i c o t t e and L o b l e , Helena, Montana Gene A. P i c o t t e a r g u e d , Helena, Montana For Movant : Hughes, B e n n e t t and C a i n , Helena, Montana Alan F. C a i n a r g u e d , Helena, Montana For ~ e s p o n d e n t s : Thomas Dowling County A t t o r n e y a r g u e d and C h a r l e s Graveley , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: ' : !> September 23, 1975 3Ci fj - f975 PER CUKIAM: T h i s i s a p e s i c i o n o r .;upervisory : m t r o l s e e k i n g r-o a n n u l and s e t a s i d e D i s t r i c t Judge Nat A l l e n ' s F i n d i n g s of F a c t , C o n c l u s i o n s o f Law and O r d e r , d a t e d J u l y 1 7 , 1975, i n Lewis and C l a r k County Cause No. 39105 e n t i t l e d " S t a t e of Montana, e x r e 1 Thomas F. Dowling, R e l a t o r v. Fred L. F i e l d s , Respondent." Ex u d r t e t h i s Court o r d e r e d an a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g w i t h c o p i e s of t h e ~ 2 t i t i o nand s u p p o r t i n g documents t o b e s e r v e d on t h e r e s p o n d e n t judge, t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y of Lewis and C l a r k County and t h e dccorney g e n e r a l . A l l p r o c e e d i n g s were s t a y e d under f u r t h e r $ ~ r d eof t h e C o u r t . r A a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g was had i n t h a t on t h e d a t e s e t n i o r h r d r i n g , Thomas F . Dowling, c o u n t y a t t o r n e y , and C h a r l e s A . S r a v e l e y , d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y , a p p e a r e d and argued o r a l l y w i t h o u t h a v i n g f i l e d b r i e f s , r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s o r i n any manr i d r complying w i t h o u r r u l e s o t h e r t h a n t o f i l e a II Motion t o &ash" on t h e grounds t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l was n o t lI timely". The motion t o quash i s d e n i e d . W e t h e r e f o r e l o o k t o t h e p e t i t i o n and a t t a c h e d e x h i b i t s f o r ,:he C ~ L L situation. Lewis and C l a r k County Aistorney Dowling, wichouc n o t i c e t o r e l a t o r o b t a i n e d an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g , among o t h e r i h i n g s , t h e summary s e i z u r e of t h r e e dogs b e l o n g i n g t o r e l a t o r and r e q u i r i n g r e l a t o r t o a p p e a r b e f o r e Judge Gordon B e n n e t t t o show c a u s e why one o f t h e dogs s h o u l d n o t b e d e s t r o y e d and t h e o c h e r two dogs s h o u l d n o t b e II confined t o determine t h e i r vicious tendencies". The s i t u a t i o n g i v i n g r i s e t c ~t h i s u n u s u a l t y p e o f a c t i o n a ~ i ddrder was a s f o l l o w s : h i s own p r e m i s e s . R e l a t o r had h i s t h r e e dogs c h a i n e d on O June 5 , 1975, t h e body of t h r e e y e a r o l d n l-ieidi F o u s t was found n e a r t h e p l a c e where one of r e l a t o r ' s d o g s , = I ; i b e r i a n Husky, was c h a i n e d . According t o t h e g r a n d f a t h e r of che d e c e d e n t , who found t h e body, t h e S i b e r i a n d o g ' s c h a i n was he i o r s v 3f che child four t i m e s . wrappeJ dbduc ):elator F i e l d s was a b s e n t from t h e A t that ti-me s c e n e of t h e t r a g e d y b u t had l e f t h i s dogs i n c a r e of a n o t h e r , b u t c h a i n e d and c a r e d f o r on u r e m i s e s where he had a r i g h t t o have them. The t h r e e dogs were s e i z e d and p l a c e d i n t h e c i t y of 'ieleria dog pound. On June 1 7 r e l a t o r r e t u r n e d t o Lewis and Clarlc County and c o n s u l t e d h i s a t t o r n e y . ro If H i s a t t o r n e y f i l e d a motion S t r i k e and Expunge, and A l t e r n a t i v e Motion t o Quash" t h e o r d e r p r o v i d i n g f o r s e i z u r e of t h e dogs. Judge B e n n e t t was d i s - q u a l i f i e d and r e s p o n d e n t D i s t r i c t Judge Nat A l l e n a c c e p t e d j ~ r i s ~ i t ic n . o B r i e f s were f i l e d by b o t h s i d e s on t h e p r e v i o u s l y menc i o n e d motions t o s t r i k e and expunge and a l t e r n a t i v e l y t o quash. tespondent Judge A l l e n d e n i e d t h e motions and s e t t h e m a t t e r f o r hearing If upon t h e m e r i t s " f o r J u n e 26, 1975. O June 26, 1975, t h e r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e , from t h e b e n c h , n d r d e r e d t h e c o n t i n u e d confinement of t h e S i b e r i a n Husky dog b u t o r d e r e d t h e r e t u r n of t h e o t h e r two dogs t o r e l a t o r F i e l d s . On J u l y 1 7 , 1975, t h e r e s p o n d e n t judge made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and o r d e r . The f i n d i n g s r e c i t e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t judge had viewed t h e p r e m i s e s and had s e e n t h e dog. The f i n d i n g s were t h a t r e l a t o r h e r e was t h e owner of t h e dog, t h a t h e k e p t t h e dog on a 25 f o o t c h a i n on 11 unfencedUproperty. That t h e t h r e e y e a r o l d c h i l d c r o s s e d t h e unfenced p r o p e r t y , came w i t h i n t h e a r c of t h e c h a i n , and t h a t t h e dog k . i l l e d t h e c h i l d by " b i t t i n g ( s i c ) and e x p o s i n g her trachea". . The r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t t h e n concluded a s a m a t t e r of law c h a t t h e dog was a " p u b l i c n u i s a n c e 1 ' and a s such was s u b j e c t t o "abatement". The r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t t h e n I1 remanded" t h e dog t o t h e S h e r i f f who he o r d e r e d t o " e x t e r m i n a t e " s a i d dog [ p u b l i c n u i s a n c e ] forthwith. iJn t h e sarile day as t h e o r d e r w a s made, ciouney A ~ r o r n e y Dowling, a c t i n g i n a p r i v a t e c a p a c i t y , r e p r e s e n t e d t h e . p a r e n t s of t h e deceased c h i l d . A lawsuit a g a i n s t r e l a t o r Fields praying f o r damages i n a l a r g e sum h a s been f i l e d by t h e p a r e n t s . W need n o t e d e v e l o p t h i s f u r t h e r t o o b s e r v e t h a t p r o b a b l y t h e most c r i t i c a l e v i d e n c e a t any f u t u r e p r o c e e d i n g would b e t h e dog. The f o r e g o i n g r e c i t a t i o n s a r e background o n l y . The q u e s t i o n i s whether a d i s t r i c t c o u r t can d e c l a r e a domestic a n i m a l , c o n f i n e d by c h a i n even i f on nuisance1'. I' unfenced1' p r e m i s e s , a 'I public ela at or's p r e m i s e s a r e n o t w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r i e s o i any c i t y o r town. There i s simply no s t a t u t e o r law making che k e e p i n g o f a domestic a n i m a l , a dog, on o n e ' s own p r e m i s e s i l l e g a l i n any way. I t c a n n o t be w i t h o u t more a p u b l i c n u i s a n c e . Without more, t h e p r o c e e d i n g below i s h e l d v o i d . That emotions n a t u r a l l y engendered by t h e t r a g i c d e a t h o i l i t t l e I I e i d i F o u s t c a u s e d such an a c t i o n i s c l e a r . Yet, t h e r e i s no l a w p e r m i t t i n g t h e s e i z u r e and d e s t r u c t i o n o f r e l a t o r ' s dog. A i n c i d e n t a l b e n e f i t w i l l b e t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of i n d i s p e n s a b l e n e v i d e n c e f o r u s e i n t h e f o r t h c o m i n g a c t i o n f o r damages. The p r o c e e d i n g below i s o r d e r e d d i s m i s s e d and r e l a t o r ' s dog r e t u r n e d t o him f o r t h w i t h .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.