Four individuals in relation to the animal fighting contest that took place in February appeared before Judge Kim Hall in the Starke Circuit Court Wednesday morning with defense attorney Douglas Shaw. Gilberto Narravo, Salvador Reyes, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, and Arnoldo Perez were present with their spouses, who agreed to act as translators from English to Spanish and vice versa. The four men are charged with counts of Attending an Animal Fighting Contest, a Class D Felony.
Shaw requested a motion to declare the search warrant invalid, based on his argument that the tip received by the Sheriff’s Department that led them to investigate the property was based on “two layers of hearsay.” Sheriff Oscar Cowen was notified of cars and trucks parked outside the residence of 480 N. and 100 W. and believed there was a rooster fighting contest taking place. Cowen then called dispatch and requested officers to investigate. Shaw argued that this anonymous tip, and the fact that a large number of vehicles were present at the property, was not substantial evidence to call backup, investigate the property, and request a search warrant. Shaw also said that the radio logs indicate the property was searched, and evidence was removed, before the search warrant was even granted.
Detective Ken Pfost, who wrote the affidavit for probable cause and was present at the scene the night of the incident, said that they entered the residence and retrieved weapons to make the scene safe, as per protocol. Pfost said that backup was requested because of the large number of vehicles present at the scene, and when they approached the house several people began to immediately flee the scene. Once they arrived in the area of the cock fight, they noticed several dead and injured birds in the area, which led them to begin securing the property, retrieving and removing weapons to ensure the scene was safe.
The motion to declare the search warrant invalid was denied by Judge Hall, who said he felt that the police responded in a reasonable manner and followed protocol in acquiring the search warrant.
Shaw also made a motion to suppress evidence, because he felt that the euthanizing of the fighting roosters was not only contrary to state code, but it also prevented the owners of the birds from being identified. Shaw said that the roosters were destroyed because they were “too aggressive,” but there was no evidence that showed that this was true, as the birds were not analyzed by a certified professional. The report indicated that the birds had been injected with steroids, but there was no study done to prove this. In addition, the motion through the court approving the destruction of the birds was signed only by Judge Hall, and Shaw indicated that this was not in accordance with procedure.
Judge Kim Hall said that the fact that these birds are not evidence is the prosecution’s problem, because they cannot prove ownership without the birds. Prosecutor Nick Bourff said that the birds were destroyed in accordance with state code, because they were too violent to be kept, and euthanizing was allowed in this case. The motion to suppress was denied, and the defense verbally requested the judge to certify the rulings for interlocutory appeal.
