Court Opinion

ID: 9823358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:54:30.166372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:19.503313
License: Public Domain

O’Neill, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 31} Respectfully, I must dissent.
(¶ 32} Neither this court nor the trial court have sufficient evidence to determine what exactly is happening in this case. For that reason, I would grant only an alternative writ so that this court can make an informed decision.
{¶ 33} But one thing is eminently clear. The Ohio Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) sought a search warrant from the court of common pleas. After Cynthia Huntsman asked the same court to intervene and order the return of property seized during the execution of that warrant, the ODA showed up in this court arguing that the court of common pleas “patently and unambiguously” lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The majority holds that the animals were seized under the exclusive statutory authority granted solely to the ODA. But the statute’s inclusion of the court of common pleas in the statutory scheme for intruding onto Huntsman’s property belies that position. R.C. 935.19(A)(2) and (3).
{¶ 34} Respectfully, I dissent.