Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Susanne Stephanie Nikola Kynast, Petitioner v. Florida

Supreme Court briefJan 26, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ftytrti District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 16, 2020.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D 19-640

Lower Tribunal Nos. 16-438-A-M and 18-375-M

Susanne Stephanie Nikola Kynast,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy Koenig,

Judge.

Susanne S.N. Kynast, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

APPENDIX A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 16™

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF

FLORIDA IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY

APPELLATE DIVISION

CASE NO:

18-CA-375-M

LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: 16-MM-438-A-M

SUSANNE STEPHANIE NIKOLA KYNAST,

Petitioner

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent

ORDER DENYING AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS g

..................

lf.........1 ■

____

■■

„

‘

: *^

THIS MATTER having come before the court upon the STATE OF FLORIDA'S 00

Jr:

Response to the Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and the court, haying s

reviewed the Response, and being otherwise fully informed in the premises, hereby^

Orders as follows:

1. The Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE and ORDERED at Key West, Monroe County, Florida, this _/jZ^day of

February, 2019.

TIMOTHY J. KOENIG

Circuit Judge

cc:

Susanne Stephanie Nikola Kynast

kvnastsusanne@amail.com

Office of the State Attorney - Marathon Division - via courier

The Hon. Ruth Becker, via courier

APPENDIX B

' j

; j

"r )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

THIRD DISTRICT

OCTOBER 28, 2020

SUSANNE STEPHANIE NIKOLA

KYNAST,

Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s),

CASE NO.: 3D19-0640

L.T. NO.:

vs.

16-438,

18-375

THE STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

Upon consideration, Appellant’s pro se Motion for Rehearing,

Certification, and/or Written Opinion is hereby denied.

FERNANDEZ, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ., concur.

Appellant’s pro se Motion for Rehearing En Banc is denied.

A True JCtipy1’- ■ V■'' ("£>■

ATf£jST-;. . \.

rU'J-

cc:

Kayla Heather Mcnab

Office of Attorney General

APPENDIX C

Susanne Stephanie Nikola Kynast

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 16™

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF

FLORIDA IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY

APPELLATE DIVISION

CASE NO:

18-CA-375-M

LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO: 16-MM-438-A-M

*.<

SUSANNE STEPHANIE NIKOLA KYNAST,

Petitioner

<£> •

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

THIS MATTER having come before the court upon Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider,

*.*

and the court, having reviewed the Motion, and being otherwise fully informed in the

premises, hereby Orders as follows:

1. Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED at Key West, Monroe County, Florida, this

day of March,

V-

2019.

TIMOTHY^ KOENIG

Circuit Judge

cc:

Susanne S. N. Kynast

Christina Cory, Esq.

kvnastsusanne@Qmail.com

ccorv@kevssao.orQ

APPENDIX D

■ V

IN THE 16 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN

AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA

COURT DIVISION

CASE NO.

Uo-fYwvH?^ Am

COURT MINUTES

COURT OPENED at

with the following officers present:

i—» .

••iZ.

HONORABLE:

So.

_________ _______

fnL

STATE ATTORNEY:

DEFENSE ATTORNEY:

BAILIFF:

png

(LXOuO^jTV

COURT REPORTER:

*31

-0

—5

rig sHr

CHARGED WITH “Tor^vou'V &wfAk^ Is

For- ^ A ir~A o -£ O-AA trrL'Sic^<P'f\(Lp_

MOTION

STATE OF FLORIDA VS

cr>U^irf . Wol5^

&W <ejj\ cWxjc

y\Q <^Ss^c\Cav\

raf

4Wcca5c Was Vaxz&xv,

WcAXc- (pa>s - As

\dvag><-^3 cogA^4-V\MP^

gls

S'Wll V\OaJQ_ r\o\- Ino o

V\a3 \^qjut\ r--er

vAouiq<L sWdcS SW*- Itnol-S no ^uris4lcACav\

ve:

\y2jzxx^^~

Xs r\ci Icsv^^jp <x_

. rv\£yk<sv\

_____

-.CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS.

BY:

DEPUTY CLERK, in attendance.

CCC-14

APPFKlDIX F

Filing #'75756323 E-Filed 07/31/2018 01:25:03 PM

OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY

SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Dennis W. Ward

State Attorney

4695 Overseas Highway, Suite 101

Marathon, Florida 33050

(305) 289-2593

Fax(305) 743-6692

To:

The Honorable Kevin Madok, Clerk of Court

Re:

Case Number:

Charge(s):

State of Florida vs. Susanne Stephanie Nikol Kynast

2016MM00438AM

1-20) Cruelty to Animals 828.12 1 (1 M)

21)

Abandon Vessel 823.11(1) (1 M)

22)

Abandon Vessel 823.11(1) (1 M)

23)

Nuisance Injurious to Public Health 9999 (1 *)

24)

Public Health: Breeding Flies/Spreading Disease 9999 (1 *)

NOLLE

PROSEQUI

The State of Florida hereby enters a Nolle Prosequi in this case for the following reasons:

Based on facts and circumstances surrounding this case, all parties are in agreement with

this resolution. All pre-conditions of this nolle prosequi have been met. No further prosecution of

Susanne Kynast warranted.

______/s/ Christina Cory

Christina E. Cory

Assistant State Attorney

Florida Bar No. 106998

ccory@keyssao.org

Date:

cc:

7/31/18

Jail records

Warrants

PTS

William J. Heffeman Esq.

APPENDIX F

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY

Florida Keys Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals (FKSPC A),

Petitioner.

Case No.: 16-C&79-M (Animal Control)

Hon. Ruth Becker

SUSANNE STEPHANIE KYNAST and

RAYMOND GEISEL,

Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Amended Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed

by Petitioner, Florida Keys Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (FKSPCA); upon

review of the Notice and the case file, the Court finds:

1. Respondents’ animals, of which Petitioner has had custody, are listed as evidence in the

misdemeanor case styled: State of Florida v. Susanne Kynast, Case No.: MM-M-16-438;

as such, this instant action which Petitions for Custody, Control and Disposition of Animals

pursuant to F.S. 828.073 and Monroe County Code 4-47 is moot as the FKSPCA has no

authority to release Respondents’ animals. Custody and Disposition of the animals will be

in accordance with the resolution and disposition of Case MM-M-16-438;

2. Petitioner has represented to this Court that Ms. Susanne Kynast, Respondent, has paid the

FKSPCA Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) for the cost of care and has executed a

Release of Claims in favor of the FKSPCA, and the Court, having been otherwise fully

advised in the premises, it is thereupon

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

That the instant case is hereby dismissed.

DONE AND O

day of

'EREDjn Chambers at Marathon, Monroe County, Florida, this

j 2018.

Ruth B®< ;ker

County Court Judge

Copies to:

Christine Limbert-Barrows rt,miber(-Clmstine@monroccoimlv-fl.«ov')

William J. Heffeman, Jr., Esq. (BiU@wihIavvotTice.com')

Susanne S. Kynast c/o BiU@wihlawoffice.com

Raymond Geisel c/o stevens@marathonlaw.com

S '

CO-

APPENDIX G

*•

■n

fT’,

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA

MIDDLE KEYS CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

cr.

. 02*

Case Number: 2016-MM-438-AfM

c~v

or:

c: —

VS.

SUSANNE STEPHANIE NIKOL KYNAST,

)

Defendant.

—I-

- '—;

T;?-

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANrS MOTION TO SUPPRESS

This matter came before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Suppress heard February

21, 2018, and continued on April 6, 2018, and the Court having heard testimony, received

evidence, and having reviewed written arguments and memorandums from counsel, finds as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

Defendant seeks suppression of evidence consisting of animals seized from her vessel, as well as .

videos and photographs taken during the search of the boat and seizure of the animals.

FACTS

The Defendant in this case is charged by Information with 20 counts of Cruelty to Animals (one

dog, five cats, nine iguanas, and five turtles), two counts of Derelict Vessel, one count of

Nuisance Injurious to Public Health, and one count of Public Health: Breeding Flies/Spreading

Disease.

This case began upon an investigation into a belief that the Defendant had disappeared into the

night on her paddle board after the death of one of her dogs. The officers involved became

concerned that she may have been in a suicidal state. This concern arose out of information

relayed by her husband, Raymond Geisel, who has a history of psychological instability.

Additionally; when the officers were able to contact the Defendant, she made statements about

being content if God wanted to take her also. However, in her testimony, she adamantly denied

that she would in fact cause harm to herself. Rather, she stated that she wanted to be alone to

grieve the death of her dog.

APPENDIX H

Ultimately, after the Defendant had spent the night on a remote island, the officers boarded her

vessel on July 5,2016, and brought her to the Guidance Clinic of the Middle Keys pursuant to a

Baker Act referral.

The officers testified that, in furtherance of their belief committing the Defendant was

necessary, she attempted to leap off the boat transporting her to land. However, the Defendant

gave a reasonable explanation that she was trying to ascertain whether the dog the officers had

taken into the aft of the boat was safe. She testified about her considerable experience with

boating, and that she would never have tried to jump off the boat.

On July 6, 2016, officers returned to the Defendant's boat and seized the numerous caged

reptiles and the cats.

The Defendant in this case, as described in her undisputed testimony, is a highly educated,

eccentric woman. Her testimony established that many of the animals involved in this case are

rescued iguanas that have been injured in some fashion. One of them had sustained an injury to

its jaw and could be fed only liquids. Her testimony indicated that she has extensive knowledge

of the feeding habits and needs of the reptiles she kept on the deck of her boat. She went into

great detail to state what they ate, what their feeding habits were, when and how they were

fed. She also spoke in detail as to the "toiletry" habits-of the reptiles.

Ms. Kynast has a home in Maine. She testified that she was in the process of packing up

belongings in anticipation of her seasonal move to Maine, which she claimed accounted for

some of the disarray on the boat.

The officers involved in this matter were understandably alarmed at the odor and animal waste

seen in and around the cages. Additionally, the facts indicated a boat in considerable disrepair,

as seen by the conditions inside the cabin where the cats were located. Testimony of Animal

Control Officer Smith indicated that the conditions inside the cabin of the boat were

horrendous. There was an overwhelming odor of cat urine, which had soaked pillows in the

cabin.

The Defendant asserts that after the seizure of the animals, there was no evidence to establish

that the animals were in anything other than good condition. The State did not present any

evidence from the veterinary facility that cared for the animals after their seizure. Testimony

was presented that some of the animals were overheated and dehydrated.

It is undisputed that no warrant was obtained before officers boarded her boat and entered the

cabin area.

APPLICATION OF LAW AND CONCLUSION

The Court.agrees with the State that the issue of whether or not reasonable grounds existed to

make the Baker Act referral of Ms. Kynast to the Guidance Clinic is not material to the issue of

whether the officers were justified in returning to the boat on July 7, 2016, when the search and

seizure of the animals occurred.

485

However, the officers spent considerable time after Ms. Kynast was taken to the Guidance

Clinic, discussing what their next steps would be. They also wanted to consult with the animal

control officer to relay what they had seen on the boat on July 6, 2016.

The Court finds there was ample time to obtain a warrant in this case, as law enforcement

decided they would not return to. the boat until the following day.

While the deck of the boat may have been "in plain view," that is clearly not the case with the

interior cabin. This boat was not in the situation of vessels addressed in the cases cited by the

State., e.g., United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (SCtl983). The Defendant's boat

was not in operation upon the waters. The boat was moored in Boot Key Harbor, and it was

clear from the Defendant's testimony about packing for Maine, and the condition of the boat,

that she was not about to. "travel in any direction upon contiguous waterways." When she

wanted solitude after the death of her dog, she went off on her paddle board, not by way of the

boat.

The State contends that if a warrant were required, the exceptions of exigent circumstances and

plain view would apply in this case. The Court finds that the exigent circumstances were created

when law enforcement chose to "Baker Act" the Defendant, removing her from the boat and

her animals. As indicated above, the cabin was not "in plain view."

It is therefore Ordered and Adj'udged that Defendant's Motion to Suppress is granted.

^/~ day of May

DONE and ORDERED in Marathon, Monroe County, Florida this

2018.

RUTH BECKER

COUNTY JUDGE

cc:

Office of the State Attorney

Office of the Public Defender

486

Filing #'50665776 E-Filed 01/02/2017 01:17:13 PM

IN THE COUNTY COURT

JN.AND.EQR.MONROE.CQUN.TX,FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NUMBER: 2016-MM-438-A-M

vs.

SUSANNE STEPHANIE KYNAST

Defendant.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE IN UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS SEARCH

COMES NOW the Defendant, SUSANNE STEPHANIE KYNAST by and through her

undersigned attorney, W.J. Heffeman, Jr., and pursuant to FI. R. Crim P. 3.190 (g) showing as

grounds therefore the following:

ITEMS SOUGHT TO BE SUPPRESSED

All iguanas, cats, turtles, dogs and any other animals found and illegally seized aboard Defendant’s

sailing vessel Florida Registration Number FL 6272 NW on July 5th and 6th of 2016 by a joint task

force of FKASPCA, Florida Wildlife Commission, US Coast Guard and the Monroe County Sheriffs

Department together with all videos, photographs and observations connected with the illegal search.

FACTS AND LAW FORMING THE BASIS FOR SUPPRESSION

a) The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects against warrantless search and seizure

except in a very narrowly defined set ofcircumstances falling under the emergency exception

to the warrant requirement.

b) The first stage of entry, search, and seizure occurred on 7/5/16 when MCSO and FWC

officers conducting a welfare check came to Susanne Kynast’s vessel. Susanne Kynast had

not told anyone that she was home (on her vessel) and had in fact texted her husband that she

was not home because she wanted to be left alone. She was below deck in the bathroom

(head) when the FWC boat docked at her vessel. She did not respond to the officers calling

since she had been crying and was ashamed to be seen that way. The officers, receiving no

answer and having no indication that she was home proceeded to enter the private areas of

her vessel. In the discovery for Susanne Kynast’s criminal case they claim to have seen her

from the response boat which is impossible considering the angles involved, as any video of

her boat (FL 6272NW) or that response will show. Still not seeing her they cleared the vessel

and started to leave. In the process of clearing it they literally destroyed the interior of the

boat where Susanne Kynast had been packing all her belongings into storage totes in

preparation for leaving for her house in Maine on 7/6/16. They broke a garbage bag she had

ready for disposal and dumped over at least 6 storage totes full of packed items, spreading

APPENDIX I

the garbage through the contents. By starting to leave (as can be seen on their body cam

___ yideo),.they.proxedJhat.theyjnJact.didiiothMe.hardii£QmiaticMjjdiat.SusarmeiCyBastwas

aboard. However, in the process of leaving they allowed a cat to run into the mess they had

created by leaving a compartment door open. When respondent came out of the bathroom

to rescue it, they arrested her.

c) Riggs v. State Supreme Court of Florida, December 15, 2005 918 So. 2d 274 30 Fla. L.

Weekly S845 states that “The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable

searches, requires [...] that the police reasonably believe that an emergency exists.” Citing

People v. Smith, 7 Cal. 3d 282, 101 Cal. Rptr. 893, 496 P. 2d 1261 (1972)), it discusses a

case where the evidence obtained during a warrantless entry was suppressed because “the

belief upon which the officer acted was the product not of facts known to or observed by

him, but of his fanciful attempt to rationalize silence into a justification for his warrantless

entry.” That case involved a wandering child and a search of her apartment for what the

officers claimed was possibly her mother in distress. “Although the girl informed the officer

that her mother was not in the apartment the officer knocked on the door. Receiving no

answer the officer entered without a warrant.” If the initial search was not constitutional,

then all subsequent actions as well as the seizure of respondents’ dog Slinky from the vessel

were illegal as well.

d) In Respondents’ case Susanne Kynast had clearly assured her husband via text and a MCSO

deputy over the phone around midnight on 7/4/16 that she had merely gone away from her

residence to privately grieve for her dog and that she had no intention of hurting herself. She

had also clarified that her cellphone charge had been used up during her long conversation

with the deputy and that she would be out of communication. When she reestablished

communication with her husband she gave him no indication that she had returned to her

vessel and told him that in fact she had not since she did not want to interact with him at that

point due to the extreme stress his mental health issues cause her. She at no point gave

MCSO any indication that she was aboard her vessel, and when they approached she was not

visible from the deck, and there was no dinghy present. The fact that the officers started to

leave after not seeing her initially is proof that they did not in fact have reasonable belief that

she was on her vessel.

e) Riggs v. State Supreme Court of Florida, December 15, 2005 918 So. 2d 274 30 Fla. L.

Weekly S845 (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290

(1978)) also states that “the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making

warrantless entries when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate

aid... The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what

would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.” The key here is the term

“immediate aid”. The concern for her mental health occurred when Susanne Kynast spoke

with the MCSO officer on midnight of 7/4/16,15 hours earlier, from an offshore island. If

they in fact believed her to be home (rather than simply wanting an excuse to search what

they apparently believed was also Raymond Geisel’s residence), the suspicion of immediate

danger does not make sense since she then clearly had the mental capacity to kayak several

miles on the open ocean, return home safely and charge up her cellphone to reestablish

contact, all of which are clear indications of a competent frame of mind. As a matter of fact

Susanne Kynast’s mental state had dramatically improved when she received the message

from Marathon Vet Hospital that she did not cause her dog’s death, as evidenced by the fact

430

that she was in the process of caring for her animals when she was arrested. It is important

to note that even in her distraught state of mind the night before, the safety of the emergency____

responders was her foremost consideration. In response to the deputy’s request to state her

location she explained clearly to him that she was safely on an offshore island, but that she

did not want to disclose her exact location to MCSO out of fear that the responders would

be injured in a rescue attempt (a reasonable concern since a squall had come up, causing

large waves, and an MCSO boat had been considerably damaged on the jagged coral rocks

of the island during a nighttime rescue on 7/4/08 in which respondents had assisted).

f) If the officers can prove that they had clear and convincing evidence that Susanne Kynast

was aboard and in distress, then Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U.S. 17,105 S. Ct. 409, 83 L.

Ed. 2d 246 (1984) applies where the initial entry is justified by the call for help from a

suicidal person, but the search that was conducted 35 minutes later without a warrant based

on the fact that she had apparently murdered her husband in the house was not. “On petition

for certiorari, the Supreme Court held that: although police may make warrantless entries on

premises where they reasonably believe that person within is in need of immediate aid,

injured petitioner’s attempt to get medical assistance by call from her home did not evidence

diminished expectation of privacy on her part [...] such call for help could not be seen as

invitation to general public that would convert home into sort of public place for which no

warrant to search would be necessary.”

g) Riggs v. State Supreme Court of Florida, December 15, 2005 918 So. 2d 274 30 Fla. L.

Weekly S845 (citing Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 293 (Fla. 1997)) clarifies that “an

entry based on an exigency must be limited in scope by its purpose. Thus, an officer may not

continue her search once she has determined that no exigency exists." Hence once the

officers located Susanne Kynast and secured her, they had ended the possible exigency (her

alleged risk of suicide), and could not continue searching. They also had to limit their search

to searching for her instead of documenting conditions on the vessel which had nothing to

do with her alleged suicidal behavior (all conditions alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition).

h) “When a search or seizure is conducted without a warrant the government bears the burden

of demonstrating that the search or seizure was reasonable” (Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284,

296 (Fla.2007))

i) The officers left Susanne Kynast’s boat with her and returned 18 hours later, thereby

negating the emergency provision “the emergency exception permits police to enter [...]

private premises to preserve life, property, or render first aid, provided they do not enter with

an accompanying intent either to arrest or search” (Homblower v. State, Supreme Court of

Florida Oct. 27,1977 351 So. 2d 716) Since they waited 18 hours to return, they clearly did

not believe that an emergency existed whereby respondents’ animals were in imminent

danger, or they would have returned immediately to preserve their life (and her property).

Instead they went home and according to paragraph 3 of the petition “agreed to return to the

vessel to further investigate and document the existing living conditions and standards of

care” the next day. This is a clear definition of an intent to search without an intent to

preserve life in an emergency. Homblower v. State, Supreme Court of Florida Oct. 27,1977

351 So. 2d 716 states that “In his testimony, the officer acknowledged that he intended to

enter and search the trailer before he ever approached the mobile home. To sustain

respondent’s argument would be to endorse the precise kind of conduct which the Fourth

431

Amendment seeks to proscribe. [...] notwithstanding the existence of probable cause, to

___ carry its_burden, theStatemeeds to-shaw that-there was insufficient tinie to_secure a search

warrant. In effect, if time to get a warrant exists, the enforcement agency must use that time

to get a warrant.” It goes on to state clearly that “law enforcement officers may not sit and

wait as here (when they could be seeking a warrant), then utilize their self-imposed delay to

create exigent circumstances. [...]” The facts of the case make it absolutely clear that this is

exactly what happened. The officers removed respondent from her vessel while she

obviously had just started to care for her animals on their regular daily schedule. The officers

were aware of that because they literally fell over the food packages and water containers she

had set out outside the cages, and because the animals had obviously not yet received their

daily care. The respondent made it clear that Raymond Geisel (who does not reside with her)

needed to be notified immediately to care for the animals, and she was assured that he had

already been contacted and that they would do so again. The officers then failed to do so in

a timely manner, virtually assuring that the animals would not be cared for until the next

morning (iguanas sleep at night and feeding them in the dark only results in their food drying

and rotting before they can eat it in the morning, and cleaning their cages while they sleep

results in excessive stress and a risk of injury). They then returned 18 hours later at 9 am the

next morning (at the exact time at which they could expect that Susanne Kynast would be

able to contact Raymond Geisel herself), to document the fact that the animals were hungry

and dirty, an issue they themselves had created. In those 18 hours the officers had plenty of

time to obtain a warrant but did not do so, an issue which comment [3] on the draft petition

points out.

j) “As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States 333 U.S. 10,68

S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 (1948): The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not

grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual

inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that

those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by

the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any

assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate’s disinterested determination to

issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would

reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people’s homes secure only in the discretion

of police officers.” (Homblower v. State, Supreme Court of Florida Oct. 27,1977 351 So.

2d 716). The officers were fully aware that FL 6272NW was Susanne Kynast’s home while

residing in Marathon.

k) During the intervening hours between the arrest and the search, the officers left Susanne

Kynast’s vessel completely unprotected after having taken her off in handcuffs in plain view

of the entire anchorage, leaving her vessel open to thieves, vandals, and people potentially

doing harm to her animals, whether by malicious intent or by ill-conceived efforts to ‘help’

them, such as attempting to ‘pet’ them which would result in injuries from them throwing

themselves into cage walls (the cages are constructed of non-injurious vinyl-covered wire,

but a terrified iguana can still receive injuries from crashing into the sides) and dumping over

432

and emptying out their water containers while attempting to escape, or to feed them

-----(inappropriatefoods-wouldresultin rotten.foodbeingpresentineages)*.Consequently, none

of the conditions observed 18 hours later can legally be related to her. The officers also

allowed the garbage they had spread in the cabin along with the fresh meat, leafy greens, and

vegetables she had bought as animal food as well as her personal food to rot in the tropical

heat and attract flies and other insects. The chaos they had created in the main cabin by

dumping over all the storage containers would have taken hours to clean, also preventing

Raymond Geisel late that night from effectively taking care of her animals since medications,

supplies, cages, and carriers were now buried under piles of previously neatly stored items.

It is perfectly conceivable that he made the situation worse by trying to find certain critical

items in the dark and locating a cat the officers had allowed to escape into the dangerous

area. It is inconceivable why law enforcement then proceeded to charge Susanne Kynast

based on those conditions (which they had caused!) 18 hours later.

l) During the warrantless search on 7/6/16 ACO Hugh Smith was the sole investigator

downstairs who took all the photos and videos in clear violation of MCC 4-38 (5) which

states “in response to there being a clear indication of “animal in distress” as defined by F.S.

§828.12, the animal control officer is authorized and empowered in accordance with the

provisions of this chapter to enter upon private premises (excepting entry into the private

areas of buildings or enclosures constructed to provide privacy, unless in possession of a

search warrant! for the purpose of inspecting those premises to determine if the owners of

dogs, cats, or animals harbored, kept or possessed on the premises have complied with the

provisions of this chapter. [...] The provisions of this subsection shall include, but not be

limited to, investigation of, and seizure for, cruelty to animals.” The cabin area on Susanne

Kynast’s vessel FL 6272NW which includes her bedroom and bathroom (where the cats

were) certainly is “an enclosure constructed to provide privacy”.

m) The stipulation in MCC 4-38 (5) that the ACO can enter upon private premises was also

clearly held to be illegal by an Advisory Legal Opinion of the Florida Attorney General “In

light of the rule set forth and the conclusions reached in AGO 081-38,1 must conclude that

a municipality has no home rule power to grant an animal control officer or his assistants the

authority to serve citations or criminal process or process in the nature of criminal process,

or to authorize the entry onto private property without the consent of the owner or occupant

thereof for the purpose of capturing dogs for impoundment, or to make affidavits necessary

to authorize arrests and searches. See also AGO's 081-39; 079-83; cf. 078-132. [... ] Nothing

[...] suggests that the impounding officer or animal control officer is vested with the

authority [...] to enter onto private property without the consent of the owner or occupant to

capture dogs. [...] statutes, ordinances and rules purporting to authorize administrative

searches without a warrant under regulatory statutes have been held violative of the Fourth

Amendment” (1982 Fla. Op. Atty. Gen. 29 (Fla. A.G.), Fla. AGO 082-12,1982 WL174159

Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida AGO 082-12, March 2,1982)

n) While ACO Hugh Smith was engaged in his illegal warrantless search of the cabin area, and

the subsequent illegal seizure of the cats, law enforcement officers on deck were ripping up

433

cages to search underneath them, also without a warrant.

"o)—Despitetheirefforts Hugh" Smith_a3ihits"irTtHe(liscovery thatthe aninTaF ^health was not in

danger at the time.

p) No efforts were made by any officers to determine how much longer Susanne Kynast would

be at the guidance clinic, if Raymond Geisel was taking care of the animals, or if Susanne

Kynast had made or would be able to make alternate care arrangements.

q) Post seizure the animals were immediately assessed at Marathon Vet Hospital, and while

respondents were never provided with their medical records, their bill which they did receive

shows that no interventions were necessary for any of them (not a single medication,

injection, etc. was billed), meaning that they were perfectly healthy even after having been

left alone and the extreme stress of capture and transport.

r) It is finally important to note that Susanne Kynast’s boat was a non-moving residence, and

not a moving vessel stopped in transit (see distinction in Caroll v. U.S. Supreme Court of the

United States, March 2,1925,267 U.S. 132 45 S. Ct. 280 39 A.L.R. 790 69 L. Ed. 543).

s) Based on the above facts respondents believe that all evidence on Susanne Kynast’s vessel

FL 6272NW - photos, videos, descriptions, and witness statements, and all items and

animals seized were obtained in violation of the protections guaranteed by the United States

Constitution, and in violation of State Law and the Monroe County Code. None of the

instances of warrantless entry were justifiable, but the breach was most blatantly obvious for

the search on 7/6/16 (and subsequent searches), and especially the search of the downstairs

area. Even the draft petition points out that defect in comment [3].

t) Respondents therefore respectfully request that this Honorable Court find that the search and

seizure conducted on Susanne Kynast’s vessel and residence FL 6272NW was not reasonable

and therefore prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, and that this Honorable Court therefore

order all evidence suppressed and all seized items - physical property and animals - returned

immediately.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter its Order

granting the Defendants Motion to Suppress all evidence above listed illegally seized by law

enforcement on July 5th and 6th 2016.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent by fax to the

Office of the State Attorney, 4695 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL33050 this January 2,2017.

434

W.J. Heffernan, Jr., Esq.

Counsel for Defendant

9703 Overseas Highway

Marathon, Florida 33050

(305) 743«§*l_

435

*:*

COPY

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

PROPERTY RECEIPT

inefttaif#: AvS8iO'OFF-8273 ■

CouirtyWhcrc Seized: m.pxroe______ DatfSPized; orgfic.

,FacIHO,,I.ofcatlon’.*»**ffQCt!oUNr; anmal-contbol .riwKfSfikdi^ao

Owner Nottfled.YesQvoClMethod

T etephoneNoraber: 305-74weoo

Type of Casel

I Federal

|^|Mhilejneniior

State

CmforiWm -

Type of Seizure]/] Evidence / Properly

Felony

•

Evidence Tracking fl:

Exact location where property was seized!

BOOT KEY HARBOR, VESSEL FL-6272-NW

Cbarge(s) or Type of Offense: 147 COUNTS - CAPTIVE WILDLIFE VIOLATIONS, ANIMAL CRUELTY. PUBLIC HEALTH VIOLATIONS

Purpose:

Codes:

.Code

/ Trial

Recovery Constructive Seizure |v^ [investigation ft/'isarckcepInE

CD=Co-13tfdfidata ■ ~ C-Claimant ~ ' .D-Defendat

IUc».Sct;

DOB

Naniefkasl.-First, Middle)

O - Owner

Laboratory

Lost/Absndoned

- , P -po&ctfsor •

•Adams

S- Strict

>/ •

■

-• Phone

KYNAST, SUSANNE, STEPHANIE

W/F

12/07/72 15 SALEM STREET. MACHIAS, ME 04654

UNKNOWN

GEISEL, RAYMOND. HUNTER

W/M

09/16/85 5101 OVERSEAS HWY. MARATHON, FL 33050

UNKNOWN

Iteth#; ;• Qiy.

•RVIDEN CfeCPStQi>3AN USR-.QtnjY ■

SfonteeLocatioa

; •TJescriptldn

■ 'it.

CAPTIVE WILDLIFE AS PETS: 9 IGUANAS SEIZED, IN CUSTODY OF MONROE COUNTV ANIMAL CONTROL

CAPTIVE WILDLIFE AS PES: 5 TURTLES SEIZED, IN CUSTODY OF MONROE COUNTY AN IMAL CONTROL

DOMESTIC FELINE (CATS) SEI2ED. IN CUSTODY OF MONROE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL \A\ '7^'•; 7’

FIVE OALLON BUCKETS REQUIRED TOTRANSPORT SEIZED TURTLES. W CUSTODY OF MONROE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL

LARGE GREeKW’RSCAfjGS AGOUIREOTO TRANSPORT 6£l2EOIGUANAS IN CUSTOOv V MOr*G* COUNT/ ANIMALCTKTROL

MEDIUM OLACK WIRE CAGES REOUIREOTO TRAWSPORTSEiZEO IGUANAS WCUSTOOY OF MONROECOUMTY NlMM.CONTROL

' , , • NQ-PICES

’•A.*' ; ^

-* 4

■ *. .» '• ■'f +.J’"

L C. 3i¥S:

. it

-* v i

‘

The nakfa fisha/xl WikWe Consemtion Commission. Division oiLow Er/acmertheranoftef isrdetredtoss ’fWC.~

lilCLAIMSTEVIDaf CE: Pursuant to F.S. 705. <05 Ode to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful Investigation in the

custody of the court or dent of the court from a criminal proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall vest permanently r the taw

enforcement agency 60 days after the conclusion of the proceeding. If the owner (ortheirlegatty appointed agent} does not contact FWC prior to the conclusion of the 60 day

period, and there is no request or motion to return property or to appeal, terns may be disposed of by FWC.

LOST/ABANDONEttPROPERTY: Pursuant to F.S 705.103 property will be held for 90 days from the date of seizure. The rightful owner or a person who initiates a dalmfor

lost/abandoned property must contact FWC and follow the procedure outlined In Florida Statute and the poScles of the FWC. If after SO days, ofwhich the first 46 days the

Agency published Intent to destroy, no owner or prop er legal claim for the lost/abandoned property occurs, the property may be disposed of by FWC.

ARRESTC6fPRlS0N£R:PR0P.£RTY: Property maintained for safekeeping by FWC, but not evidentiary m value wl! be held fbr90 days. Alter 90 days, if the owner (or

legafiy appointed agent for the owner) is unable to retrieve their property, the property wit be Identified as abandoned and disposed, pursuant to F.S. 705.103. Property cannot

be shipped to a correctional faciMy. OPTION: By my signature,

/print name

, I authorize

FWC to dispose/destroy Item numbers)

as listed above, poor to the 90 day period.

FLOfSDACONTRABAND ANOf.ORFfirnJRF ACT; Pursuant to F.S. 932701-932.704, proceeding shall be conducted by the FWC Legal Office.

.•

Possessor :........

....... Setz)rfg*or,lmtfoumiln£OiTlcet

I hereby acknowledge thatthe Kerns listed herein represent property taken from my

possession and that I have received a copy of this receipt tor my records. Should

any of (he above •NOTICES" apply to me, t am responsible for contacting the

FWC Division of Law Enforcement at the telephone number indicated above.

I hereby acknowledge that the above represents all property impounded by me m (he

official performance of mvduty as afawenforcement officer:

Signature:

Type or Print Name: omcERXYLeFmssAffwm

mJfm

Signature:

IQ mcio/ww

Destruction Witnessed by:

Tyne or Prim Name

. Ja

Ifem:# •' Reason for Transfer In/Out

f•

• MWttlrt •

- TriliSfar '

Signature

./Rank or Resjionsibflitv

->Prinf??atne and Sign

h PfrftBoIUW

2j£j

1-8

SEIZED FROM SCENE

KYLE PLUSSA

1-8

TRANSFERED TO ANIMAL CONTROL

HUGH SMITH

FWCOLE 029 (10/15) Po^10f i__

Date

, CHAIN OE CUSTODY

Continued on Next Page

‘,-.4

Date ;

time:

7/00/16

1030

7/06716

1100

■

LEO

II CONTROL OFFCER (CUST30IANI

Oti»™i - Prepay Rnwjs CulotNi

copf-dlje Fug*MOrrcc

CoBr-PimB!ii!lOKM»(ted|ii<rt

APPENDIX .I

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

PROPERTY RECEIPT

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

i^ow BOOT KEY HARBOR tftme

• ’ COmTNUiTlON^OFPROPERTY^nsrcdRMATroisr'. ‘

;

•ItWl:#

ifDtUU GREViCOwiVJfDPFT CARRIES REQUIRED TO TMMSPORTSEHZED CATS *) CUSfODTOFTXE MONROE COUNTY ANIMAL CCWmtX

SMaUTAR-COLOREO PET CARRIER RP3U RED TO TRANSPORT SEIZED CATS IN CUSTODY OF THC MONROE COUMYaMMAL COWTWX

♦

EVIDKNCECUSTODIAiN USR:ONCy7

' ~ Description

Storage Locatice'

"+1"

• '

'*“'*• -*

> •,

' i' --

'*‘r

Ac-”;';>>

- f

W, rk

2-;rrw£$mm

■y V .' A\'-

T.-r^r- :>•"

<•

>•v

Item#

•' *• <X>y(TlNUATtON OF C3BOflgSt:^Og--C»iS8S^CB^lg. • •

- Reasonfor Tra nsfertri/Oirt Mtmod.tf.

'Sank or Responsibility

Twistti"- ‘ ' ,• '-''KrlntJfSiiio nndSlgn

ep#non»M*r

✓* :

-: *

'Date-. Time

‘j

♦

FWCOLE 029 (10.95) Pag* 2 of _A_

Continued on NextPace

OtSjsMUPioprtyRicais Ctoiafeft

Copy-OCefUjonOTc*

Cuff-Pcmosh / 0m»! / IV«4J#rf

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

PROPERTY RECEIPT

IncIdi>WrW:'fV^8-TS^f=FB?73

Date.Seliea:.07ioYiS

T(mcSd«d: i53a • - •

Citt«OB*W

Owner NotifiediYosfZk'oUMethod

Evidence Tracking#:

Type of Sri2»ref/~l gvidencelvU Property , grad location where property was seized:

\ **

BOOT KEY HARBOR, VESSEL FL-6272-NW:

•County WhercSetod: mpnhoe ,

T elephoneNumber. 305-7<!3<soo

Type of Case

Federal

Misdemeanor

State

j Felony

Charge© or Type of Offense: 147-COUNTS - CAPTIVE WILDLIFE VIOLATIONS, ANIMAL CRUELTY. PUBLIC HEALTH VIOLATIONS

Constructive Seizure / investigation / Safekeeping

Laboratory

Lost/Abandoned

* P*P«s«esot • s-^sb?pect: ,

Coder CPaC^pefendgnt

C - Claimant •... Br.DeferidSnl

O-Owner

. KaeWSex

Nante.ff/aat,First, Middle)

DOB

•Adfiftas •

• Phone

Code ■

KYNAST, SUSANNE, STEPHANIE W/F 12/07/72 15 SALEM STREET, MACHIAS, ME 04654 UNKNOWN

Purpose J Trial

Recovery

W/M

GEISEL, RAYMOND. HUNTER

.Itetn#' f

09/16/85 5101 OVERSEAS HWY, MARATHON, FL 33050

UNKNOWN

; ■> gVfPENCR CtTSTODfAK tJSK^ONI-,Y

SUftageLocaSpn,

. Dcsdipti'on

DOMESTIC CANINE (OOG) SEIZED, IN CUSTODY OF MONROE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL

2a*.

....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................... ...................

•

■

•.

The Florida Fish and WiidBe Conservation Comrtisskfi Division ofLaw Enforcement hereinafter isreferred to as “FWC. *

UN CLAIMED CTD6N CE: Pursuant to F.S. 705.105 title to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seced pursuant to a lawful Investigation in the

custody of die court or cterK ofthe court from 8 crirrtnal proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a taw erfiorcement agency shall vest permanently in die law

enforcement agency 60 days afterthe conclusion of the proceeding. If the' owner (or thelrlegally appointed agent) does not contact FWC priorto the conclusion of the 60 day

period, and (here Is no request or motion to return property or to appeal, Items may be disposed of by FWC.

LOST/ ABAWDONED PROPERTY: Pursuant to F.S. 705.103 property will be held for 00 days from the date of seizure. The rightful owner or a person who InifisteE a claim for

lost/abandoned property must contact FWC and follow the procedure outlined in Florida Statute and the policies of (he FWC. If ater 80 days, of which the first 45 days fire

Agency published Intent to destroy, no owner or proper leg# claim for the lost/abmdoned property occurs, the property may be disposed of by FWC.

AR^E^E7P|!SOI!IEJtpROT|RT5(: Property maintained for safekeeping by FWC, but not evidentiary in value w# be hetd for 80 days. Alter 90 days, if fire owner (or

legatiy appointed agent for the owner) is unable to retrieve their property, the property will be (dentdied as abandoned and disposed, pursuant to F.S. 705.103. Property cannot

/prim name

be shipped to a correctional facility. OPTION: By my signature,

(authorize

as listed above, priorto the 80 day period.

FWC to dispose#esboy item number©

FtOttiDA CONTRABAhlDANDTORFEITUREACT: Pursuant to F.S. 832.701-032.704, proceeding shall be conducted by the FWClegal Office.

/ \

Sdilng.OTTtntHmntUne-Ofiltgr

Possessor.

I hereby acfcnowfedge that the Items listed herein rep res art property taken framny

possession and that I have received a copy of this receipt far my records. Should

any of the above ■NOTICES'’ apply to me. I am responsible for contacting the

FWC Division of Law Enforcement at the telephone nunterindleeted above.

I hereby acknowledge that the above represents ail property impounded by me in the

official performance of my dutyas a law enforcement officer.

Signature:

Type or Print Name: officer ictupu<ssa?wc)

Signature:

ID Netanyre

Destruction Witnessed by:

Type or Prim Name

•

Item.#

Reasonfdr.T« nsfer l ii/Onf .'

; MeOioJof

TlwiSftr

Stenaturt

<mmr:OrCEUSTODY.

Print Naroe and Sign

tiVcnwrMR.

SEIZED FROM SCENE

KYLE PLUSSA

TRANSFEREOTO ANIMAL CONTROL

HUGH SMITH

wmm

■*.

Date

Rink or Responsibility

Dafe < •Time

LEO

7/05/16 1530

CONTROL OFFCEft (CUSTODIAN)

7/05/16 1600

FWCOLE 029IIO/15) Psge 1 of Jj__

Continued on Next Pane

Ottfral-PnKity Retails Coilata

conr-aEneRoiosEe

Cmv -Pmmsmi I Omtl RttyM

100

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

PROPERTY RECEIPT

Gdunty'VjttereSelail.^KWOE

T riephont Number: 305-743-480Q

V State

Type of Case!] Federal

nrj Misdemeanor I""] Felony

patzsttuedimw .________

■»- •

GlfaflorifcWA

Evidence Tracking//:

Exact locaflon where property was setied:

TiincSetZtefcrooo .

Owner NottfledrYesENoOMethoiT

TvpeorSeimrefT] Evidence!^!

Property

V ♦»-.

REO SUV, 74TH ST AND US-1, MARATHON

Charge® or Type of Offense: 147 COUNTS - CAPTIVE WILDLIFE VIOLATIONS, ANIMAL CRUELTY, PUBLIC HEALTH VIOLATIONS

Purpose:

Recover)1

Trial

Conslrncfl ve Seizure / Investigation

Claimant.• ■ Name (Last First Middle) - v . ;

Codes:

D-Defendant

RxcWSex

•DOB

CP^CfrPtfenaflnT

Code.

KYNAST, SUSANNE, STEPHANIE

6EISEL, RAYMOND, HUNTER

Jltem*.

O.-Otvnet

Laboratory

Lost/Abandoned

. S» Suspect

t i■Phone ,

, P:*Posfti$af.ftddriftis

W/F

12/07/72 15 SALEM STREET, MACHIAS, ME 046S4

UNKNOWN

W/M

OS/16/85 5101 OVERSEAS HWY. MARATHON, FL 33050

UNKNOWN

..; .. ..Description"

Qt\‘ :

Safekeeping

KVIDENCECTJSrTOPPANJUrSBCNKy

' 1 StorefeLocatihft.'-- . s '

DOMESTIC CAN fNES (DOGS) SEIZED, fN CUSTODY OP MONROE COUNTY ANIMAL COOTROL

• h

• t

>.v

MMi

MSM3&3Fwsm

--NO.TICES. ■: -M...

. ’r

The Florida Fish and WUdfTe Conservation Comrrissioi Division of Law Enforcement hermader is referred to as TWC.'

UHCL/W/EbEVlDEfiCE: Pursuant to F.S. 705.105 tills to unclaimed evidence orunclaimed tangle personal property tawfuSy seized pursuant to a lawful investigation in the

custody of fieeourt or tied! of the court from a crimlnsi proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency shad vest permanently in the law

enforcement agency 60 days alterlhe conclusion of the proceeding. If the owner (or (heir legally appointed agent) does not contact FWC prior to the conclusion of the 60 day

period, and there is no request or motion to return property or to appeal, items may be deposed of by FWC.

LOST'/iAfi^SMNEDiPPOPERTy: Pursuant to F.S. 705.103 property will be held for 90 days from the date of seizure. The rightful owner or a person who Initiates a claim for

tost/abandorted property must contact FWC and follow the procedure outlined in Florida Statute and the policies of the FWC. If after BO days, of which the First 45 days the

Agency publshed intent to destroy, no owner or proper legal clam for the iost/Obandoned property occurs, the property may be disposed of by FWC.

ARREST5^TP®SQSER?fl0PERTV: Property maintained for safekeeping by FWC, but not evidentiary in value wB be held for90 days. Alter 90 days, If the owner (or

legaly appointed agent for lire owner) is unable to retrieve their property, the property Wil be Identified as abandoned and disposed, pursuant to F.S. 705.103. Property cawot

/print name

be shipped to a conectionai facility. OPTION: By my signature,

(authorize

as listed above, prior to the 90 day period.

FWC to dlsposefdestroyltem numberfs) _

FLORtBACO/TRABAr© ANO FORFEfKIRE ACT: Pursuant to F.S. 932.701-9J2.704, proceeding shall be conducted by the FWCLegsl Office.

; •: Possessor

Selzl razor Impo'umlHie Officer

; -

l hereby acknowledge th£ the items fisted herein represent property taken from my

possession and that I have received e copy of (his receipt for my records. Should

any of the above ’NOTICES’' apply to me. I am responsible for contacting the

FWC Division of Law Enforcement at ttie telephone number indicated above.

Signature:

Type or Print Name: QfFo<R KYteR.uss«<rwct

I hereby acknowledge that the above represents at! property impounded by me in the

official performance of my duty as a law enforcement offic er

ID erenwrr4i

Destruction Witnessed by:

Type or Print Nome

______ Signature

Dote

. GMN Of CUSTOW : \

Item*:

‘

Rea son for transfer In/Out

'. .MeOredo)„

►TrtnSTOr

KVinKUHH-

• * • Pritit^aiuearuTSign •’ •

SEIZED FROM SCENE

KYLE PLUSSA

TRANSFERS) TO ANIMAL CONTROL

HUGH SMITH

rnmmm

t ~<

’

.. f

^ ;

»i-

•Rank ion Rc^ionabUity

. Date: Tirae'i

LEO

7/07/16 1600

7/07/16 1630

COTDOL OFFCER (CUSTODIAN)

Oifchnl - Piojwty Rt»* Osloim

Ccfjr-IXElfegfcnOgfct

FWCDLE329 (10/15) Page 1 of J__

Continued on Next Page

Cflpy-PoKesor/OMifl/fitc#pi«r

101

• ♦t

■

{

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

PROPERTY RECEIPT

Inci(kntft':Fws3^fr^oPr-8;7'3

Count? Whfenc Seized: Motwoe ■_________ •;Datg:Selzed:i>7/nn8

F^cU<tV:L6t!ati6ftr»!Q><W£Cg<NTV^N^jM^«:- T(nK-Sd2ta:'3M ■

T elephone Number: 305-743-1800

Type of Cast! I Federal

| j | Misdemeanor

Owner Nouncd:Vesl^JVoL3 Method

Type of Sdzuref/1 Evidence (2 Properly

V State

CitatldnffiW

Evidence T racking tt:

Esact location wlierc properly was sriaed:

Felony

BOOT KEY HARBOR, VESSEL FL-6272-NW

Cbargefs) or Type of Offense: 147 COUNTS - CAPTIVE WILDLIFE VIOLATIONS, ANIMAL CRUELTY, PUBLIC HEALTH VIOLATIONS

Purpose:

Cadies:

/ Trlnl l

Recovery

CD—Co-Sefendaftt

Constructive Seliure

' P»Ddfe>fdatit

C c Claimam

Name (ImdL-FSrst, Middle). - .

, Code ' . •;

Kate/Scr

KYNAST, SUSANNE, STEPHANIE

W/F

GEISEL, RAYMOND, HUNTER

W/M

item r;-Qfr

S-

\f Pafekeeplng

O « Owner

Laboratory

PctPassessor

..DOB

. Lost/Abandoned

. - S ^Sustmct

■. Address

Piione •- .

12/07/72 16 SALEM STREET, MACHIAS. ME 04654

UNKNOWN

09/16/85 5101 OVERSEAS HWY, MARATHON. FL 33050

UNKNOWN

- 'EVIDENCE CUKfQm^ [s' 1 WiK-nnn .v .<

'•‘Description’

Stpragg IToeagon

DOMESTIC FELINE (CAT) SEIZED, IN CUSTODY OF MONROE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL

/ Investigation

«-'•*i

■

■“

1 •

■

• • -V

-r,r

..... ■ , -„4 , . v

NOTICES

♦

Toe Ftaidit fan end wddtJe ConserpafaQmmsm Dimeric! Law Mkcew/d Iwr&nsfler mtdenedtoas ’FWC.'

UNCLAIMED EVIDENCE: Pursuant to F.S 705.105 file to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed langble personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful Invesbgelion in the

custody of the court or cleric of the court from a criminal proceeding or seized as evidence by and In the custody of a law enforcement agency shall vest permanently In the law

enforcement agency 60 days after the conclusion of the proceeding. II the owner (or their legally appointed agent) does not contact FWC prior to the conclusion of the 60 day

period, and there Is no request or motion to return property or to appeal, items may be disposed of by FWC.

LOST/ AHAMKWEOPROpERTV: Pursuant to F.S 705.103 property wit be held for 96 days from (he date of seizure. The rightful owner or a person who initiates a daim for

lost/abandoned property must contact FWC and follow (he procedure outlined In Florida Statute and the policies or the FWC II after 90 days, of which the first 45 days the

Agency pub*shed intent to destroy, no owner or proper legal daim for the lost/abandoned property occurs, the property may be disposed of by FWC.

ARRESTEE / PRISONER PROPERTY: Property maidained for safekeeping by FWC but not evidentiary in value w# be held for 90 days. Alter 90 days, if the owner (or

legally appointed agent for (he owner) Is unable (0 retrieve (heir property, the property will be Identified as abandoned and disposed, pursuant to F.S. 705.103. Property cannot

be shipped to a correctional faeiRy. OPTION: By my signature,__________________________ /print name______________________________ I authorize

FWC to disposefdestroy Hem numbers)

as listed above, prior to the 90 day period.

FLORIDA CONTRABAND ANO FORFEITURE ACT: Pursuant to F.S 932.701-932.704, proceeding shall be conducted by the FWC Legal Office.

Possessor

dS^ZloielbriLmpd'undfn^OTflcer

♦

■BK

I hereby acknowledge that the items listed herein represent property taken from my

possession and that 1 have received a copy of Oils receipt for my records. Should

any of the afaovt "NOTICES'’ apply to me. I am responsible for contacting the

FWC Division of Law Enforcement at the telephone number indicated above.

I hereby acknoMedge that the above represents aU property impounded by me in the

official performance of my duty as a taw enforcement officer.

Signature:

Type or Print Name: ofnssrKnepuaaMmci

ymrM*

IQ rauvw7«4

Destruction Witnessed by:

Type or Print Name

Itrai;*:

Reason for Transfer.I n/Ont

»»

>»••*«■

Sipneimt

Dale

• • • :CHaiN07 CUSTODY .• ♦

•

,>-

. Mcmedof,

■fima

.MPtmlUxi

Pflnt'Naine and-iSign .

■ ■■■ rr mm., ■ —•

Date:: Time:

tf.s

SEIZED FROM SCENE

KYLE PLUSSA

TRANSFEREOTO ANIMAL CONTROL

HUGH SMITH

lilA.r.

7/11/16

1330

fitauAL corrmov offcer {custuomnj 7/11/16

1400

LEO

OijnU - Prepiitj PtcaHt CVMdn

Cosj-t»f R«jtat 0(H«

Cob-PBHHef/Qmrt/Rc Bird

FWCDi.E 029 (10/15) Page 1 ofJ__

102

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

RELEASE FOR RETURNED PROPERTY/ EVIDENCE

INCIDENT/SUMMARY NUMBER

F WSB16OFF08273

Item#

Quantity

CITATION NUMBER

PROPERTY/ EVIDENCE NUMBER

FWSB16OFF08273

Description (Itemlze Currency by Denomination)

CAPTIVE WILDLIFE AS PETS - TURTLES

DOMESTIC FELINE (CATS!

DOMESTIC CANINE (DOG)

NOTHING FOLLOWS....

The above described property was seized bv officers of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC),

Division of Law Enforcement on the

6 day of JULY, 2016__________ , and the Division of Law

Enforcement finds it unnecessary to hold the above described property for further investigation.

IT IS AGREED that the undersigned will accept the property in "AS IS" condition and will indemnify and hold harmless the

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Law Enforcement, its agents, employees, heirs, and

assigns from any damage, deterioration, loss or liability incurred as a result of the seizure of the above property.

The undersigned owner in consideration of the release of the above described property, remises, satisfies, releases, and

forever discharges the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Law Enforcement, its agents,

emolovees heirs and assigns from all manners ofaction, causes of action, suits, dues, sums of money covenants, contracts,

Smews’ executions, claims, demands, and damages, whatsoever, in law or equity, which he/she or his/her herrs,

judgrae ^

have or may I,ave as a resull of Ihe seizure of the above described property.

executors

Date

Property/ Evidence Owner Signature

property/ Evidence Owner (Print)

July 26,2018

! Susanne Stephanie K.YNAST 12/07/72

Address

Agency

Insurance

Telephone

Case Number

Policy Number

(

Date

Witness Signature

Witness Name (Print)

07/26/18

Hugh Smith, FL Keys SPCA____________

DLEOfficial Returning Property/ Evidence

OLE Official Returning Property/ Evidence Signature

Lieutenant Kim Dipre K140

PWCDLE028B (01/09)

)

Original - Region

Canary - Property Owner

APPENDIX K

Pink - Officer

10/29/2018

Gmail - Re: Request for Return of Property - Susanne Kynast - FWC Evidence: 16-8273: Kynast - Criminal Case 16MM438

M Gmail

Susanne Kynast <kynastsusanne@gmail.com>

Re: Request for Return of Property - Susanne Kynast - FWC Evidence: 16-8273;

Kynast - Criminal Case 16MM438

1 message

Susanne Kynast <kynastsusanne@gmail.com>

To: "Dipre, Kim" <kim.dipre@myfwc.com>, William Heffeman <bill@wjhlawoffice.com>

Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:57 PM

Dear Lt. Dipre,

Thank you so very much for your help in this matter, and thank you again for being so helpful and kind last week! I am

looking forward to hearing from Attorney Heffernan. Please do what you can to ensure the safety of the other items held

for you apparently by various custodians specifically the two dogs, 7 iguanas, 2 turtles, and 1 cat which are currently

unaccounted for. Just to be clear, I am according to the notice on your property receipts hereby claiming all evidence in

my case Incident # FWSB-16-OFF-8273 due to the dismissal of said case. Please let me know if I can be of any

assistance to you in this at all. I love my animals very much and am looking forward to having them returned to me.

Sincerely,

Susanne Kynast

On Aug 7, 2018 1:58 PM, "Dipre, Kim" <kim.dipre@myfwc.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Kynast,

In response to your request for returning property to you and your inquiry about the location and condition of two dogs

and several iguanas, I consulted with the Assistant State’s Attorney Ms. Christina Cory. Ms. Cor? will be

j communicating directly with your attorney, Mr. Heffeman on the issues related to this case.

| At this time, FWC will continue to maintain the items currently held in our evidence facility until further direction from the

court or Ms. Christina Cory.

Respectfully,

Lieutenant Kim Dipre

. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Division of Law Enforcement, SB

2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 100

Marathon. FL 33050

Office: 305-289-2320

Desk: 305-676-3256

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=c2f8706b37&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1608163994050722721%7Cmsg-a%3As%3A-10000178...

APPENDIX L

1/2

10/29/2018

Gmail - Susanne Kynast animals

M Gmail

Susanne Kynast <kynastsusanne@gmail.com>

Susanne Kynast animals

1 message

Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:15 PM

Susanne Kynast <kynastsusanne@gmail.com>

To: Limbert-Christine <limbert-christine@monroecounty-fl.gov>, William Heffernan <bill@wjhlawoffice.com>

Attorney Limbert-Barrows:

As you are aware, my criminal case has now been officially nolle processed. As you have kindly stated in your dismissal of

the civil matter, the FKSPCA was holding the evidence for the State, without any authority to dispose of it. In your dismissal

of the civil case you admit that the disposal of the evidence shall be in accordance with the resolution of the criminal case.

Since that case has been dropped, ALL the evidence now becomes returnable.

This is a formal notice making you aware that the FKSPCA in response to the nolle process is now legally obligated to

return all the property, specifically the two (2) dogs Chrissy and Dozer, and needs to formally account for the whereabouts

of cat Emily, 7 iguanas, and 2 turtles. All of those animals were formally listed as evidence in the case, along with various

physical items which are also unaccounted for.

You have been extremely helpful in facilitating the return of some of the animals, and I fully expect that we will be able to

easily resolve the remaining matters. However, as you are undoubtedly aware, failure to return the evidence would not be a

civil matter between me and the FKSPCA, but rather criminal destruction of evidence by a custodian. I therefore urge you to

ensure the safety of all remaining animals, especially the 2 dogs which as trained service dogs are valued in the tens of

thousands of dollars, and facilitate their immediate return.

As always thank you so very much for your help in this matter!

Sincerely,

Susanne Kynast

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=c2f8706b37&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ammiai-r-3810727013814161466%7Cmsg-a%3As%3A42...

APPFNPniY M

1/1

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.