A Cowley County couple and the Kansas Justice Institute won a major victory earlier this week after a federal court ruled in favor of Scott Johnson and Harlene Hoyt, striking down Kansas’s regime of a surprise, warrantless search as unconstitutional.
The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, following a federal civil rights trial that concluded in late May.
The court found that the State’s practice of conducting unannounced inspections of private homesteads and property without a warrant, notice, or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.
“This is a landmark victory for Scott and Harlene — and for every American who values the sanctity of their home,” KJI Litigation Director Sam MacRoberts said in a release. “The Constitution’s promise that our homes are our castles was upheld — and rightly so.”
Like the Sentinel, KJI is owned by the Kansas Policy Institute.
The case arose when the nationally recognized dog trainer and his wife challenged Kansas’s law requiring licensed dog trainers to submit to unannounced inspections of their private homestead, under penalty of fines or loss of licensure.
In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reinstated the case after it was dismissed, ruling that the couple’s Fourth Amendment claims deserved to be heard.
The State had defended its warrantless search regime by invoking the “pervasively regulated industry” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of warrantless searches — this exception is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court for industries like mining but was rejected for hotels in the 2015 case of City of Los Angeles v. Patel — arguing that dog training fell within its scope. The judge rejected the State’s argument that warrantless inspections of training kennels were justified, warning that such logic “could essentially turn any industry into a closely regulated one and swallow the rule” that the government must obtain a warrant before conducting a search.
Vratil wrote that in the last 50 years, the United States Supreme Court has “only identified four industries which fall into it: liquor sales, firearms dealings, mining, and automobile junkyards.”
Vratil said that to determine whether an industry is closely regulated, a court must consider “the history of warrantless inspections in the industry, the extensiveness and intrusiveness of the regulatory scheme, whether other jurisdictions impose similar regulatory schemes, and whether the industry would pose a threat to the public welfare if left unregulated.”
Vratil found that boarding and training kennels met none of those conditions, particularly the history of the regulation in question.
“Here, the Kansas legislature began regulating boarding or training kennels and conducting warrantless searches in 1991, approximately 34 years ago,” Vratil wrote. “Compared to the history associated with industries which the Supreme Court has found to be closely regulated, the history in this case is relatively inconsequential.”
State regulations required — among other intrusions — that Johnson or Hoyt be available on 30 minutes’ notice for snap inspections, and if one of them could not make it, a $200 “no-contact” fine would be assessed. In rural Kansas, it is easy to be more than 30 minutes from home just to go grocery shopping.
The licence application also included an ominous paragraph.
“I understand that Kansas law permits that a licensee may have routine inspections and may be inspected upon complaint. I consent to the inspections by the Kansas Department of Agriculture. I understand inspections may be conducted outside my preferred hours Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm. I understand that any willful disregard of any provision of the Kansas Pet Animal Act or any regulations adopted thereunder may subject the licensee to suspension or revocation of the license and/or fine of up to $1,000 per violation and/or criminal penalties.”
Vratil enjoined the State of Kansas from enforcing any penalties for refusing a warrantless search and from conducting such searches.
Vratil also retained jurisdiction “for the purpose of monitoring and ensuring compliance with this Injunction and resolving any subsequent fee petitions or other post-judgment motions.”
MacRoberts said the warrantless search case was about more than just Johnson and Hoyt.
“This case wasn’t just about Scott and Harlene,” MacRoberts said. “It was about every Kansan’s right to be secure in their own home. The government can’t sidestep the Constitution just because it finds it inconvenient.
“We’re incredibly proud of Scott and Harlene for having the courage to stand up for their rights. Their victory helps strengthen the property and privacy rights of all Kansans. This is a big moment for Scott and Harlene and for everyone else who suffers the indignity of being warrantlessly searched by the government. This case is a strong check against the government’s ability to go on your land, or see your private, personal things, without first getting court approval.”
Johnson was happy with the decision.
“We are pleased that the federal court saw things our way,” Johnson said. “The well-being of the animals in our care is priority one around here, our clients know and appreciate that about us. This will come as a relief to other trainers and boarding kennels around the state.”
Kansas Justice Institute is a nonprofit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting constitutional rights and fighting government overreach.
Patrick Richardson – The Sentinel
Patrick Richardson has been a working journalist since 1992 at community papers across Kansas and for the last 10 as an editor for papers in Southeast Kansas, Northeast Oklahoma, and Southwest Missouri. As a freelancer, he has also broken major stories for national outlets like PJ Media and The Daily Caller. Richardson was born in Wichita and raised in Southwest Kansas and currently lives in extreme SE Kansas, with his wife, two Great Danes, English Bulldog and 10 grandchildren.
