In a trial for animal abuse, the trial court erred when it allowed an animal control officer to testify, over appellant’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment objections, that appellant had refused the officer’s request to enter his property without a warrant. At the point at which the testimony was admitted, appellant’s invocation of his Fourth Amendment right was improperly being used for the purpose of showing he had something to hide, which showed consciousness of guilt. However, appellant testified that he did not own or control the property on which the animals were found. Therefore, the error was harmless because it could have been properly admitted qw impeachment, during cross examination of appellant or as rebuttal evidence following his testimony.