Oregon Appellate Ct. - April 16, 2014

by: Abassos • April 16, 2014 • no comments

Testing of a Dog during an Animal Neglect Investigation is an Article I, Sec 9 Search

Where defendant’s dog was seized by an animal control officer because it was near-emaciated, the officer could touch, observe, and weigh the dog under the seizure doctrine but it could not extract and test blood and stool from the dog. Blood and stool testing was a search that revealed evidence that was not apparent — specifically, that the dog was near-emaciated from lack of food, not a disease. Without a warrant or exception to the warrant requirement, evidence from that search required suppression:

"Although the state's argument is broadly worded, we understand the state to contend that, when police lawfully seize an animal, the owner's privacy rights must yield to the animal's right to care, such that government actions consistent with veterinary treatment do not invade defendant's privacy rights. We cannot endorse that view."

State v. Newcomb 262 Or App __ (2014).