- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 09-09-2021
- Case #: A171836
- Judge(s)/Court Below: James, P.J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Kistler, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was convicted of first-degree animal neglect, she moved to suppress property seized and observations of the animal control officer who seized Defendant’s cat. Defendant argued the emergency aid exception should not apply when animal control seized the animal because the cat was “merely in pain” and not “at risk of serious injury or death.” Exigency exists when a person fails to provide the “minimum care” required by statute, and that failure results in imminent physical injury; an officer’s beliefs must be grounded in specific and articulable facts. The animal control officer was experienced, he reported being “shocked” that he had never seen an animal in such poor condition. The Court held that there was probable cause to believe Defendant was committing animal neglect and failing to provide minimum care. Affirmed.