Ruling Says Dogs Are More Than Property

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled in the case State v. Amanda Newcomb that dogs are more than property under the law. In this case the court found that the dog was more like a child. Previously dogs were more or less considered property because they can be bought and sold, and have few standards to how they are to be treated(abuse and neglect laws). Oregon law and the 4th Amendment profit such things as looking inside a purse without probable cause or a warrant, the court allowed a dog to have his blood drawn without a warrant under certain circumstances. Since the court did this, they granted legal significance to the dog's life meaning his capacity to experience feelings and pain. 
State v. Amanda Newcomb started in 2010 when an animal cruelty investigator was called out to look into reports that Newcomb was beating and starving her dog Juno. The investigator found Juno with no fat on his body, eating miscellaneous things in the yard, and trying to vomit. Newcomb told the investigator that she was out of dog food and was going to buy more later that night. Juno was taken to the Humane Society where he got a body condition score of 1.5 on a scale of 1(emaciated) to 9(overweight). To test to see if Juno was underweight due to malnutrition or another reason, the vet drew blood which revealed that she didn't have any parasites or condition that would cause her poor health. So Newcomb was charged with second degree animal neglect. 

During Newcomb's trial, her attorney tried to suppress the blood evidence because technically pets are property and the drawn blood was taken illegally without a warrant. The prosecutor argued that the dog's blood was like examining a child who might have been abused, which is allowed under law. Trial court agreed, but the conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Oregon Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's ruling because warrantless blood drawing isn't prohibited under Oregon law or the US Constitution.

In this case there was lawful seizure of the dog based on probable cause that the dog was suffering from malnourishment, so this ruling only applies to animals who have been lawfully seized due to neglect or abuse. The pet is property, which does give the owner certain rights over it. However, Oregon law mandates that pets are living things who must be given basic, minimum care.  This ruling means that animals can be examined and treated much quicker than before. 


Comments from Allen: Apparently this ruling does not affect the long-standing rule that if your neighbor kills your dog, he does not owe you move than the market value of your dog.  In that sense, the dog is still property.  However, the Oregon Supreme Court, and the lawyers arguing before the Court, went through some extensive mental gymnastics to fashion a rule that made sense when trying to diagnose and treat an apparently abused dog.

Certainly, when Special Agent Wallace saw the emaciated dog, and the owner stated she had no dog food for that dog, he had probable cause to seize the dog for the animal's protection, despite the dog owner's refusal to allow it.

As to the drawing of the animal's blood, that should have been justified on the basis of medical necessity, as the vet needed to know whether the emaciated dog required food or treatment for some parasite or internal organ condition.  Certainly, testing an animal to determine proper treatment is not unreasonable, even if the test results might later be used in a criminal trial.

In a typical DUI case in which a driver who caused a wreck is injured, he is taken to an emergency room, where his blood is commonly drawn and tested for alcohol content and various other drugs.  The results of those tests are not suppressed, whether he consented to the blood draw or not.

I believe this case turned on whether the court considered the testing of the dog's blood an attempt to obtain warrantless evidence or an attempt to treat a sick animal.  A court will presume that a warrantless search is unconstitutional...unless the fact pattern of a specific case falls under one of the hundreds of exceptions to the requirement that a police officer obtain a warrant before conducting a search.

***********************************************************************************************************************

Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen handles cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.

Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.

Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents,truck accidents, auto accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.

Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI), traffic violations, Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, battery and assault charges, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.


Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.  
Sources for more information:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S062387.pdf

http://barkpost.com/oregon-court-finds-dogs-are-sentient-beings/?llid=YBXq&utm_source=bb-social&utm_medium=pVwZ&utm_campaign=YBXq

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

7 Things Lawyers Can't Tell Jurors

Image
 It is a trial lawyer's job to educate jurors, and tell them what they need to know in order to decide cases. Despite this, there are many things, true things, that lawyers are not allowed to tell jurors directly in statements to the jury or indirectly through testimony of their witnesses. Lawyers know these things, though, and I thought you might like to know some of things. #1. A lawyer can't tell the jurors anything that happened during settlement negotiations. He cannot let the jurors know, when asking them to make the defendant pay his client $100,000 that the defendant agreed to pay him $80,000 prior to the trial. The reason for this is that you want settlement negotiations to be very open. You don't want to damage a negotiation session because someone is afraid that what they say will get repeated to a jury if you don't strike a deal. #2 In Idaho, a lawyer can't tell the jurors that the defendant has insurance. In many other states, he can. Bec
Read more

Man Framed by Prosecutor Released After 29 Years in Prison Seeking Lawsuit

Image
19 year old, Charise Kamps, was found raped and strangled to death in her apartment in June 1980. Ralph Armstrong told the police that both of them were at the apartment alone doing cocaine before leaving to go see friends around 9:30 pm. Police said that they learned that Armstrong owed Kamp's boyfriend $400 and witnesses saw Armstrong handing Kamps money that night. However, the money was not found in the apartment, and Armstrong deposited $315 in his bank the next day.The defense argued that he got the money from his brother. One of the neighbors saw a lean, muscular man about 5 feet 5 inches tall with long, dark hair drive up to the apartment. Before the identification process, the police had the witness hypnotized. He was shown a photograph of Armstrong, and After being hypnotized, the witness changed the height of the man he saw. Later at a lineup to have the witness select the man he saw, he chose Armstrong. The other people in the lineup were police officers in wigs
Read more

Tuesday Tip: Reid Interrogation Technique

Image
Various methods have been used in police interrogations to elicit a confession. By far the most popular method used for over seventy years is the Reid Technique. This interrogation method assumes guilty suspects can be identified from certain behavioral cues. It is said to be proven as highly effective at getting confessions; however, there has been criticism about it for many years because it has been linked to many wrongful convictions.  Around 25 percent of post conviction DNA exonerations have been associated with a false confession from authorities using the Reid Technique. Even one of the first cases in which John Reid used this technique turned out to be a false confession. More and more scientists and scholars are saying this approach is based on outdated psychology. There are several components incorporated in this technique, including room design and how the investigator conducts the interview. There are three spatial zones the investigators use, which can be seen in
Read more