Sally Gaetjens v. Winnebago County, Illinois
4 F.4th 487
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Sally Gaetjens, a cat breeder, was last seen Dec. 4, 2014; her doctor could not find her and contacted her neighbor and emergency contact, Rosalie Eads.
- Eads reported Gaetjens missing and gave police a key to Gaetjens’s Loves Park home so officers could perform a welfare check.
- Police entered the house, were driven back by an intense noxious odor, and Fire Chief Foley inspected the doorway, smelled a severe stench, and posted a condemnation placard declaring the structure unsafe.
- Responders found 37 cats inside; Winnebago County Animal Services impounded the cats (Dec. 4–13, 2014); four cats, including the stud Calaio, died after capture efforts that used a metal "cat grabber."
- Gaetjens (who was actually in the hospital) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourth Amendment violations for the warrantless entry, the condemnation, and the seizure/use of force regarding her cats; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry for welfare check | Gaetjens: officers had no warrant and no basis to enter | Officers: reasonable belief of medical emergency based on doctor calls, Eads’s report, piling mail/garbage | Entry was lawful under emergency-aid exigency; officers had objective reasonable belief |
| Condemnation of home without warrant | Gaetjens: unlawful seizure of home; factual dispute about condition | Defendants: dangerous, noxious conditions created immediate public-safety risk justifying condemnation | Foley reasonably relied on officers’ observations and could condemn the home as exigent public-safety measure |
| Seizure of cats and use of force | Gaetjens: seizure unlawful and the cat-catcher’s method was excessive, causing deaths | Defendants: cats were in imminent danger (owner barred by condemnation) and humane-capture tactics were reasonable | Seizure lawful under exigent-animal doctrine; use of the cat grabber not objectively unreasonable under Fourth Amendment; retention issues are Fourteenth Amendment matters |
| Monell municipal liability | Gaetjens: municipality liable for employees’ constitutional violations | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation, so no municipal liability | Monell claim fails because there was no underlying Fourth Amendment violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (establishes exigent-circumstances exception to warrant requirement)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (life‑and‑safety exigency can justify warrantless searches)
- Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (emergency‑aid examples and scope of exigent authority)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires underlying employee constitutional violation)
- Wonsey v. City of Chicago, 940 F.3d 394 (building‑condition evacuations justified under exigency)
- Flatford v. City of Monroe, 17 F.3d 162 (officers may rely on building‑safety officials in evacuation decisions)
- Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, 751 F.3d 542 (exigency doctrine applies to warrantless home searches and seizures)
- Siebert v. Severino, 256 F.3d 648 (exigent circumstances can justify warrantless seizure of animals)
- Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707 (force against a household pet is reasonable only if pet poses immediate danger)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (defining when interference with property constitutes a seizure)