State v. Fessenden
258 Or. App. 639
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant and codefendant co-owned an older horse kept on codefendant Dicke’s property; neighbors reported the horse was very skinny and having difficulty urinating.
- Deputy Bartholomew (animal-control officer with extensive equine experience) observed the horse from a shared driveway and assigned a Henneke body score of 1/9 before touching it; after a brief physical check he reaffirmed the score and observed signs of imminent collapse and possible organ failure.
- Bartholomew seized the horse without a warrant, arranged transport to a veterinarian, and moved it to rehabilitation; the horse later recovered substantially.
- Defendant was charged with second-degree animal neglect and moved to suppress evidence derived from the warrantless search and seizure, arguing Article I, §9 of the Oregon Constitution prohibited the seizure and that the emergency-aid doctrine does not extend to animals.
- The trial court denied suppression based on the emergency-aid doctrine and exigent-circumstances justification; defendant was convicted and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the emergency-aid doctrine can justify warrantless entries/seizures to aid animals | State: the doctrine can apply to animals given Oregon’s strong interest in animal welfare | Defendant: the doctrine applies only to persons; animals’ lesser legal status precludes extension | Yes — the doctrine can apply when officers reasonably believe animals face imminent serious injury or cruel death |
| Whether Bartholomew’s warrantless seizure of the horse was reasonable under the emergency-aid doctrine | State: officer’s training, observations (Henneke score, instability, urination issues) made immediate seizure necessary to prevent imminent death/suffering | Defendant: officer should have fed horse rather than seize; no specific emergent medical intervention identified | Yes — based on officer’s observations and expertise, seizure was reasonable to prevent imminent death or alleviate suffering |
| Whether exigent circumstances/probable cause separately justified seizure | State: probable cause and exigency existed given the horse’s condition and immediacy of harm | Defendant: disputed existence of exigency and adequacy of probable cause | Trial court’s alternative ruling upheld; seizure reasonable under exigent circumstances as well |
| Whether evidence and defendant statements should be suppressed under Article I, §9 | Defendant: warrantless entry/seizure violated constitutional protections | State: constitutional exceptions applied (emergency aid/exigent circumstances) | Denial of suppression affirmed; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 350 Or. 641, 260 P.3d 476 (Or. 2011) (articulates Oregon’s emergency-aid exception to Article I, §9 for imminent threats to persons)
- State v. Fair, 353 Or. 588, 302 P.3d 417 (Or. 2013) (reasonableness is the touchstone for constitutional limits on searches and seizures)
- State v. Guggenmos, 350 Or. 243, 253 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2011) (officers may take reasonable precautions where there is an immediate threat to safety)
- State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. M.A.D., 348 Or. 381, 233 P.3d 437 (Or. 2010) (school/officer authority to take reasonable protective actions in emergencies)
- State v. Nix, 251 Or. App. 449, 283 P.3d 442 (Or. App. 2012) (recognizing animals as victims for purposes of separate punishable offenses under animal-neglect statutes)