State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 333 P.3d 278

Consolidated appeals from trials in which officer entered private property without a warrant to seize an emaciated horse and take it to a veterinarian.
Officer observed signs of emaciation from a driveway: protruding backbone, visible ribs, narrow neck, lack of fat, and kidney-related strain while investigating alleged animal neglect.
Officer believed the horse was in medical emergency and that immediate aid was necessary; he also believed obtaining a warrant would take 4–8 hours, risking the horse’s death or serious harm.
Defendants (Dicke and Fessenden) were charged with first-degree animal neglect and first-degree animal abuse (Dicke) and second-degree animal neglect (Fessenden) under 2009 Oregon statutes; trials were consolidated.
Courts below denied motions to suppress evidence; Court of Appeals held emergency aid/ exigent circumstances exceptions could apply to animals under Article I, §9 and the Fourth Amendment.
Oregon Supreme Court evaluated whether warrantless entry/seizure was permissible under emergency aid, exigent circumstances, and related constitutional standards, ultimately concluding exigent circumstances justified the seizure to prevent imminent harm to the horse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether emergency aid or exigent circumstances justify warrantless seizure of an animal under Article I, §9.	Fessenden contends exceptions do not extend to animals beyond persons.	Dicke and Fessenden argue exceptions are too narrow and should not cover animals as property or sentient life.	Exigent circumstances and emergency aid may justify warrantless seizure to protect an animal.
Whether the officer had probable cause and necessity to seize to prevent ongoing animal neglect.	The horse’s condition showed neglect; rapid action was needed to prevent death.	Warrant should have been sought; seizure without one violates rights absent a true emergency.	Officer had probable cause and necessity to act without a warrant to prevent imminent harm.
Whether the Fourth Amendment requirement is satisfied given the emergency seizure of the horse.	Exigent circumstances similar to state law allow warrantless seizure to prevent harm.	Warrantless seizure may infringe privacy/property rights absent clear exigency.	Fourth Amendment also permits the seizure under exigent circumstances in this animal-emergency context.

State v. Baker, 350 Or 641 (2011) (emergency aid exception to Article I, §9 allows warrantless entry to render immediate aid)
State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119 (1991) (exigent circumstances when a crime is in progress or imminent danger)
State v. Snow, 337 Or 219 (2004) (exigent circumstances require probable cause and exigency to justify warrantless action)
State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 (1983) (narrowly and carefully drawn warrant exceptions to the warrant requirement)
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or 179 (2011) (anticipation of rapid warrants; recognition of technological advances)