State v. Newcomb, 359 Or. 756

Background

Oregon Humane Society investigator (certified police officer) saw defendant’s dog Juno near‑emaciated, defendant admitted she had no dog food; officer seized Juno on probable cause for neglect and transported him for care.
Veterinarian Dr. Zarah Hedge examined Juno, gave a very low body condition score, and drew blood to rule out medical causes for emaciation as part of diagnosis/treatment.
Lab tests showed no medical condition; vet concluded Juno was malnourished and placed him on a feeding protocol; prosecutor charged defendant with second‑degree animal neglect.
Defendant moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing the warrantless blood draw/testing violated Article I, §9 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment because a dog is personal property and its "interior" required a warrant.
Trial court denied suppression; jury convicted. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that extracting and testing blood from lawfully seized dog was a search requiring a warrant.
Oregon Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that in these circumstances no protected privacy interest was invaded by a medically appropriate blood draw/testing of a lawfully seized animal.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Newcomb's Argument	Held
Whether drawing and testing blood from a dog lawfully seized on probable cause to believe it was neglected constitutes a "search" under Article I, §9 / Fourth Amendment	No. A lawfully seized animal is not an opaque container; medically appropriate diagnostic testing of an animal in protective custody is not a protected privacy invasion.	Yes. Dogs are personal property; intruding into an animal’s interior (blood) is like searching a closed container and requires a warrant.	Held: Not a protected privacy invasion under these facts; warrantless medically appropriate blood draw/testing of a lawfully seized, neglected animal was permissible.
Whether veterinary testing for diagnosis/treatment is unlawful because results may have evidentiary value	Medical diagnosis/treatment can be performed even if results have potential evidentiary value; dual‑purpose does not make it an unconstitutional search here.	Testing was effectively investigatory and thus required a warrant.	Held: Diagnostic testing is permissible; potential evidentiary value does not convert a medical procedure into an unconstitutional search in these circumstances.
Whether status of a dog as "personal property" requires the same container analysis as inanimate property	A living animal’s internal state is "more dog," and social/legal norms (animal welfare duties) reduce owner privacy interests when animal is in state custody for medical care.	Personal property label means owner retains privacy/possessory interests in animal’s interior that warrant warrant protection.	Held: Ownership label does not make animals equivalent to closed containers; statutory welfare regime and protective custody limit owner’s privacy interest.
Whether Oregon constitutional analysis differs from Fourth Amendment analysis here	Both analyses lead to same result; context and social/legal norms inform whether expectation of privacy is reasonable.	Argues both constitutions protect owner’s privacy in animal’s blood.	Held: Both Article I, §9 and the Fourth Amendment permit the warrantless diagnostic blood draw/testing under these facts.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fessenden/Dicke, 355 Or. 759 (discussion of animals’ unique legal status and exigent seizure authority)
State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196 (container/content analysis under Article I, §9)
State v. Wacker, 317 Or. 419 (privacy limits where activity is observable under social norms)
State v. Heckathorne, 347 Or. 474 (testing lawful seizure where outward signs gave probable cause)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (removal/testing of substances from lawfully seized item not necessarily a Fourth Amendment violation)
Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420 (closed container expectations of privacy)
Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (closed container doctrine)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of automobile/container searches)
Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (reduced privacy expectations in certain custodial contexts)