South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats

Last updated

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats
Court Supreme Court of South Dakota
Full case nameSouth Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats
DecidedJune 23, 2010 (2010-06-23)
Citation(s)785 N.W.2d 272 (2010), 2010 SD 50
Case history
Appealed from South Dakota Circuit Court
Case opinions
Decision byChief Justice Gilbertson
ConcurrenceJustice Konekamp, Justice Zinter
DissentJustice Severson, Justice Meierhenry

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 N.W.2d 272 (S.D. 2010), is a 2010 Supreme Court of South Dakota civil forfeiture case brought by the American state of South Dakota against fifteen cats that they had seized on the grounds of interfering with a driver's visibility. The seizure was challenged by the owner of the cats and the court found on a 3–2 majority that the seizure was lawful because of the risk to pedestrians as well as to the cats. [1]

Contents

The form of the styling of this case – the defendant being animals (fifteen cats), rather than a legal person – is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case.

Background

On August 13, 2009, a police officer stopped a woman who was driving to Texas as she was reversing out of a parking spot and nearly hit the officer's patrol car. [2] Inside, the policeman found 15 cats as the driver was living in her car. The police officer impounded the cats on the grounds of the poor sanitary conditions in the car, noting a full litter box and a "strong pet odor". [3] After being told of the plan of the state to put the cats up for adoption and denying her the opportunity to take them back, the driver challenged the seizure in court. [3]

Case

The case was originally heard in the South Dakota Circuit Courts. During the hearing, the judge ruled that due to the cats impeding the driver's view out of her car, there were "exigent circumstances" to support the civil forfeiture. The driver then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court on the grounds that the seizure violated her constitutional rights, specifically her right to due process and the seizure was done with insufficient evidence. [2] With regard to constitutionality, the driver argued that there was a plain error but the court rejected it on the grounds that plain error would only be applicable if it would create a "ludicrous result" or "...invite ridicule of the entire judicial system". [2] The driver then argued that the seizure was unlawful as the police officer did not have a warrant. The State responded by stating that under SDCL 40-1-5, warrantless seizures were lawful if the animals were injured, diseased, suffering or if there were any other exigent circumstances where a delay would cause suffering. [4] The court ruled that due to the cats being allowed to roam freely in the car while the woman was driving, they could obstruct driver's windows. Accordingly, they ruled there was an exigent circumstance as it might have been a child that was almost hit rather than the officer's car. [2]

The driver had also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the Circuit Court's ruling as she argued she had kept the cats in humane conditions. However, this was rejected by the court as they did not believe the Circuit Court decision was erroneous. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected by Chief Justice David Gilbertson. Justices Konekamp and Zinter concurred, with Konekamp writing a concurring opinion but arguing that it was due to the risk to the cats themselves that he agreed the seizure was lawful. [2] [5] Justice Severson dissented on the grounds that the "exigent circumstances" definition was too vague and this situation did not meet the standards as the state vet had said that the cats were in good health. [6] Severson also stated that the driver was not charged with any traffic offense and that she should have been, had the State intended to rely on her being unable to operate the vehicle as that was their focus in the seizure hearings. [3] Justice Meierhenry concurred with the obiter dicta dissent. [2] The case was later cited as precedent in South Dakota state law. [7]

Related Research Articles

In criminal procedure law of the United States, an exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, allows them to enter without knocking and waiting for the owner's permission to enter. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's escape is imminent. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine. Under the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable" searches and seizures are forbidden. In addition to their law-enforcement duties, the police must engage in what the court has termed a community caretaking role, including such duties as removing obstructions from roadways to ensure the free flow of traffic. When the police act in this role, they may inventory cars they have seized without "unreasonably" searching those cars.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), was a 1983 case before the US Supreme Court determining that a warrantless home arrest without exigent circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.

<i>United States v. Brignoni-Ponce</i> 1975 United States Supreme Court case

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court determined it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a roving patrol car to stop a vehicle solely on the basis of the driver appearing to be of Mexican descent. A roving patrol car must have articulable facts that allow for an officer to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying illegal aliens beyond their ethnicity. The Court handed down a 9–0 decision that affirmed the Circuit Court's ruling in the case.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961), full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined "seizure" occurs when an officer uses displays of authority to detain a person.

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil forfeiture in the United States</span> Aspect of U.S. law enforcement

In the United States, civil forfeiture is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. While civil procedure, as opposed to criminal procedure, generally involves a dispute between two private citizens, civil forfeiture involves a dispute between law enforcement and property such as a pile of cash or a house or a boat, such that the thing is suspected of being involved in a crime. To get back the seized property, owners must prove it was not involved in criminal activity. Sometimes it can mean a threat to seize property as well as the act of seizure itself. Civil forfeiture is not considered to be an example of a criminal justice financial obligation.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.

Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments. The case covered the asset forfeiture of the petitioner's truck after the police found a small quantity of drugs within it and he was convicted on non-felony possession charges.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant."

Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution's "community caretaking" exception.

Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances requirement related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled unanimously that the warrantless entry into a home by police in pursuit of a misdemeanant is not unequivocally justified.

Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) 191 Neb. 462, 215 N.W.2d 849 (1974) is a Nebraska Supreme Court civil forfeiture case. It was brought by the American state of Nebraska to seize a Rambler Gremlin on the sole grounds it was transporting illegal marijuana. The owner appealed against the forfeiture decision on the grounds of a claimed lack of due process. The court ruled 4–2 and sustained the confiscation as lawful.

<i>R v Stairs</i> Canadian legal decision

R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court established new standards for searches of a person's home after they have been arrested. At issue in the case was whether the traditional common law power of Search Incident to Arrest, which allows police officers to engage in warrantless searches of lawfully arrested persons, was compliant with section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it related to searches of the home.

References

  1. ↑ "South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats". Lowering the Bar. October 24, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 NW 2d 272". Supreme Court of South Dakota. June 23, 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2020– via Google Scholar.
  3. 1 2 3 "South Dakota Supreme Court Upholds Impounding Of Cats". Thenewspaper.com. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  4. ↑ "SDLRC – Codified Law 40-1-5". South Dakota Legislature. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  5. ↑ "Court: Officer was proper in seizing cats while woman drove". Rapid City Journal. Retrieved January 27, 2020.
  6. ↑ "South Dakota claw enforcement nabs 15 cats". Washington Times. June 27, 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  7. ↑ "State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats". Leagle. Retrieved January 28, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.