An Unusual Legal Case

[JamesCalifornia]

~ Cats as plaintiffs . Looks like health & safety issues are involved. Very unusual case to see !

~ 16 house cats — and their owner — sue NC county over civil rights violations ~

Newsweek

 

[Caspers Human]

In my opinion, the guy is complicating things and making his own case more difficult without a good reason.

Generally speaking, animals can't sue because they have no legal standing. They aren't people and, normally, only people can bring a lawsuit. One of two things will have to happen. Either a human will have to sue on behalf of the animals, citing some important issue as to how and why these animals were wronged or there will have to be a separate determination that gives a reason why the animals should have legal standing. No matter how the case is resolved, there is going to have to be a whole phase of the plaintiff's case that addresses this issue before the rest of it can go forward.

In other words, the whole lawsuit will have to be put on hold until this question is ironed out.

Back to the root of the issue: There were sixteen cats living in a dirty house that was so bad that somebody complained about it and the Animal Control Department had to be called in. That, by itself, is a stand-out problem. By the time things get bad enough that the authorities have to intervene, there has to be something wrong.

The guy is claiming that there are extenuating circumstances. He says he was injured in an accident and had to spend time in the hospital. Okay, maybe the guy deserves a break, but if his house gets so bad that others have to step in, something has gone wrong. Didn't he have family, friends or neighbors who could have come to help him take care of his cats while he was laid up? Who fed them while he was in the hospital?

It's hard to tell anything else from just this article. It reads more like "News of the Weird" than anything else.

All I can say from what I've read is, "Something's not right..."

 

[JamesCalifornia]

~ And here I thought in the USA authorities need a search warrant signed by a judge to enter an individual's home ...?

 

[catapault]

I think there's something called exigent circumstances - if there's a dangerous situation a signed-by-judge search warrent is not needed for entry. In this case the stench so powerful it could be detected from outside the house might have been considered grounds for entry.

 

[Caspers Human]

I was thinking about the question and your answer is along the lines of what I was thinking of.

If a police officer or other authorized official of the government who has enforcement powers witnesses an infraction of the law he has the right to investigate. If, during that investigation, he finds that the law has been broken, he has the right to make an arrest or enforce the law in some other way.

Since the neighbors lodged a complaint, law enforcement came to investigate. If they could smell cat excrement from outside the house, officers would be allowed to enter and enforce the law from that point, forward.

catapult ... Your answer is more elegant than mine.

 

[JamesCalifornia]

~ Thanks for the information folks

 

[Willowy]

They can also ask to come in, and many people don't know they can say no, or are too timid to refuse.

(I am not a lawyer) I don't think excrement odors can be considered exigent circumstances. Having too many pets is, at worst, an ordinance violation, and excrement odors are a matter for the health department, not law enforcement. I think they need to hear screaming or something like that for it to be exigent circumstances.

They probably asked, or "asked", and he probably let them in.

 

[Caspers Human]

I think it depends on the severity.

There's a difference between being a little late at cleaning the litter box and having a stench so bad that you can smell it outside.

 

[JamesCalifornia]

~ I hear "implied consent" used often in these situations. I cannot find any case involving animal control where it's been challenged. One attorney told me that a search warrant is indeed necessary. Perhaps it's time for clarification ...

 

[Willowy]

Well, cats can't sue anybody, lol, but the owner may have a decent civil case if they in fact entered without a warrant or permission.

 

[Caspers Human]

I don't understand how implied consent can apply here.

If you drive a car, it can be said that you give implied consent to being tested for drugs and alcohol.
How can owning a cat constitute implied consent for anything.

A police officer can stop a person for what's called a "field interview" where he can ask a person his name, where he lives and the reason for being in the area but he can't ask detailed, personal questions unless he has probable cause.

An official knocking on somebody's door in response to a complaint could be considered like a field interview.
When that official notices an overwhelming stench of animal excrement, that can be considered probable cause to believe that animals are being abused. (Not fed, cared for or cleaned up after.)

Animal abuse is a culpable offense in some jurisdictions.

If the official has reason to believe that an offense is in the progress of being committed, in his presence, he has the right to enter, investigate and prosecute as the law sets forth.

 

[Willowy]

that can be considered probable cause to believe that animals are being abused. (Not fed, cared for or cleaned up after.)

Animal abuse is a culpable offense in some jurisdictions.

It is, but a bad odor isn't an immediate threat. It could certainly wait a few hours for them to procure a warrant.

 

[JamesCalifornia]

Obviously none of us know the answer . Perhaps this has never been challenged ?

 

[JamesCalifornia]

~ This could be something of interest :

Legal Updates

 

[Caspers Human]

Before I go on, I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing in favor of the cops, here.
I'm trying to figure out how the law works in a case like this.

I agree with JamesCalifornia . I think that animals (cats) are considered property and seizing or denying a person their property is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I also think that this interferes with the plaintiff's assertion that the cats, themselves, can sue. If a cat is property under the Constitution, a cat can't bring a lawsuit. As I said, before, the guy is messing up his own case.

I agree that, if the cats were taken from their owner there must be due process.
Due process requires either a judge's warrant or the commission of a crime that justifies the taking of property or a situation where an imminent threat makes a warrant impossible.

In the case of Mayfield that James linked to, the question of imminent threat was addressed.
The cops shot the plaintiff's dog(s) even though they were not attacking. That constituted a violation of Mayfield's constitutional rights. If the dog(s) had attacked, that would have created an imminent threat where the cops could have shot the dog(s).

Now, in the case of Fields (our original case about cats) I don't think there was any imminent danger but, at the same time, I don't think that a warrant was necessary, either.

In the Fields case, duly sworn officers of the law were called to investigate a complaint.
In the process of investigating the complaint, they determined that there was probable cause that a crime was committed.
As sworn officers, that probable cause gives them the right to investigate further, including entering property without a warrant. If there is a crime in progress and the officers witness it, they don't need a warrant.

Now, if the officers are allowed to investigate, if they have probable cause to enter and investigate, the detection of the smell of cat excrement which is so bad that masks have to be worn (as stated in the linked article, above) is reason to believe that the crime of animal abuse might be in the process of being committed. As such, the officers have the right to prosecute if their investigation proves to be true.

If part of the punishment for the crime of animal abuse is forfeiture of the animals in question then Fields can have his cats taken away.

However, there are two things in Fields' favor:
Article 11 of the Constitution. (Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.)
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. (Right to a speedy trial.)

Yes, the cats can be forfeited if Fields is, indeed, guilty but that can't happen until he is declared guilty at a trial by judge and/or jury. Second, because the cats are confined in a location outside their normal home, I believe that makes the Sixth Amendment all the more important. You can't hold the cats in a stressful situation longer than necessary to prosecute the case. I would say that this trial needs to move forward as soon as possible.

Basically, hold the trial ASAP or send the cats home.

As I said above, there isn't a lot of information in the article about Fields' case.
It doesn't say whether any of the cats were sick, injured, malnourished or in any other kind of danger.
It doesn't say why the Animal Control officers were called, except that the neighbors complained. Could the neighbors have had it in for the plaintiff or wanted to get revenge on him for some reason?
What were the conditions inside the house? Was it just some dirty litter boxes or was their cat excrement all over the house?
Did Fields have an accident that required him to go to the hospital? Did he have somebody help him take care of his cats?
How long was this situation going on for? A few days? A few weeks? Years?

We don't know these things because the article doesn't say.
These things are important to know because they affect the way the case is handled.

What if Animal Control had been to Fields' house before? What if they had issued a warning in the past?
What if there had been multiple complaints? It's impossible to make an informed opinion based on information in that article.

It really just seems more like a "News of the Weird" article that you might read in the National Enquirer.

 

[JamesCalifornia]

As I said above, there isn't a lot of information in the article about Fields' case.
It doesn't say whether any of the cats were sick, injured, malnourished or in any other kind of danger.

~ Yes true. I was concerned about search/seizure abuse in particular. There should be a cause for concern - hence proof of a complaint. I think that many would be bothered by these "anonymous" complaints resulted in mental duress to an already unbalanced individual.
I believe there is likely little recourse or some civil rights attorney/law firm would have jumped on this issue years ago .

Thanks for the input