Zimmer, Duncan & Cole

Even Kitty-Cats End Up In Court

A woman loaded up her car for a trip from Texas to Montana. Along the way, a police officer stopped her and discovered she was traveling with fifteen cats. Citing health and safety concerns, he impounded them
The woman's quest to recover them is told in, State of South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats (2010 S.D. 50).
Last night, my daughter tearfully reminded me how much she misses her beloved cat, Abigail. It has now been five years since her passing. Abigail slept in my daughter's bed (and also in flower pots), snuggled in her lap, greeted us at the door every evening, played fetch, and never, ever complained when being carried about the house like a stuffed animal. I thought of Abigail as a dog dressed in fluffy calico. Since I'm a dog-lover, that's the kind of cat I could live with. However, only one at a time would be plenty. Not so for the woman in this week's case.

Patricia Edwards was traveling through South Dakota in a small car. She stopped at a convenience store in Pierre, en route from Huron to Billings, Montana. While there, someone called in a complaint, reporting that her car contained a large number of cats. As the responding officer arrived, Patricia nearly backed into his patrol car. The officer immediately noticed her view out the back window was obstructed by numerous cats on the back ledge and climbing on the seat backs. Patricia explained that she was living out of her car and was short on cash. Her car was crammed full of boxes, coolers, blankets, 2-liter bottles of water, books, cooking utensils, a large bag of cat food, and a "full" litter box. The rest of the limited space was filled by cats and a strong odor. All fifteen were running free, without any kennels or carriers. Patricia explained that they were all spayed and neutered, but that the cats had destroyed those treatment records.

The officer was concerned about the health of the cats, and about Patricia's ability to safely drive a car with so many co-pilots. He impounded all fifteen cats and placed them in a local kennel, with the help of a veterinarian and the humane society. Six days later, the court held a hearing to decide whether the officer was justified in seizing the animals. Patricia was present, but without an attorney. The judge urged her to hire counsel and work on a plan to get her cats back.

Five days later, a second hearing was held. Patricia had no plan, and no money. The judge terminated Patricia's ownership rights and gave the cats to the humane society for adoption. Patricia appealed to our state Supreme Court.
Law enforcement officers are required to impound animals that are subjected to mistreatment, torture, cruelty, neglect or abandonment. Normally, a warrant is required before seizing such animals. This insures that a judge has taken the time to review the facts prior to the extreme step of forcibly taking away someone's property (such as a furry friend). There is an exception to this warrant requirement. An officer can proceed immediately in situations where any delay would cause the animal "extreme suffering" or if there are "other exigent circumstances". In those types of cases, the officer is required to present the facts to a judge as soon after the impoundment as possible. If the judge disagrees, the animals are returned to their owner.

Here, everybody agreed that the cats were not diseased or suffering. Instead, the officer claimed that this was a case of "other exigent circumstances". Exigent circumstances exist when "a situation demands immediate attention with no time to obtain a warrant". The Court determined that the officer was justified in seizing the cats. It was persuaded most by what it called, "the open and obvious safety hazard presented by Edwards's traveling coterie of cats". As proof of the danger, it noted that she almost backed into the officer himself.

The Court also agreed that the trial court was justified in giving the cats to the humane society when Patricia presented no plan for paying for the cats or safely transporting them. This was 3-2 split decision of our Court. I presume those votes came down along the lines of dog lovers vs. cat lovers.