Last week, California's Second District Court of Appeals ruled that police can enter a home without a warrant if they hear a dog in distress. The Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, does have exceptions if the police have good reason to search, typically when they believe lives are in danger. In the past, that meant human lives, but according to The People v. Keith Chung (pdf), it applies to pets, too.
Chung's downstairs neighbor, Jennifer Lee, was awoken one night by loud banging and the sounds of an animal in pain coming from Chung's condo. It wasn't the first time she'd heard disturbing noises like this, but it seemed particularly bad this time, so she called 911. When the officers knocked on Chung's door, he claimed he didn't own any dogs, but as they were talking, the officers heard a dog whimpering inside. Fearing that an animal was in danger, they entered without a warrant. Chung wanted to suppress the evidence of what they found, saying their entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
What police found in Chung's condo was a dead dog in the freezer, a dog on the patio so badly injured that he had to be euthanized later that morning, and a glass pipe on the kitchen counter "which appeared to contain the residue of some sort of illegal drug."
There are a lot of good things about this ruling. Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein wrote, "the protection of animals has long been recognized as an appropriate governmental concern." This ruling literally means that cruelty taking place behind closed doors will not be tolerated.
This is also victory for changing the definition of animals as property. As I've written before, the "owner vs. guardian" debate can get pretty sticky, but there's little question that animals aren't the type of property that people have the "right" to destroy. By allowing animals in distress as an exception to the Fourth Amendment, animals are acknowledged as living, feeling beings who deserve protection.
But I'm hesitant to declare this ruling a total win for animals.
To enter a home, the officers have to show that they "reasonably believe[d] immediate warrantless entry into a residence is required to aid a live animal in distress." In Chung's situation, the ongoing concern from the neighbor and the fact that he lied to police at the door were pretty good reasons to raise suspicion. But whenever the "exigent circumstances" clause of the Fourth Amendment is invoked, it can get into "he said, she said" territory over whether the police really had enough reason to enter.
There are often problems between neighbors when it comes to barking dogs, and repeated complaints can lead to a visit from the local police. What about dogs with separation anxiety? They often vocalize like the world's coming to end. And let's face it — police, in general, aren't great when it comes to understanding the canine species.
While there's great potential in this ruling to save abused animals, there's also a real risk here that normal dog vocalizations can be used as a reason to enter a home. For some people, that can lead to illegal search and seizure of drugs or other evidence.
Maybe you're of the opinion that it serves someone right for doing or possessing something illegal. But would you want the police barging into your house uninvited? Other than the invasion of privacy, there's a danger to your animals. If you have cats or uncrated dogs, they may escape. If, like me, you have pit bulls and other large dogs, your dog may get shot.
As long as there's this epidemic lack of understanding of canine behavior by police departments, pet owners — or guardians — can't afford for officers to make the wrong call, even if it's for the right reasons, in entering a home without a warrant.
I hope this ruling is used to protect animals from cruelty, but I hope it's used with care.
