## Facts

- Claire Bilida rescued and raised an orphaned raccoon (“Mia”) as a household pet for about seven years in Warwick, Rhode Island.
- After a false security alarm, a police officer entered Bilida’s backyard and saw the raccoon in a cage.
- An animal control officer asked Bilida to produce a state permit required to possess a raccoon; Bilida could not produce one, and the state agency confirmed none existed.
- State environmental officers entered Bilida’s gated backyard without a warrant and seized the raccoon after a struggle; Bilida was issued a summons for unlawful possession.
- Officers consulted state officials and a public health veterinarian, who advised that the raccoon must be euthanized and tested under the state’s rabies protocol due to its close contact with humans.
- The raccoon was killed and tested for rabies without further notice to Bilida; the test was negative.
- Bilida sued state officials and the state under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging constitutional violations (including due process and unreasonable search and seizure) and multiple tort claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding Bilida lacked a cognizable property interest because possession of the raccoon without a permit was illegal; Bilida appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a person has a constitutionally protected property interest, for Fourteenth Amendment due process purposes, in a raccoon possessed in violation of state permitting law.
2. Whether the warrantless entry into a gated backyard and seizure of the raccoon violated the Fourth Amendment.
3. How the illegality of possession and immunity doctrines affected liability under § 1983 and related claims.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Bilida on the principal federal constitutional claims.
- The court held Bilida had no constitutionally protected property interest in the raccoon because state law made possession without a permit unlawful.
- Because no protected property interest existed, Bilida’s due process challenge to the seizure and destruction of the raccoon failed.
- The court treated the raccoon’s unlawful status and the public health rabies protocol as supporting the challenged enforcement action, with qualified and sovereign immunity further limiting federal liability.

## Legal Principles

- Property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are defined by state law.
- An item that state law validly makes unlawful to possess does not constitute “property” for purposes of constitutional due process protection against deprivation.
- Without a cognizable property interest, procedural and substantive due process claims based on seizure or destruction of the item fail.
- In evaluating constitutional claims arising from enforcement actions, courts may consider the regulatory context, public health justifications, and applicable immunity defenses.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that unlawful possession of regulated wildlife negated any Fourteenth Amendment property interest in the animal, barring due process claims arising from its seizure and euthanization and supporting affirmance of summary judgment for state officials.


Bilida v. McLeod, 211 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2000)