## Facts

- A law-enforcement officer received a report that Amanda Newcomb was abusing and neglecting her dog, Juno.
- While speaking with Newcomb inside her apartment, the officer observed Juno and testified that the dog appeared near-emaciated.
- The officer also observed Juno eating random items and attempting to vomit but only dry-heaving.
- When asked about Juno’s condition, Newcomb said she had run out of dog food.
- Based on Juno’s appearance and Newcomb’s statement, the officer concluded he had probable cause to believe Newcomb had neglected Juno.
- The officer asked Newcomb for permission to take Juno for medical care; Newcomb refused, became irate, and insisted Juno was healthy.
- The officer took custody of Juno without Newcomb’s consent; the courts treated the seizure as lawful.
- A veterinarian examined Juno, determined that he appeared emaciated, and drew blood to determine whether a medical condition (rather than lack of food) explained the emaciation.
- The blood tests showed no medical condition that would have caused malnourishment, supporting the conclusion that Juno was starving.
- Newcomb was cited for second-degree animal neglect (ORS 167.325).
- Before trial, Newcomb moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing that drawing and testing Juno’s blood without a warrant was an unlawful search of her property under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied suppression; a jury convicted Newcomb.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a warrant was required to test the dog’s blood.
- The Oregon Supreme Court allowed review to decide whether Newcomb had a protected privacy interest in the dog’s blood.

## Issues

1. After the lawful seizure of a dog for suspected neglect, does a warrantless veterinary blood draw and testing of the dog invade the owner’s protected privacy interest under Article I, section 9, such that it is a “search” requiring a warrant or an exception?
2. Does the same warrantless blood draw and testing constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment because the owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the dog’s blood?

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that, on these facts, Newcomb had no protected privacy interest in Juno’s blood under Article I, section 9, or the Fourth Amendment.
- Because no protected privacy interest was invaded, the blood draw and testing were not “searches” that triggered a warrant requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article I, section 9, an act is a “search” only if it invades a protected privacy interest; a property interest alone does not automatically create a protected privacy interest in every governmental examination of the property.
- A lawful seizure based on probable cause may temporarily curtail an owner’s dominion and control, affecting what privacy expectations remain during custody.
- A living animal is not treated like a closed container for search analysis; examining an animal’s physical condition is not the same as opening a repository used to hide items or information.
- Testing a lawfully seized dog’s blood to determine the cause of the dog’s condition does not involve information that the owner placed “inside” the dog for safekeeping or concealment.
- Under the Fourth Amendment, a “search” requires intrusion on a reasonable expectation of privacy; where the owner lacks such an expectation in the seized animal’s blood under the circumstances, no warrant is required for veterinary testing.

## Conclusion

In *Oregon v. Newcomb*, the Oregon Supreme Court held that when the state lawfully seized an emaciated dog based on probable cause of neglect, the owner did not retain a protected privacy interest in the dog’s blood that made a veterinarian’s warrantless blood draw and testing a “search” under Article I, section 9, or the Fourth Amendment; the Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the conviction for second-degree animal neglect.


Oregon v. Newcomb, 359 Or. 756 (2016)