## Facts

- Linda Diane Fessenden and Teresa Ann Dicke jointly owned an older horse kept on Dicke’s private property.
- Neighbors reported to the sheriff that the horse appeared extremely thin and looked as if it was starving.
- A sheriff’s deputy assigned to animal control, with training in animal husbandry and cruelty investigations, responded to the report.
- Approaching via a common driveway, the deputy observed from a lawful vantage point that the horse was extremely emaciated and appeared worse than any horse he had previously seen.
- Based on the horse’s appearance and his training, the deputy believed the horse faced immediate serious harm or death and that animal neglect was occurring.
- Without obtaining a warrant, the deputy entered farther onto the property, seized the horse, and transported it to a veterinarian for emergency care.
- The veterinarian confirmed severe emaciation consistent with neglect and a substantial risk of death without prompt treatment.
- The defendants were convicted of animal-neglect and animal-abuse offenses in consolidated proceedings.
- The trial court denied motions to suppress evidence derived from the deputy’s warrantless entry and seizure; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the deputy’s warrantless entry onto private property and seizure of the horse violated Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution or the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the deputy had probable cause to believe animal-neglect crimes were being committed.
3. Whether specific, articulable facts established exigent circumstances requiring immediate action to prevent imminent serious harm or death to the horse, excusing the warrant requirement.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the suppression motions and affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the deputy had probable cause to believe defendants were committing animal neglect based on the neighbors’ reports, the deputy’s training, and his observations of extreme emaciation and signs suggesting severe medical compromise.
- The court held exigent circumstances existed because the deputy reasonably believed immediate action was necessary to prevent further imminent harm and the horse’s death.
- The warrantless entry and seizure were therefore lawful under Article I, section 9 and the Fourth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Warrantless entry onto private premises is presumptively unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
- Under the exigent-circumstances exception, officers may enter and seize without a warrant when (1) they have probable cause to believe a crime has been or is being committed and (2) an exigency requires swift action to prevent imminent serious harm or death, among other urgent harms.
- The emergency-aid doctrine is distinct from exigent circumstances; it permits warrantless action to render immediate aid based on an objectively reasonable belief of imminent serious harm, even without probable cause of a crime.
- Exigent circumstances may justify warrantless entry and seizure to protect an animal from imminent serious harm or death when supported by probable cause and specific, articulable facts showing urgency.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a warrantless entry and seizure to obtain emergency veterinary care for an emaciated horse, concluding that the deputy had probable cause of animal neglect and reasonably perceived an imminent risk of serious harm or death that required immediate action under the exigent-circumstances exception.


State v. Fessenden, 355 Or. 759, 333 P.3d 278 (Or. 2014)