South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats
Court
Supreme Court of South Dakota
Full case nameSouth Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats
DecidedJune 23, 2010 (2010-06-23)
Citation(s)785 N.W.2d 272 (2010), 2010 SD 50
Case history
Appealed fromSouth Dakota Circuit Court
Case opinions
Decision byChief Justice Gilbertson
ConcurrenceJustice Konekamp, Justice Zinter
DissentJustice Severson, Justice Meierhenry

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 N.W.2d 272 (S.D. 2010), is a 2010

civil forfeiture case brought by the American state of South Dakota against fifteen cats that they had seized on the grounds of interfering with a driver's visibility. The seizure was challenged by the owner of the cats and the court found on a 3–2 majority that the seizure was lawful because of the risk to pedestrians as well as to the cats.[1]

The form of the styling of this case – the

jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam
(over persons) case.

Background

On August 13, 2009, a police officer stopped a woman who was driving to Texas as she was reversing out of a parking spot and nearly hit the officer's patrol car.[2] Inside, the policeman found 15 cats as the driver was living in her car. The police officer impounded the cats on the grounds of the poor sanitary conditions in the car, noting a full litter box and a "strong pet odor".[3] After being told of the plan of the state to put the cats up for adoption and denying her the opportunity to take them back, the driver challenged the seizure in court.[3]

Case

The case was originally heard in the

plain error but the court rejected it on the grounds that plain error would only be applicable if it would create a "ludicrous result" or "...invite ridicule of the entire judicial system".[2] The driver then argued that the seizure was unlawful as the police officer did not have a warrant. The State responded by stating that under SDCL 40-1-5, warrantless seizures were lawful if the animals were injured, diseased, suffering or if there were any other exigent circumstances where a delay would cause suffering.[4] The court ruled that due to the cats being allowed to roam freely in the car while the woman was driving, they could obstruct driver's windows. Accordingly, they ruled there was an exigent circumstance as it might have been a child that was almost hit rather than the officer's car.[2]

The driver had also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the Circuit Court's ruling as she argued she had kept the cats in humane conditions. However this was rejected by the court as they did not believe the Circuit Court decision was erroneous. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected by Chief Justice

obiter dicta dissent.[2] The case was later cited as precedent in South Dakota state law.[7]

References

  1. ^ "South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats". Lowering the Bar. October 24, 2013. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  2. ^ a b c d e f "State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, 785 NW 2d 272". Supreme Court of South Dakota. June 23, 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2020 – via Google Scholar.
  3. ^ a b c "South Dakota Supreme Court Upholds Impounding Of Cats". Thenewspaper.com. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  4. ^ "SDLRC – Codified Law 40-1-5". South Dakota Legislature. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  5. ^ "Court: Officer was proper in seizing cats while woman drove". Rapid City Journal. Retrieved January 27, 2020.
  6. ^ "South Dakota claw enforcement nabs 15 cats". Washington Times. June 27, 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  7. ^ "State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats". Leagle. Retrieved January 28, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Dakota_v._Fifteen_Impounded_Cats&oldid=1191902023"