CA6: 15 dogs abandoned in a house living in squalor was exigency for warrantless entry

Plaintiff kept 15 dogs in her house in squalor. She went out of town and didn’t provide for them. Her “associates” reported the situation to animal control and they entered the house and seized the animals. The entry and seizure was with exigent circumstances, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. More simply put: because of exigent circumstances, they did not violate the Fourth Amendment. King v. Montgomery County, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 44 (6th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020):

… The district court concluded that exigent circumstances justified Matos and Cook’s entry into King’s home. We agree.

Matos. Where a need for immediate action by government personnel makes obtaining a search warrant impracticable, those “exigent circumstances” can justify a warrantless entry. United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464, 490 (6th Cir. 2014). Examples of exigent circumstances include situations in which officers have “the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Kovacic v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 724 F.3d 687, 695 (6th Cir 2013) (quoting Johnson v. City of Memphis, 617 F.3d 864, 868 (6th Cir. 2010)). This exception to the warrant requirement also allows officers to ensure the safety of animals exposed to dangerous exigent circumstances. See United Pet Supply, 768 F.3d at 490.

To our eye, the circumstances described to Matos would have led a reasonable officer to believe the dogs inside the home were in danger. Will told Matos that ammonia fumes made it difficult to breathe, that some of the dogs did not have food or water, and that the dogs needed urgent veterinary attention. Even while outside, Matos could smell the ammonia fumes himself. Will’s statements thus sufficiently apprised Matos of the seriousness of the situation.

Whether Matos over-estimated the danger the dogs actually faced is immaterial. See United States v. Brown, 449 F.3d 741, 750 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that an officer’s warrantless entry into a home in response to a false alarm by a burglary-prevention system was nevertheless justified by exigent circumstances). The point of the exigent circumstances doctrine is to allow an officer to respond to a potential emergency. See id. at 749-50. The circumstances may ultimately prove less dire than imagined. See id. But we do not review an officer’s actions with the benefit of hindsight; we instead put ourselves in her shoes. Id. Nor do we fault an officer for bracing for the worst. True emergencies do not lend themselves to extensive reflection; delay can mean the difference between life and death. See United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1511 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 9 F.3d 506, 508 (6th Cir. 1993) (discussing “inherent necessities”)). So long as officers make reasonable efforts to gather information before acting, the Constitution is no obstacle. See Brown, 449 F.3d at 749-50.

Cook. The same goes for Cook, the animal control officer. …