Defendant’s particularity argument fails for lack of cogent argument: “Defendant’s first question regarding the probable cause requirement has already been answered, and Defendant offers no evidence or argument in support of his apparent challenge to the particularity of the warrant. Defendant does not cite to the record, nor does he state how the warrant fails to identify with particularity the place to be searched or the items to be seized as required by the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.” State v. McBride, M2020-00765-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2021).
Warrantless seizure of a cat that had been burned and was missing toes and was in obvious pain and was suffering to take to a veterinarian was reasonable. Exigent circumstances shown. There was similar case involving a horse decided in 2014. Animal neglect conviction affirmed. State v. Hsieh, 314 Or. App. 313 (Sept. 9, 2021).