Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

Defendant Convicted of Animal Cruelty Appeals
Warrantless Search of Her Home

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Massachusetts v. Erickson, 905 N.E.2d 127, 2009 WL 1142656 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009), the Court of Appeals of Massachusetts, Suffolk Division, affirmed a defendant's convictions for cruelty to animals, holding that a police officer who entered and searched her apartment without a warrant had a justified belief that the defendant may have been in danger, and thus a warrant was not required under the exigent circumstances.

Background

A Boston police officer, responding to a complaint of barking dogs, learned from a resident of the defendant's building that her dog had been barking for over twelve hours and that there was a smell emanating from the defendant's apartment. Id. at *1. Through a partially opened apartment window the officer saw a dog that appeared hungry and emaciated and boxes and garbage scattered throughout the room. Id. The officer was concerned that the stench may have been due to a decaying body, and when no one responded to his attempts to announce himself, he called the fire department to remove the grate covering the apartment window. Id. He also alerted the city's animal control unit, which called for the assistance of the Boston inspectional services department (ISD). Id. Upon entering the apartment, the officer found a severely emaciated Great Dane lying on the floor surrounded by feces and several cats that were barely alive. Id. at *2. The ISD officers discovered about 50 animal carcasses and containers holding animal parts or organs in the refrigerator and the kitchen cabinets, and blood on the floor and in the refrigerator. Id. The live animals were taken to the hospital for treatment. Id. The defendant was subsequently convicted of numerous counts of cruelty to animals after the trial court denied her motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of the apartment, and she appealed. Id. at *1-2.

Analysis and Holdings

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress and her subsequent conviction, explaining that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement for police entry applies when officers "respond to an immediate need for assistance for the protection of life or property." Id. at *2. The court found that the officer was justified in his belief that the defendant could be inside the apartment and was injured, dying, or dead, so the exception applied. Id. at *2-3. The court further held that the animal cruelty statute required only proof of general intent rather than knowing and wilful conduct, and the "circumstances plainly permit the inference that the defendant intentionally failed to provide the animals with a sanitary environment and . . . failed to provide the dog with adequate food or drink." Id. at *3-4.

The case was decided on April 30, 2009.