Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Welfare

No Suppression of Evidence When Defendant Voluntarily Consented
to Inspection of Animals

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In New York v. Lewis, 881 N.Y.S.2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that a defendant had voluntarily consented to an inspection of his pets by an American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) officer, so the results of that search were admissible as evidence.

Background

Defendants charged with injuring animals and failure to provide proper sustenance moved to suppress evidence obtained during an ASPCA officer's inspection of their animals. Id. at *1. The lower court suppressed the evidence and dismissed the charges, and the People appealed. Id.

Arguments

The People argued that the defendant's consent to search his pets constituted "a valid substitute for probable cause." Id.

Analysis and Holdings

After considering the relevant factors, the court determined that the defendant's consent to inspect his pets was voluntary because he had not been under arrest or threatened or coerced into cooperating with the officer. Id. at *2. The court also rejected the co-defendant's argument that the evidence was inadmissible as to him, because the first defendant's act of voluntary bringing the animals outside to be inspected "was the functional equivalent of his giving consent for the police to enter the house and inspect the animals." Id. at *3. The court further noted that the co-defendant was neither present at the "search" nor objected to it, and the two defendants shared the responsibility of caring for the animals, which meant that the results of the search were admissible as to both of them. Id. Therefore, although the court expressed serious doubts that the evidence before it was capable of supporting the charges, it reversed on the issue of admissibility. Id. One dissenting justice opined that the defendant's consent had not been voluntary because he had been faced with a special agent of the ASPCA, armed and in uniform, and a camera crew from the television channel Animal Planet, and the justice stated that no reasonable person would have denied the officer's request under those circumstances. Id. at *4.

The case was decided on February 27, 2009.