Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter


Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Monday, July 19, 2021

Court Finds No Constitutional Violation in Entry to Home and Seizure of 37 Cats

Today's case involves the U.S. Constitution and cats, two topics that don't usually go together. Gaetzjens v. City of Loves Park (7th Circuit Court of Appeals)

Sally Gaetjens owned a home in Loves Park, Illinois where she bred cats. In 2014, she went to the doctor for high blood pressure and was told to go to the hospital. When neither her doctor or her neighbor could locate Gaetjens, the Loves Park police were called and informed that Gaetjens may be having a medical emergency. After seeing unattended packages, mail, and garbage at Gaetjens' home, they obtained a key to the home from Gaetjens' neighbor and entered the home. The police encountered intense odor that they described as a mix of urine, feces, and possibly a decomposing body and called EMS. In searching for Gaetjens, they found 37 unattended cats. The City placed a notice on the door that the home was unsafe and not fit for habitancy, and called animal control to impound the cats. 

Sally Gaetjens subsequently sued various local government agencies, including the City of Loves Park, arguing that the condemnation of her home and confiscation of her cats without a warrant violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. 

Both the district court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the City did, in fact, conduct a "search" when it entered her home. However, the courts found the search to be lawful and constitutional because the City had a reasonable basis for believing that there was a medical or other emergency to justify their warrantleess search. The courts also ruled that the seizure of the cats was lawful because of the imminent danger to the cats that could not be care for once the home was declared uninhabitable. In short, the courts did not find a constitutional violation in the City's actions.


Post a Comment