Legal Opinion
Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 8, 1996No. B088117PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MASTERS ON, J.
This appeal presents the question of whether animal control officers can lawfully enter a home, absent a warrant or consent, to seize and impound the homeowner’s dog for violation of a leash law. We hold that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution precludes such conduct.
Background
In 1956, the City of Pasadena (the City) adopted an ordinance, entitled the “animal ordinance,” that provided for the care, custody, and control of animals (Pasadena Ord. No. 4384, codified as Pasadena Mun. Code, tit. 6). The ordinance created the position of poundmaster, whose…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re BittakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Broden v. Marin Humane SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- People v. ChungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- F & L FARM CO. v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.