 |
| Poppy, who had nothing to do with the court case discussed below, is enjoying the winter sun in snowy New South Wales. |
What is inside a dog? Given that dogs are property under
the law, is performing a blood test for the purposes of establishing a case of
neglect an invasion of the owner’s privacy?
Not, thankfully, according to the Supreme Court ofOregon, US, which had to decide on this matter following conviction of a dog
owner for second-degree animal neglect. The dog was seized and examined by a veterinarian,
who found the dog in poor body condition (1.5/9 - ideally should be 5/9). Blood was drawn to establish
whether the animal had a medical condition, e.g. metabolic disease, to
determine if the emaciation could be explained this way. It could not.
The dog owner attempted to suppress the blood test
results, essentially on the grounds that the dog was her property and looking
inside that property without a warrant was like opening a car boot.
The judgement provides a fascinating summary of different
analogies used by both sides in the case – is taking blood more like
test-firing a gun to see if it works, versus simply opening a car boot? Or is
drawing blood from a dog similar to medical examination of a child taken into
protective custody on suspicion of abuse? Is the drawing of blood by a
veterinarian different than the drawing of blood by a stranger in the street?
(Yes, they found, it is).
The status of animals as property under law poses some
interesting challenges, played out in this case. Ultimately the court decided
that while animals are property, and can be lawfully owned, they are subject to
protections (such as anti-cruelty legislation) to which inanimate objects are
not. They are capable of experiencing pain, fear and distress -inanimate objects are not.
Juno, the dog, was not like “an opaque container” and her
“contents” consisted of “the stuff that dogs and other living mammals are made
of: organs, bones, nerves, other tissues, and blood…And the chemical
composition of Juno’s blood was a product of physiological processes that go on
inside of Juno, not ‘information’ that defendant placed in Juno for safekeeping
or to conceal from view”.
In the words of the prosecutor at trial, inside of the
dog was just “more dog”. (Why are there not TV courtroom dramas based on these
kinds of cases?)
The judgement is a fascinating read because it touches on
the deeper philosophical issue of the consideration of animals under the law,
and suggests that anti-cruelty legislation (which has existed in some cases now
for hundreds of years) supports the notion that animals are not property in the
same way that toasters and cars and sunglasses are. Owners, and indeed persons
responsible for animals, have obligations to animals that they do not have to
toasters, cars and sunglasses.
You can read the full judgement here.
