A woman driving between Texas and Montana was stopped in South Dakota for the crime of driving with too many cats. In the case known as “South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats,” that state’s highest court ruled Wednesday that the feline seizure was the appropriate response. On August 13, 2009 at around 11:15pm, a Pierre policeman had stopped Patricia Edwards as she was backing out of a parking spot. Edwards, broke, was living out of the car with fifteen cats and all of her personal belongings.
The officer at the scene ordered the pets impounded because he was concerned at the conditions in the car which had a “strong pet odor” and a full litter box. Prosecutors later told Edwards that she should hire a lawyer and that she would be forced to pay all costs of holding her cats in the local pound. On August 24, 2009, prosecutors moved to put the cats up for adoption. The court denied Edwards’ request to take the cats home on the grounds that she presented no plan to pay for the costs of their care.
Edwards appealed this ruling on the grounds that the city had no reason to seize her personal property without a warrant. State law allows seizure of pets in “exigent circumstances.” Edwards argued that no such circumstances existed because her cats were healthy and well cared for. A majority on the court, led by Chief Justice David E. Gilbertson, disagreed.
“Here, the circuit court found exigent circumstances justifying the impoundment of Edwards’s cats in the health and safety hazards created by Edwards’s traveling on a public roadway and through a crowded parking lot with fifteen small animals wandering around loose in her jam-packed vehicle to distract her and interfere with her ability to see where she was going,” Gilbertson wrote. “Beyond the unsanitary aspects of the situation, it presented a significant safety risk to the public.”
The majority insisted that driving with a large number of cats in one’s automobile presents an imminent public threat.
“Because of the cats in the back window, Edwards failed to see the patrol car behind her and nearly backed into it,” Gilbertson wrote. “What if, instead of the officer’s patrol car, a less visible child on a skateboard or bicycle had passed by at that same moment? If the safety of an endangered cat can constitute ‘exigent circumstances’ even more so must a direct threat to the safety of the public in the area.”
Justices Glen A. Severson and Judith K. Meierhenry dissented, arguing that the majority misconstrued a law meant to prevent animal cruelty by turning “exigent circumstances” into a phrase that could apply to absolutely anything — including driver safety.
“The state provides no authority for the notion that animals traveling in a vehicle must be confined to kennels,” Severson wrote. “It strains credibility to conclude that the facts of this case constitute the type of emergency situation requiring an officer to act quickly to impound animals without a warrant or court order in order to protect the animals.”
Severson pointed out that the cats were living in no worse condition than Edwards herself, and that under the state’s care, the animals were confined to small cages at the local pound, able to get out only “for short periods.” The police officer at the scene did not cite Edwards for any driving violation.
“The claims of ‘exigent circumstances’ and inhumane treatment are a pretext,” Severson wrote. “If safe operation of the vehicle was the concern, the police should have addressed that issue and not exposed the taxpayers to the cost of caring for animals wrongfully seized from Ms. Edwards.”
A copy of the decision is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats (Supreme Court, State of South Dakota, 6/23/2010)
As disgusting as it is to think about being homeless and living in a car with 15 cats, that is her lifestyle choice. The state has no business interfering.
As for any danger to the public, one could argue that driving with a minivan full of kids could pose a similar distraction.
15 cats jammed into a car is animal cruelty. Does the state have no business interfering if I feed all the dogs in the neighborhood antifreeze?
“As for any danger to the public, one could argue that driving with a minivan full of kids could pose a similar distraction.”
Yes. Except that kids would be properly strapped in to their seats instead of crawling all over the car, and don’t need a litterbox. So actually, No.
I feel bad for the woman, but it’s clear based on this story that she’s a little “off”. 15 cats in one car is just wrong, for any length of time.
P.S. Anybody know what kind of car it was?
“P.S. Anybody know what kind of car it was?”
My guess is either a Lynx, Cougar or a Jaguar.
I wonder why no one was too concerned about her ability to pay for auto insurance much less cat food.
I can’t imagine the smell inside that car! My next door neighbors have 5 cats, and the inside of their home can range from less than pleasant to downright awful. The odor of 15 cats inside a vehicle has got to be vomit inducing.
Wow. I hadn’t heard that all crime had been eradicated and that the police were now free to move on to less important tasks.
How did I miss this…
And for three TTAC Bonus Points, name the rear the cat in the picture is sitting on.
The ultimate Curbside Classic Clue!
Gotta be a Mercury!
Dude it’s South Dakota. There really is nothing better for the police to do.
So, is this a picture of a cat-back exhaust?
Hahaha +1
In my opinion the police officer acted outside of the law. “The officer at the scene ordered the pets impounded…” Unless there was an imminent threat to the cats, the officer should have reported the situation to animal control and allowed people who work on animal welfare cases to investigate. If there was a problem, animal control and not the traffic cop would then decide whether there was an immediate need to seize all the cats, some of the cats, or none. Suppose animal control ordered the cat owner to find a private shelter to take the cats and the cat owner complied. Problem solved without pound costs. At some point a separate branch of government, the courts, would need to rule on the seizure of property to satisfy due process requirements.
Taking the cat factor out of the argument, suppose the police officer had ordered the car seized with no opportunity for the driver to get the car off the road by private means. Then suppose the government demanded unreasonable impound fees caused by the original traffic cop’s decision to seize property without anything approaching due process. Taken to the extreme, law enforcement becomes just an extortion racket.
I agree with the dissent. Exigent circumstances can’t mean whatever a cop doesn’t like. There has to be limits.
I agree with George B, it should have been handed to animal control – if indeed it needed to be handed to anyone at all.
I don’t understand why pets are allowed to roam around vehicles while said rides are in motion.
With the frequency of complaints on this site and others about “modern” annoyances and distraction in cars, ranging from satnavs to mobile entertainment, isn’t a 50-lb large dog or a frisky, yelping micropet also something that impedes a driver’s ability to function easily? Yes, it is. This, of course, says nothing of the likely instant death that any non-protected pet would face in an accident.
And yes, I dig many animals. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to agree that the (gorgeous) retriever sitting on a driver’s lap in a raised F350 I saw this morning on the highway heading into Boston wasn’t a) distracting, b) endangering the pet’s life, and c) potentially endangering the lives of fellow drivers: at 70mph, what if the dog had spilled the guy’s hulking hot java all over him or the dog? Precise reactions would follow? I think not…
Let the woman keep her cats in her (likely nearly) gasless car; but the dude this morning should’ve received a citation. And so should anyone else driving with animals flailing about.
Pierre, South Dakota. Don’t pronounce it like a Frenchman. It’s Peer. Home of the governor’s mansion (such as it is) and 13,000 fine, upstanding plainspeople and one Barney Fife of a cop.
Let’s just put this cat business in perspective — as seen from the banks of the Missouri River.
In this region, you will find pickup beds with high railings, and inside the beds, a steer or two. Even a large bull. Sometimes, a small herd of sheep. Even boxes full of live chickens.
Also in the region, you’ll find pheasants. Millions of them. Which is why lots of men in orange bearing shotguns drive their SUVs to this town every fall. And inside their SUVs are dogs. Lots of dogs. Big ones. Hyperactive ones.
Also in the fall it’s not uncommon to see an SUV, car or truck with a deer strapped to it. Sometimes several. In rigormortis piles. That’s gotta impede one’s vision a bit.
So Officer Fife, look around. And your honors, open the front door and smell the manure.
You’re in South in-the-middle-of-abso-freakin-lutely-nowhere Dakota. If you’re gonna apply some exigent rule of law to a down-on-her-luck woman just trying to pass through, then it’s time to arrest half the population of your fair town — and all the neighboring farmers and visiting hunters as well.
Impound those Holsteins! And that Shetland Pony, too. The driver can’t possibly see behind him with all that livestock. And book that guy with the Warmarieners in the back of his truck as well. Wait. It’s Dick Cheney.