Basically, an officer did not have a warrant but saw a horse that he felt was starving and by the physical appearance, had it seized and owners charged with neglect.
Owners appealed and Court confirmed the order below [in above link] Whether such specific exception (no warrant) applies specifically to animals, the Court claimed to leave for another day; instead the Court stated that the officer had probable cause to believe a crime had been committed and he was allowed to seize the animal according to statutory standards and legislative policy. (see pg. 774 on PDF of case]
Whether emergency aid (exigency) applies specifically to animals was not decided by the Court. (Note: in CA, exigency does apply to animals…sometimes such exigency is not really exigency but AC “says” it is………)
Well–what would the Oregon Court say about this picture then?
Is that exigency so as to seize the animal? It would be if you ask an AR.