Filed 8/26/26 Yzaguirre v. County of Mono CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Mono)
REBECCA YZAGUIRRE, C103494
Plaintiff and Appellant,
(Super. Ct. No. 24UCM134)
v.
COUNTY OF MONO,
Defendant and Respondent.
On September 11, 2024, personnel of the Mono County Department of Animal
Services (Animal Services), with assistance from the Mono County Sheriff’s Department,
made a warrantless entry into a trailer and seized 11 cats and kittens (the cats) that
Rebecca Yzaguirre kept there. The entry occurred in response to reports of possible
animal cruelty or neglect by Yzaguirre. In an administrative proceeding requested by
Yzaguirre, Animal Services cited Penal Code section 597.1 to support the validity of the
search and seizure.1 The administrative hearing officer upheld the seizure and the trial
court denied Yzaguirre’s petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the
administrative decision.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
Appealing from the judgment denying her writ petition, Yzaguirre contends (1) the
hearing officer failed to evaluate whether Animal Services personnel held a reasonable
belief that “very prompt”2 action was required to protect the health or safety of each
animal seized, and (2) the trial court erred because there were no exigent circumstances
warranting immediate action and the warrantless seizure was not excused under her
probation search condition.
We conclude (1) Yzaguirre did not preserve her first contention for appellate
review, and (2) substantial evidence supports the finding that Animal Services personnel
had reasonable grounds to believe very prompt action was necessary to protect the health
or safety of the cats. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 2024,3 Animal Services Officer Emily Hartman received a report
that Yzaguirre kept cats in a locked trailer and there was a strong odor of cat urine
coming from the trailer. The informant saw six cats in the trailer through a side window.
She expressed concern that Yzaguirre might have up to 30 cats in the trailer.
On September 3, a veterinary hospital staff member contacted Animal Services
Manager Brittany Pratt to voice concern about sick kittens in Yzaguirre’s care.
The individual said Yzaguirre kept a dog in a car.
On September 6, a social worker called the Mammoth Lakes Police Department
to report possible animal cruelty by Yzaguirre. The social worker stated that Yzaguirre
might have 21 cats. Another social worker told police that on September 6 he saw too
2 Section 597.1 authorizes immediate seizure of an animal when an animal control
officer has reasonable grounds to believe that “very prompt action” is required. The
“very prompt action” standard has been held to be the equivalent of emergency or exigent
circumstances. (Broden v. Marin Humane Society (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1220-
1221 (Broden).)
3 Subsequent dates refer to 2024 unless otherwise stated.
2
many cats running around Yzaguirre’s condominium for him to count and the smell of cat
urine was unbearable. On September 9 or 10, Mammoth Lakes police officers searched
Yzaguirre’s home but found no cats there.
At 3:45 p.m. on September 11, Mono County Sheriff’s Deputy Ricci Reigle,
Animal Services Manager Brittany Pratt, and Animal Services Officers Emily Hartman
and Kayleigh Aeschlimann went to a trailer located near a forest service trail to
investigate the reports regarding Yzaguirre. We will refer to Pratt, Aeschlimann, and
Hartman collectively as Animal Services personnel. Pratt, Officer Hartman, and Deputy
Reigle saw a 25-gallon bag filled with cat feces and litter, animal crates, a sheet or
blanket with urine and feces on it, and trash outside the trailer. Animal Services
personnel and Deputy Reigle detected a strong smell of ammonia from cat urine coming
from the trailer. Pratt described the smell as overpowering. They saw cats inside the
trailer through a trailer window. Deputy Reigle estimated there were 15 to 20 cats.
Officer Hartman saw many cats displaying signs of illness, such as ocular abnormalities
and nasal discharge. Officer Aeschlimann saw cats with ocular problems and cats
exhibiting signs of respiratory distress. Pratt saw that the trailer interior was filthy and
lacked proper ventilation.
Animal Services personnel knocked on the trailer door, announced they were with
Animal Services, and received no response. Yzaguirre subsequently arrived with her
daughter. Pratt advised Yzaguirre that Animal Services was investigating complaints
about the welfare of animals in Yzaguirre’s care. Deputy Reigle advised Yzaguirre that
Mono County Sheriff’s Dispatch confirmed Yzaguirre was on informal probation with
search terms. Although Yzaguirre disputed she was subject to a search condition, she
unlocked the trailer door.
After entering the trailer, Officer Hartman saw 20 or more cats inside the trailer,
most with signs of serious illness. Pratt thought many of the cats appeared extremely ill.
Officer Aeschlimann saw cats showing signs of respiratory distress, and a kitten with
3
severe ocular problems that exhibited signs of an infection. The only medication Pratt
saw in the trailer was a small vial of doxycycline. Yzaguirre said the cats were
undergoing antibiotic treatment, but based on the severity of the symptoms, Officer
Hartman believed Yzaguirre could not adequately care for the animals.
The smell of ammonia and feces inside the trailer was so strong it burned Officer
Hartman’s eyes. Officer Hartman saw mucus, vomit, and other organic matter on a cat
tree and other surfaces. Officer Aeschlimann saw litter boxes that had not been cleaned
and cat urine on several surfaces, conditions she said indicated neglect. She said there
was no ventilation in the trailer.
Animal Services personnel determined that immediate intervention was necessary
as most of the cats were extremely ill and the conditions in the trailer were harmful to
their health. Pratt concluded, based on what she saw, that Yzaguirre failed to provide
adequate care for the cats resulting in severe suffering and endangerment, necessitating
seizure.
When Animal Services personnel paused their activities to allow Yzaguirre and
her daughter to say goodbye to the cats, Yzaguirre hid cats in cabinets and the trailer
bathroom. Animal Services personnel took 11 cats that appeared to be neglected and
needed medical attention. They did not seize cats that appeared healthy or that they could
not catch. All of the seized cats, except for two, were sneezing. Most of them had some
type of discharge.
The cats were taken to an animal shelter and examined by a veterinarian on
September 17, the earliest appointment available. Six cats were transferred to a
veterinary hospital. Those cats were diagnosed with severe infectious ailments, including
mycoplasma, chlamydia, and calicivirus. Mycoplasma is a type of bacteria that can cause
respiratory infections. In more severe cases, mycoplasma can cause pneumonia or
conjunctivitis. Chlamydia affects a cat’s eyes and respiratory system, resulting in
conjunctivitis, sneezing, and nasal discharge. Calicivirus is a virus that affects the
4
respiratory system and can result in sneezing, nasal discharge, fever, and severe
respiratory distress. Mycoplasma, chlamydia and calicivirus are highly contagious.
Pratt stated the conditions in the trailer – overcrowding, bad hygiene, and lack of proper
ventilation – contributed to transmission of pathogens.
Yzaguirre requested an administrative hearing to challenge the seizure of the cats.
Administrative hearing officer Aaron Washco heard the matter on October 25. Yzaguirre
and her attorney attended the hearing.
The County presented photographs depicting the outside and inside of the trailer
and the cats in it, plus veterinary records for six of the seized cats showing that the cats
had severe eye disease.
At the hearing, Yzaguirre said she rescued cats. She explained that the cats seized
on September 11 had been in the trailer for two days. The cats were transferred there
while she was cleaning the carpets in her home. She claimed there were portholes on the
trailer roof and that a generator ventilated the trailer, although she did not run the
generator when she was not present.
Yzaguirre said she had deep cleaned the trailer and cleaned and washed everything
in it daily but she did not do a thorough cleaning on September 11. She described her
daily routine for cleaning. She did not disagree, however, that feces were present behind
the litter box in the trailer and it did not look like that area had been cleaned in a while.
She also admitted that the conditions in the trailer on September 11 were not appropriate
for the cats.
Yzaguirre described the food and medications she gave to the cats and what she
spent to care for them. She presented records of her purchases and veterinary records for
treatment administered before September 11. She admitted that all 11 seized cats had
mycoplasma, chlamydia and/or calicivirus and said those conditions were being treated.
Hearing officer Washco upheld the seizure, making the following findings. There
were prior reports of suspected animal abuse or neglect by Yzaguirre. Upon their arrival,
5
Animal Services personnel saw trash, animal waste, and a blanket with a large amount of
cat urine and feces on it outside the trailer. They detected an overpowering smell of
ammonia coming from the trailer. Viewing the trailer’s interior from the outside, they
saw numerous cats. They found a dozen or more cats upon entering the trailer and saw
many cats with obvious symptoms of infection, illness, and neglect. The hearing officer
concluded that in light of what was known to Animal Services personnel at the time of
the seizure, the conclusion that very prompt action was required to protect the health and
safety of the cats was reasonable, and the immediate seizure of the cats was justified
under section 597.1.
Yzaguirre filed a petition for writ of ordinary and administrative mandate
challenging the hearing officer’s decision. The trial court entered a judgment denying the
writ petition. Concluding that no fundamental right was at issue, it reviewed the agency’s
decision under the substantial evidence standard. Pertinent here, the trial court ruled that
substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s finding that immediate seizure of the
cats was reasonably justified under section 597.1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Yzaguirre filed a petition for writ of ordinary mandate and also administrative
mandate. As we will explain in the discussion portion of the opinion, under either
standard substantial evidence supports the hearing officer’s findings, and there was no
error in concluding that very prompt action was necessary to protect the health or safety
of the animals.
“ ‘Ordinary mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is used to review
ministerial acts, quasi-legislative acts, and quasi-judicial decisions which do not meet the
requirements for review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. [Citations.] In
such cases, the appropriate standard is whether the agency’s action was arbitrary,
capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or failed to follow the procedure
required by law.’ ” (Tracy Rural County Fire Protection Dist. v. Local Agency
6
Formation Com. of San Joaquin County (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 91, 106, italics omitted.)
We employ the substantial evidence standard in determining whether evidentiary support
is present. (Alameda Health System v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn.
(2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1159, 1177-1178; Cypress Security, LLC v. City and County of
San Francisco (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1010; see Joint Council of Interns &
Residents v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1202, 1214; City of Santa Cruz
v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 393.)
Administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 applies
where a party seeks review of a final determination by a public agency made as a result
of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to
be taken, and discretion in determining facts is vested in the agency. (Beach & Bluff
Conservancy v. City of Solana Beach (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 244, 258; Friends of the Old
Trees v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1389.)
Where a fundamental right is not involved, the trial court reviews the entire
administrative record to ascertain whether findings are supported by substantial evidence
and whether the agency committed any errors of law.4 (Poncio v. Department of
Resources Recycling & Recovery (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 663, 668-669 (Poncio).) On
appeal, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the agency’s findings.
(Benetatos v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1281; MHC Operating
Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 218, 220.)
Irrespective of whether Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 or 1094.5 applies, we
4 In her appellate reply brief, Yzaguirre properly acknowledges that under Code of Civil
Procedure section 1094.5 we review factual findings under the substantial evidence
standard. (Zuniga v. County of San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218
Cal.App.3d 1521, 1530; see People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 385, fn. 3;
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 388; Id. at p.
394 (dis. opn. of Arabian, J.); Nicchia v. New York (1920) 254 U.S. 228, 230.) Yzaguirre
does not claim this case involves a fundamental vested right.
7
review questions of law de novo. (County of San Diego v. State of California (1997)
15 Cal.4th 68, 109; Mohilef v. Janovici (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 285.)
“ ‘Under the substantial evidence test, the agency’s findings are presumed to be
supported by the administrative record and, in both the trial court and here on appeal, it is
the petitioner/appellant’s burden to show they are not. [Citations.] We “ ‘do not reweigh
the evidence; we indulge all presumptions and resolve all conflicts in favor of the
[agency’s] decision. Its findings come before us “with a strong presumption as to their
correctness and regularity.” [Citation.]’ ” [Citation.] When more than one inference can
be reasonably deduced from the facts, we cannot substitute our own deductions for that of
the agency. [Citation.] We may reverse an agency’s decision only if, based on the
evidence before it, a reasonable person could not have reached such decision.
[Citations.]’ ” (Poncio, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 669.)
DISCUSSION
I
Yzaguirre contends the hearing officer failed to evaluate whether Animal Services
personnel held a reasonable belief that very prompt action was required to protect the
health or safety of each animal seized.
Because Yzaguirre did not raise this contention in the administrative proceeding
and in the trial court, the claim is forfeited. (Doe v. University of Southern California
(2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 26, 37; Rand v. Board of Psychology (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 565,
587; Dobos v. Voluntary Plan Administrators, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 678, 688.)
Although Yzaguirre asserts in her appellate reply brief that she raised the issue at the trial
court hearing on her writ petition, she does not cite to a portion of the record supporting
her assertion and we have found no such support. Claims made without a supporting
record citation are forfeited. (Miller v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 728, 743;
Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)
8
II
Yzaguirre further contends the trial court erred because there were no exigent
circumstances warranting immediate action and the warrantless seizure was not excused
under her probation search condition.
Section 597.1 makes it a misdemeanor for an owner or keeper of any animal to
permit the animal to be in an enclosure without proper care and attention. (§ 597.1,
subd. (a).) It authorizes peace, humane society, and animal control officers to seize any
animal that by reason of lameness, sickness, feebleness, or neglect, is unfit for the labor it
is performing, or that in any other manner is being cruelly treated. (§ 597.1, subd. (b).)
In either case, when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action
is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or of others, the officer must
immediately seize the animal and provide the owner or keeper of the animal an
opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure. (§ 597.1,
subds. (a), (b).)
As we explained in the introduction, the “very prompt” standard is the equivalent
of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth
Amendment to the federal Constitution. (Broden, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1220-
1221.) “That exception allows entry without benefit of a warrant when a law
enforcement officer confronts an emergency situation requiring swift action to save life,
property, or evidence.” (Id. at p. 1221; accord People v. Chung (2010) 195 Cal.App.4th
721, 727-728 (Chung).) The exception applies and, thus, no warrant is required, when an
officer reasonably believes an injured or mistreated animal is in immediate need of aid.
(People v. Williams (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 111, 122 (Williams); Chung, at p. 732;
Broden, at p. 1222.) We determine whether exigent circumstances existed to justify a
warrantless search or seizure by looking at facts known to the officer at the time of the
seizure and whether those facts, viewed objectively, presented exigent circumstances
9
justifying the officer’s actions. (Williams, at p. 122; Chung, at p. 728; Recchia v. City of
L.A. Dept. of Animal Servs. (9th Cir. 2018) 889 F.3d 553, 560 (Recchia).)
In Broden, a humane society officer responded to a complaint about stench and
flies at a shop selling reptiles. (Broden, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1217, 1222.) When
the officer arrived, she detected an odor outside the shop that she knew from experience
was the smell of decaying flesh. (Id. at p. 1221.) The door to the shop was locked and
the officer could not see inside the building. (Id. at pp. 1221-1222.) There were flies
inside the shop and flies trying to get in. (Id. at p. 1221.) The officer entered the shop
without a warrant. (Id. at pp. 1221-1222.) The stench inside the store came from two
dead snakes. (Id. at p. 1217.) The officer seized all the animals in the shop. (Ibid.) In a
writ of administrative mandate action challenging the entry, the appellate court held
substantial evidence supported the conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the
officer’s warrantless entry. (Id. at p. 1222.)
In Chung, exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into the defendant’s
condominium where a neighbor reported hearing the high-pitched cries of a dog in pain
coming from the defendant’s unit and told responding officers she feared a dog was in
danger, and a responding officer heard the sound of a dog whimpering inside the unit
after the defendant denied owning any dogs. (Chung, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at pp. 724-
725, 729.) The appellate court concluded it was reasonable under those circumstances
for responding officers to believe an animal was in distress inside the defendant’s
condominium and to enter the condominium without a warrant to check on the welfare of
the animal. (Id. at pp. 725, 730-732.)
In Recchia, the plaintiff kept birds in boxes and cages that were covered with feces
and too small for the birds to fly. (Recchia, supra, 889 F.3d at p. 556.) One bird had a
tumor and feather loss, another had tremors, another had a non-functional eye, and still
another had contorted legs. (Ibid.) Other birds appeared healthy. (Ibid.) Animal control
officers initially only intended to seize the sick or injured birds but then seized all of them
10
because the officers believed the plaintiff could not adequately care for the birds. (Id. at
pp. 556-557.) Discussing the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirement, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the
exception would apply in a case involving an obviously diseased or ill animal living in
foul conditions that may be causing or compounding the animal’s suffering, or a case in
which an infected animal may transmit a disease to other animals. (Recchia, at p. 559.)
The court explained that if all the plaintiff’s birds had appeared sick, the emergency
exception to the warrant requirement would have applied to end their suffering and
prevent transmission of illness. (Ibid.) But because not all the birds seized appeared to
be sick and there was no evidence the animal control officers knew healthy-looking birds
could carry a disease or pathogen, there was a factual dispute precluding summary
adjudication as to the healthy-looking birds. (Id. at pp. 555-556, 559-560.)
Substantial evidence supports the hearing officer’s finding that before the
September 11 seizure, there were reports about possible animal neglect by Yzaguirre. On
August 14, Animal Services received an e-mail from a concerned person that Yzaguirre
kept cats in a locked trailer and there was a strong odor of cat urine coming from the
trailer. About three weeks later, Animal Services received information that Yzaguirre
brought several sick kittens to a veterinary hospital. Days later, a social worker informed
the Mammoth Lakes Police Department about possible animal cruelty by Yzaguirre, and
that Yzaguirre kept as many as 21 cats. Additionally, in May 2023, Animal Services
removed 30 cats from Yzaguirre’s home at the request of Yzaguirre’s mother, and Officer
Hartman determined the conditions in the home were unfit for the animals. (Williams,
supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 123 [consideration of prior calls about the conditions of
animals on the property in determining whether law enforcement officers reasonably
believed a whining dog in the garage needed immediate aid].)
The statements by Animal Services personnel and the written report by Deputy
Reigle support the hearing officer’s finding that conditions in the trailer were unhealthy
11
for the cats that Yzaguirre kept there. Animal Services personnel and Deputy Reigle saw
trash and a blanket with a large amount of cat urine and feces outside the trailer and were
overwhelmed by the smell of ammonia coming from the trailer. From outside the trailer,
the officers saw numerous cats inside. The trailer appeared to lack proper ventilation and
the interior appeared filthy to Pratt. Moreover, many of the cats appeared extremely ill to
Animal Services personnel. Some cats had ocular issues and showed signs of respiratory
distress.
Observations made after entering the trailer confirmed the concerns of Animal
Services personnel. There were 20 or more cats in the trailer. The trailer lacked proper
ventilation. The smell of ammonia and feces burned Officer Hartman’s eyes. There was
old vomit on a cat tree, litter boxes that had not been cleaned, and cat urine on several
surfaces, conditions Officer Aeschlimann said indicated neglect. Officer Hartman
corroborated the presence of mucus, vomit, and other organic matter on surfaces in the
trailer. Many of the cats exhibited signs of serious illness. Officer Aeschlimann saw that
many cats showed signs of respiratory distress and had nasal discharge, and a kitten had
severe ocular problems and appeared to be suffering from an infection. Officer Hartman
believed, based on the severity of the symptoms she saw, that Yzaguirre could not
adequately care for the animals.
A veterinarian subsequently confirmed six of the seized animals had severe
infectious ailments, including mycoplasma, chlamydia, and calicivirus. Mycoplasma,
chlamydia, and calicivirus were highly contagious. The overcrowded, dirty, and poorly
ventilated conditions in the trailer increased the risk of transmission of pathogens. A
seven-week-old kitten had severe eye disease that likely required removal of an eye.
Two other cats had eye injuries. Three kittens had difficulty breathing. At the hearing,
Yzaguirre admitted the conditions in the trailer were not appropriate for the cats.
On this record, there is no error in the conclusion that information known to
Animal Services personnel at the time of the entry into the trailer and the subsequent
12
seizure of the cats gave them reasonable grounds to believe the cats lacked proper care
and attention or were being cruelly treated, and that very prompt action was necessary to
protect their health or safety. Those circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the
trailer and immediate seizure of the 11 cats under section 597.1. That Animal Services
could not secure an appointment for a veterinarian to examine the seized animals before
September 17 does not require a contrary conclusion.
Because we conclude the Animal Services personnel’s actions were authorized
under section 597.1, we need not address whether the actions were also justified under
the probation search exception to the warrant requirement. We also do not consider the
claim made for the first time in Yzaguirre’s appellate reply brief that immediate seizure
under section 597.1 was not justified because the cats were in the trailer only temporarily.
(Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 482, fn. 10; Neighbours v. Buzz Oates
Enterprises (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 325, 335, fn. 8.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
MAURO, J.
We concur:
/S/
EARL, P. J.
/S/
ROBIE, J.
13