​The new Oregon law regarding breaking into hot cars to rescue dogs and children is short, simple, and to me, unclear.

The law says, in part, that the rescuer must have "a good faith and reasonable belief, based upon the circumstances, that entry into the motor vehicle is necessary because the child or animal is in imminent danger of suffering harm."

​What is "imminent danger"? Your opinion may differ greatly from mine.
​
I am aware of laws that say that in order to legally break into a hot car, the animal must be "in distress." That's pretty clear I think, and is very different from imminent danger. Imminent danger comes before distress. But to what degree?

Where the law states the dog must be in distress, you can't break the window just because you believe the animal to be in "imminent danger." He must be experiencing extreme suffering. "DISTRESS."

I wanted to get a clarification on this, so I tried The Humane Society (referred me to Animal Control), Animal Control (left a voice message), the Police Bureau (no answer) and finally, the office of Senator Manning Jr., one of the sponsors of the bill. (Reminded me of my old days out of college when I was a newspaper reporter, especially when he asked if I was with the media. LOL)

​His office checked with the Judiciary Council which said there was no clear definition. They offered to check court decisions for an answer and if not, they would refer to the "dictionary definition." They are to call me soon with an opinion and I will pass that on to you next week.

Interesting...