Councilwoman Merle introduced a proposed ordinance that would permit trained first responders — police, fire, EMS and animal‑control officers — to enter unattended motor vehicles to rescue animals in distress, and to seize animals if necessary, with procedural safeguards spelled out in the draft.

Joy Keeley, identified in the meeting as the Kentucky Link Coalition founder and a retired Louisville Metro lieutenant, told the council she drafted Louisville Metro’s ordinance and recommended a locally tailored version. Keeley said she based the proposal on KRS 411.24245 and federal case law (a Sixth Circuit decision she cited) she summarized as allowing entry when exigent circumstances exist to protect people or animals. "Animals could die in 15 minutes," Keeley said, urging the council to give first responders clear authority.

Keeley said Louisville Metro receives four to five animal‑in‑vehicles calls per week during summer months and that having first responders authorized and trained has allowed faster response and fewer preventable deaths. She advised restricting authority to trained first responders rather than general members of the public to reduce inappropriate window‑breaking. The draft also requires reasonable attempts to locate an owner and directs coordination with animal control; Keeley said animal‑control and county attorney staff reviewed and were agreeable to inclusion.

Council members and staff discussed practical issues: how courts handle owner complaints about broken windows, how temperature and animal distress are assessed, and whether inclusion should cover all animals (Keeley and staff said the Sixth Circuit case law does not limit the definition of "others" to a single species). Councilwoman Owens and others raised local shelter capacity and the complexity of "court dogs" and litigation that can keep seized animals in custody for extended periods; Councilwoman Burrow clarified that a designation from Best Friends Animal Society is an award for adoption rates and explained that the county shelter was dealing with higher intake and lower adoptions but is not a policy of euthanasia.

Staff indicated they will place the ordinance on a future council agenda for consideration and that municipal legal and animal‑control staff had been consulted.