United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Federal Judge Rules Unlicensed Dogs Aren't Protected By Fourth Amendment
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/03/f ... dge-rules-unlicensed-dogs-aren
Published: Aug 3, 2017
Author: C.J. Ciaramella
Post Date: 2017-08-04 10:11:12 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3599
Comments: 39
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Michigan woman has no basis to sue the Detroit Police Department (DPD) for shooting her three dogs because they were not properly licensed. U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Detroit resident Nikita Smith last last year after a marijuana raid by Detroit police left her three dogs shot to death. The ruling is the first time a federal court has considered the question of whether an unlicensed pet—in violation of city or state code—is protected property under the Fourth Amendment. Federal courts have established that pets are protected from unreasonable seizures (read: killing) by police, but the city of Detroit argued in a motion in March that Smith's dogs, because they were unlicensed, were "contraband" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, meaning she had no legitimate property interest in them and therefore no basis to sue the officers or department. In his Wednesday opinion Steeh agreed. "The Court is aware that this conclusion may not sit well with dog owners and animal lovers in general," the judge wrote. "The reason for any unease stems from the fact that while pet owners consider their pets to be family members, the law considers pets to be property." "The requirements of the Michigan Dog Law and the Detroit City Code, including that all dogs be current with their rabies vaccines, exist to safeguard the public from dangerous animals," he continued. "When a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property or contraband. Without any legitimate possessory interest in the dogs, there can be no violation of the Fourth Amendment." And without any Fourth Amendment violation, Steeh continued, there is no basis for a civil rights claim against the city. Steeh also ruled that Smith's suit would have been dismissed even if she had a cognizable property interest in the dogs, finding that the animals presented an imminent threat to the officers. Smith's lawsuit characterized the Detroit police officers who raided her house as a "dog death squad." She claimed officers shot one of her pets through a closed bathroom door. Graphic photos from the raid on Smith's house showed the dog lying dead in a blood-soaked bathroom. Smith's case is only one of several lawsuits that have been filed against the DPD for dog shootings over the past two years. The city of Detroit settled one of those suits for $100,000 after dash cam video showed an officer shooting a man's dog while it was chained to a fence. It was also one of three lawsuits against DPD for shooting dogs during marijuana raids. The most recent was filed in June after DPD officers allegedly shot a couple's dogs while the animals were behind a backyard fence. A Reason investigation last year found the DPD's Major Violators Unit, which conducts drug raids in the city, has a track record of leaving dead dogs in its wake. One officer had shot 39 dogs over the course of his career before the raid on Smith's house, according to public records. That officer is now up to 73 kills, according to the most recent records obtained by Reason. Two other officers involved in the Smith raid testified during the trial that they had shot "fewer than 20" and "at least 19" dogs over the course of their careers. The court's opinion notes that the "police officers conducting the search had not received any specific training on how to handle animal encounters during raids." The ruling also noted that Detroit police supervisors found that the shooting of Smith's dogs by officers were all justified. "However, as in many other cases, the ratifying officers did so without speaking to the officers about what had transpired," the court wrote. Reason's review of "destruction of animal" reports filed by Detroit police officers did not find a single instance where a supervisor found that a dog shooting was unjustified. Detroit police obtained a search warrant for Smith's residence after receiving a tip that marijuana was being sold out of it. Police confiscated 25 grams of marijuana as a result of the raid, and Smith was charged with a misdemeanor. However, the case against her was later dismissed when officers failed to appear at her court hearing. Neither an attorney for Smith nor the Detroit Police Department were immediately available for comment. Poster Comment: Police confiscated 25 grams of marijuana as a result of the raid... Less than one ounce.Nikita Smith sued the Detroit police after they shot her three dogs on a pot raid. A judge ruled the dogs were "contraband."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
Do I have to say it? A Code violation does not come into the purview of law enforcement. It is at most a civil matter and the fines must be adjudicated in a lengthy and expensive process with the costs being born only by he who brings suit. With that said, I have never licensed my pets, and will never license my pet. I take him to the doctor, he has his vaccinations, but I WILL NOT SUBMIT to a licensing fee every 6 months X eternity.
Pot possession is not a code violation. The issue was whether the alleged owner could sue for the killing of the dogs. As the dogs were not licensed, he was not the lawful owner, therefore he had no legal right to sue for damages. It's your choice. The legal consequence is that you are not the lawful owner of the property (pets) and cannot sue for injury to, or death of, "your" pets.
That sounds like a leap to me. Is your living room couch licensed? If not, are you therefore not it's lawful owner? Can the state sever a person's right of ownership to property by creating a license? I think the judge's logic is flawed.
Is your living room couch licensed? Is an unlicensed couch unlawful to possess? If you possess something which is unlawful to possess, it is contraband and you are not the lawful owner. "Contraband any property the possession or transportation of which is illegal." Law Dioctionary, 2nd ed., Steven H. Gifis "Legal owner. One who is recognized and held responsible by by the law as the owner of property." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. During the civil war, the U.S.A. seized Confederate slaves as contraband. The only place you are going to contest a government action is a government court. They might have a conflict of interest but the dogs were held out to be contraband. They are not severing a right to legal ownership if said right never inhered. He was never recognized by the law as the owner. The Federal court judge wrote:
You failed to address my point. If the state requires no license to possess a living room couch, then your possessing one you acquired legally is considered legal and lawful ownership, and you cannot be deprived of it without violating the 4th Amendment. Then one day, the state decides to require a license to own a couch. You don't have one and let's say that in spite of your best efforts, you cannot obtain one. A license is, after all, a legal privilege. The police then raid your house and destroy your couch. You sue, but the court rules: So we go from point A where you had constitutional protection to your legal property of a couch, to point B where owning the same couch is a state privilege. In the process, the state succeeded in depriving you of what was a constitutional right via enactment of a statute that is inferior to that same constitutionally protected right. If the woman is in violation of possessing unlicensed dogs, she could/should be held accountable for that violation, but that does not mean the dogs are not her property. To argue she was not the owner of the dogs because the were not licensed does open a can of worms if, say, in the future another owner's unlicensed dogs attacked a neighbor. This same ruling would mandate that the dog's owner would not be legally liable for injury because the dogs were not licensed, and therefore, not legally owned by any person. Would this same judge accept that argument in such a case even when, without dispute, there was no question who the [illegal] owner of the dog was?
Then one day, the state decides to require a license to own a couch. You don't have one and let's say that in spite of your best efforts, you cannot obtain one. Let's make it a gun. You are the lawful owner. Either you lose your right to possess a gun (e.g., you acquire a State permit for marijuana; or you pick up a felony conviction), or the gun law changes so the particular gun is illegal to possess. When the law says that something is unlawful to possess, you cannot be the lawful owner of that thing. When the law specifies you need a license to own or possess something, if you do not get the license, you are not the lawful owner. If you are unable to obtain a gun license, despite your best efforts to obtain one, you may not possess a gun. You cannot sue for compensation for the loss of something that was unlawfully in your possession. If you rob a bank and bring the booty home and your neighbor helps himself to it, you cannot sue to get the money back. You cannot sue anybody to get paid for the loss of something that did not lawfully belong to you. That is what the Federal court ruled.
What's scary is that too many people think the way you do. I don't need permission from the government to own a gun, a cat, a dog or a horse. I haven't licensed my mountain bike - I bought and paid for it. It's MINE, no matter what you and the other black-robed fascists say. You statists never stop trying to infringe on our rights, do you?
#20. To: Deckard (#18)
What is really scary is people like you who claim to know what others think. I wrote what the law and the court said. I did not state any personal opinion of agreement or disagreement with the law. If you do not like the law, change it. I do not care if you license your crap or not. Under the prevailing law, you do so at your own risk.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: jeremiad, Deckard (#4)
Do I have to say it? A Code violation does not come into the purview of law enforcement.
I have never licensed my pets, and will never license my pet.
#6. To: nolu chan (#5)
As the dogs were not licensed, he was not the lawful owner,
#7. To: Pinguinite (#6)
That sounds like a leap to me.
Can the state sever a person's right of ownership to property by creating a license?
"The requirements of the Michigan Dog Law and the Detroit City Code, including that all dogs be current with their rabies vaccines, exist to safeguard the public from dangerous animals," he continued. "When a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property or contraband. Without any legitimate possessory interest in the dogs, there can be no violation of the Fourth Amendment."
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
When a person owns a couch that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property or contraband. Without any legitimate possessory interest in the couch, there can be no violation of the Fourth Amendment."
#17. To: Pinguinite (#9)
If the state requires no license to possess a living room couch, then your possessing one you acquired legally is considered legal and lawful ownership, and you cannot be deprived of it without violating the 4th Amendment.
#18. To: nolu chan (#17)
If you are unable to obtain a gun license, despite your best efforts to obtain one, you may not possess a gun.
Replies to Comment # 18. What's scary is that too many people think the way you do.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]