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: 2819
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 # 26.
#13. To: Deckard (#0)
Sorry animal lovers but animals are not humans. Animals have no right to the protections of the constitution! Animals are property of the humans. This does not mean animals can not be protected by law on basic rights of humanity.
Animals are property, not a problem. Human beings have property rights. Those rights do not exist BECAUSE of government. They exist as a natural right with government is instituted to PROTECT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights Legal rights are the ones that can be enforced it courts of law. Natural rights are the subject of philosophers. Your legal rights, under the Constitution are in Amendment 5, that you will not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Your so-called natural rights may be argued in your philosophy class. The laws of the legal system may be argued in court. Pursuant to due process, they may lawfully take away your property.
There was no "due process" in destroying my property (dogs). The Judge is an power mad government ball licker.
No process was due. The dogs were contraband and you had no legitimate posessory interest. "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." Smith v. Detroit, Order granting Motion for Summary Judgment at 19-20. You may rail at the judge, but you still had no case for compensation. In Smith v. Detroit, the Court found no legal basis on which to proceed to trial and dismissed the case on a motion for summary judgment. The facts of the case, as stated in the court Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, indicate that the alleged facts in the yellow journalism article are bollocks. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nikita Smith and Kevin Thomas were squatting at the residence with three unlicensed dogs, two Pit Bulls and a Rottweiler. The cops were there lawfully serving a valid search warrant pursuant to neighbor complaints of drug dealing at the residence. 25.8 grams of marijuana was found. Kevin Thomas was not present during the execution of the search warrant. Nikita Smith was present when the warrant was served to search for illegal drugs. She "secured" the two Pit Bulls in the basement and the Rottweiler in a bathroom. "According to Smith, by the time she walked back to the living room, the officers were entering the house and Debo had escaped from the basement. “The first thing after I put the dogs up, my dog Debo . . . pushed the stove, and next thing you know he is standing beside me with the officers…" Order granting Motion for Summary Judgment at 6. The Michigan Dog Law of 1919 "only specifies that damages can be recovered for licensed dogs that are illegally killed." Order granting Motion for Summary Judgment at 19.
There are no replies to Comment # 26. End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#15. To: Justified (#13)
#23. To: jeremiad, Justified (#15)
Human beings have property rights. Those rights do not exist BECAUSE of government. They exist as a natural right with government is instituted to PROTECT.
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
#25. To: nolu chan (#23)
#26. To: jeremiad (#25)
There was no "due process" in destroying my property (dogs).
Replies to Comment # 26.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]