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: 2822
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 # 35.
#30. To: Deckard, jeremiad, Vicomte13, Stoner, Pinguinite, Anthem, A K A Stone, rlk (#0)
Smith v. Detroit, Doc 27, Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment: At pg. 32: “Conversion is any distinct act of dominion wrongly exerted over another’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein.” Thoma v. Tracy Motor Sales, Inc., 104 N.W.2d 360, 362 (Mich. 1960). There is no liability for the actor if he or she is privileged to dispose of the chattel. Id.; Preston, 2015 WL 12516687, at *10. In Preston, the plaintiff’s dog was not properly licensed. 2015 WL 12516687, at *10. This court held that “the officers were privileged to dispose of the dog in accordance with their duty to enforce State laws and City ordinances regarding pet licensing.” Id. Unlike Preston, the dogs in this case were not roaming outdoors, and the police were unaware they were not licensed. However, because the dogs were not licensed, Plaintiffs had no legitimate interest in them. The Michigan Dog Law of 1919 specifically provides that people can recover for when their licensed dogs are unlawfully killed.
Thankfully the day will come when all lawyers will be rounded up and summarily executed along with their father Lucifer. Mankind will finally be able to live in peace. JMO .
And the day will come when you are a defendant and demand your right to an attorney. Or, perhaps you will be a crime victim and there will be no prosecutors. Or you may want to litigate something as a complainant, but there are no judges or courts. Might as well do away with cops too. Anybody arrested would just do eternity waiting for a trial with no courts.
If it were not for lawyers, the world would be a vastly better place. I for one could never afford a lawyer, and the ones appointed spend their lives talking people into taking plea deals. The laws would be simply written, easily interpreted, and strictly targeted to actual person against person crimes instead of the State v so and so. I hired a lawyer once, he took my money and didn't do anything positive. He actually walked out of court and left me alone against the judge and State attorneys looking to force me into signing a Promissory note for a debt that I proved to have paid. You can guess it was a child support case, and it cost me about $28K for the bill, and $5K for the attorney. I stiffed him on some of that bill. The Judge actually acted in the interest of the DSHS attorneys, telling me that I would be thrown in jail if I did not sign a paper waiving my rights to continue filing for forgiveness of debt. My wife had gotten onto Welfare claiming to be getting no child support, while at the same time getting child support. Guess who had to pay twice?
#37. To: jeremiad (#35)
Of course, with no lawyers, there would be no need for courts or cops. Absent courts or cops, there would be no need for a legislature or regulatory agency. Indeed, you can just bring back the king. But there are no person against person crimes. All crimes are against the state. Person against person civil offenses are torts. People sue people for damages. A lawyer, once having taken a case, cannot just excuse himself. You may have fired him, or he may have obtained leave from the court to be excused. You had to inform the court that you were proceeding on your own. My definition of proof of payment would be the canceled checks, for the required amount, bearing the endorsing signature. Your idea of proof may vary. Evidently, your idea of proof and the court's idea of proof differed. One does not file for forgiveness of a debt one can prove has been paid. Filing for forgiveness admits of the existence of the debt. It appears the judge advised that you had Option A or Option B, but that Option C, delay based on a request for forgiveness was not available. One cannot escape required support payments by filing for forgiveness of a debt. Perhaps you insisted that your attorney argue about forgiveness to the court and he refused and was excused from the case.
The law is an ass. Which is why it's so odd that Americans make such a fetish out of it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest B. Unlicensed dogs and conversion claims
#31. To: nolu chan (#30)
#32. To: jeremiad (#31)
Thankfully the day will come when all lawyers will be rounded up and summarily executed along with their father Lucifer.
#35. To: nolu chan (#32)
Replies to Comment # 35. If it were not for lawyers, the world would be a vastly better place. I for one could never afford a lawyer, and the ones appointed spend their lives talking people into taking plea deals.
The laws would be simply written, easily interpreted, and strictly targeted to actual person against person crimes instead of the State v so and so.
I hired a lawyer once, he took my money and didn't do anything positive. He actually walked out of court and left me alone against the judge and State attorneys looking to force me into signing a Promissory note for a debt that I proved to have paid. You can guess it was a child support case, and it cost me about $28K for the bill, and $5K for the attorney.
The Judge actually acted in the interest of the DSHS attorneys, telling me that I would be thrown in jail if I did not sign a paper waiving my rights to continue filing for forgiveness of debt.
#39. To: jeremiad (#35)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]