Posted on 12/22/2016 7:59:39 PM PST by Elderberry
When is it constitutional for a police officer to shoot a dog during a raid? Any time it moves or barks, according to a federal appeals court.
In a ruling released Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found Battle Creek, Mich. police officers were justified in shooting two pit bulls while executing a search warrant for drugs on the home of Mark and Cheryl Brown in 2013. The Brown's sued the police department in 2015, arguing the killing of their dogs violated their constitutional rights.
The ruling creates a similar legal standard in the Sixth Circuit—which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee—that several other federal appeals courts have established, but it also appears to expand when it is acceptable for an officer to shoot a dog.
After breaking through the Brown's door, one Battle Creek officer testified that the first dog "had only moved a few inches" toward him before he shot it. The second dog ran into the basement.
"The second dog was not moving towards the officers when they discovered her in the basement, but rather she was 'just standing there,' barking and was turned sideways to the officers," the court narrative continues. "Klein then fired the first two rounds at the second dog."
Police departments around the country have been hit with expensive lawsuits for shooting family pets in recent years, following a 2005 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the unreasonable killing of a dog by a police officer is an unconstitutional "seizure" of property under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In September, a federal jury ordered the city of Hartford, Connecticut, to pay a whopping $200,000 to a family whose St. Bernard was shot by city police in 2006. Commerce City, Colorado, settled a dog shooting case in January for $262,500.
The Sixth Circuit readily agreed with its sister court's constitutional standard, but it found the Battle Creek officers' actions were reasonable because they had no knowledge of the dogs until they arrived at the house, and because there was no witness testimony rebutting the officers' narrative of what happened inside.
"The standard we set out today is that a police officer's use of deadly force against a dog while executing a warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when, given the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer, the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer's safety," the court wrote.
As I reported in my November investigation of several ongoing lawsuits against the Detroit Police department for shooting family dogs, owners' accounts often differed wildly from the official police narrative of events. The officers almost always described dogs as "lunging" and "vicious" to justify their status as an imminent threat.
Yet, this is the totality of the Sixth Circuit's reasoning for the reasonableness of the shooting of the second dog:
"Officer Klein testified that the dog, a 53-pound unleashed pit bull, was standing in the middle of the basement, barking, when he fired the first two rounds," the court wrote. "The officers testified that they were unable to safely clear the basement with both dogs there. Therefore, we find that it was reasonable for Officer Klein to shoot the second dog."
The Sixth Circuit's definition of "reasonableness" here is so broad that it would it appear to classify any dog that is not standing still and silent as an imminent threat.
Detroit attorney Chris Olson, who is representing several dog owners suing the Detroit Police Department, says that while the ruling in many ways hews to the established Ninth Circuit standard, it departs significantly enough that it could be considered a circuit split—often a favorable factor in the Supreme Court's decisions on whether to review cases.
"To the extent that the case suggests that you can shoot a dog just because it's not moving and you have to clear a room, I just don't buy it," Olson says. "And I don't think the Ninth Circuit case supports that kind of activity."
Michael Oz is the director of a documentary examining police shootings of dogs, Of Dogs and Men, that was released this summer. He says the case would set an objectively unreasonable standard for dogs who end up in the line of fire.
"The greatest dog trainer in the world will not be able to keep a dog still and silent in the case of a dynamic entry like that," Oz says. "That's just not in their nature. If the standard that needs to be met to shoot is either moving or barking, then we can just assume that standard fits every dog [police] will ever encounter. It's the same as no standard."
Battle Creek Police Chief Jim Blocker told the Battle Creek Enquirer he was pleased with the ruling:
"It was a good ruling," Police Chief Jim Blocker said. "It pointed out some things we have to improve upon, but supported our operating concept that officers must act within reason."
Blocker said "officers have milliseconds to make a decision and it is a judgment call and based on too many variables. Ensuring officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence must be protected."
Well, in this case, they were pit bulls. I can understand the decision.
Too bad the same thing doesn’t apply to judges that makes stupid rulings
I searched for shoot, not execute.
And the cops can shoot you without much repercussion.
hurt my dog, and I’m going to jail...whether I’ve done ANYTHING else or not.
Did you bother to read the courts findings?
The dog's owner arrived while they were getting ready to execute the warrant, offered to open the door for them and remove the dogs. They chose instead to batter the door down and shoot the dogs.
Hurt my dog, I hurt you.
Put me in jail, BFD.
I am old enough that three hots and a cot with no work sounds pretty good.
Just be sure to tell your future widow and orphans that you were afraid for your life.
I will tell my dog that he has a peice of shit to to trim his toenails in heaven.
I read’em; if you have to CHASE the dog into the basement then shoot it DEAD, I am sure you TRULY FEARED FOR YOUR LIFE.
Piece of shit cop ought to be SLOWLY STRANGLED TO DEATH with a 3 foot piece of barbed wire.
http://www.wxii12.com/article/officer-who-shot-killed-dachshund-identified/2034744
Any adult male scared enough of a 12lb mini-doxie standing 6 inches high no matter how much barking or growling needs to be demoted to handing out tokens at chuckee cheese. My mini barks loud, and is very reactive to humans she doesn’t recognize, but if an adult cannot figure out what to do with a super small dog and just shoots it instead is a piece of garbage. I state this as the owner of a mini doxie and as an ex-cop.
I doubt this will be much of a problem in the Chappaqua woods, regardless of whether the owner or the dog does the barking.
That is very shallow thinking on multiple levels.
It is the same kind of thinking that permits government to enforce laws on all of us selectively as it pleases.
To you it’s just some dog you don’t like. So that’s OK. Well, plenty of times that same reasoning is applied to people. You ever notice how many non liberal people get prosecuted for stuff that would be ignored if the person was a lefty constituent? That’s OK, it’s just some white guy we don’t like anyway, right? So why bother sticking up for him?
I don’t gave a crap whether you like or hate pit bulls, you should reexamine the thought process that allowed to think that statement should have even been made.
Any predatory un-tagged dogs out here in the sticks gets a free burial. You got wild trash off a leash? Prepare for its disposal.
Dogs are generally protective of their masters. That’s one of the reasons why we love them. They will go up against incredible odds to defend us knowing they do so at extreme risk.
As I read these rulings, it occurs to me to ask, what do we do for them? In this instance, shockingly little to nothing! Okay, I admit I’m wrong. We execute them!
In the case of the dog downstairs, an animal control person could have been called to the home to get the dog under control. The dog has a right to live.
In animal speak (if you will), a dog with it’s side to you barking or growling is letting you know it is very upset, but is not intending to attack. If you’ll back off a bit, the animal will calm down.
Here, instead of backing off a bit, the officers simply shot the dog.
Look, I’m not here to place officers in dangerous situations. If a dog comes after you, you need to react. Perhaps there is a way to take a net with you, and while other officers prepare to execute cover fire if need be, one officer could take the dogs into custody.
If animal control people are smart enough to figure out how to subdue dogs without killing them, it seems police officers could to.
Training with a tranquilizer dart gun might be the answer.
Whatever the answer, gunning down dogs that are just being dogs, is over the top > IMO.
If a big dog does attack, it needs to be put down.
Officers could ask the owners to get the dogs under control too, as part of the execution of the search warrant.
I’ve seen too many raids on the wrong locations to simply give officer the right to shoot any dog on sight.
People have a right to demand safety for their dogs, and dogs have a right not to be killed on a whim.
>I don’t gave a crap whether you like or hate pit bulls
Keep them on a short chain or prepare for their demise.
The ruling:
I went into over 7,000 yards and houses in my prior career and was able to handle every dog except for three. Two were chows. The third was a demonically possessed wiener dog from hell channeling its inner satan.
Ha, I just remembered the outlandishly excited and happy bull dog I accidentally let out into the muddy backyard then ran back into the house and used the beige couch for a springboard on multiple high speed race circuits around the living room.
The court decision makes no such distinction as part of its reasoning. It can be any kind of dog.
It is now open season in the 6th circuit jurisdiction, as dogs will bark at all sorts of strangers, on its home territory.
Its an extreme over-reach. It will be abused because before this it was abused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.