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."
I have to believe that there's a special place in Hell for you, that you're in it now, and you created it for yourself.
I guess the question is, "Why?"
Except I don't care. Don't even begin to. The next worse thing to a dog killer is a dog hater. It takes a special kind of sphinc-hole to hate a dog.
Whatever happened to you to leave you this bent, twisted, and misshapen of a psychological freak, it must have been horrible. I feel bad for you, if that helps.
The same feeling you have for me, I have for you. I worship No human being. And I especially don’t hold a beast of burden, above human life. Trust me, if it came down to you and your family starving (of course this is a hypothetical) your cute little doggie would be on the dinner table. And if it wasn’t, like I said, your logic is clouded.
Biscuits not Bullets
Responsible owners of all breeds keep their dogs contained.
Joe,... stop BARKING. The Neighbors will call the cops and have you SHOT.
Diplomacy is the art of saying “Nice Troll” until you can find a ZOT.
First, if it was a warrant for a non-violent drug offense, why go in blazing away?
Second, did they find the drugs they were looking for? Were there weapons, was there resistance, were the folks even home?
I dunno, I've just got an issue with the black clad boyz with their toyz swatting on every occasion now dayz. It's different if you're dealing with a known gang member or criminal that has a history of weapons/assaults/violence.
Again, I am amazed while I know that I shouldn’t be. I continue to make the error of thinking that this group is primarily populated with rational adults.
This whole thread has turned into abject, foul chaos. Happens every time a serious incident involving dogs occurs. Especially over the top if it is a “pit bull”.
Do you people understand what the real point and meaning of the issue here is? Hint. It’s NOT about dogs. Duh, duh, duh.
The issue here is should the government and its representative, law enforcement, be the ones who decide what constitutes sufficient perceived threat as justification for killing an animal or a person? Dog, humans, same thing in principle.
If you believe that carte blanche for killing dogs is not on the same slipper slope with humans you are being very short sighted.
Whether the cops were justified in this..particular..instance is NOT the real point or concern. It’s what the courts say they can use for justification whenever they shoot. Which appears to be pretty much anything as far as the courts are concerned.
You can’t make general policy based on an exception to the general. That’s what progressives do.
I have no feelings for you, save for this:
Merry Christmas! I hope your Christmas dinner is better than eating your "work dog." LMAO!
"Troll"?
I've been FReeping since shortly after Jim started FreeRepublic in late in 1997 (at first, this was a private, "Members Only" site, I started in early 1998), and I've seen all of the actual "Trolls" who ever got "zotted" on the newer "public" site served their medicine.
Koal-puke is the only troll in this discussion, and he disagrees with me, Lurker, Doughty One, Jeff Chandler, 5th MEB and a vast number of other legacy FReepers regarding anyone shooting our dogs.
We may be very sure of our opinions herewith, but "Trolls" we are not.
ZOT this.
——Keep them on a short chain or prepare for their demise.
Responsible owners of all breeds keep their dogs contained.——
Just a horrible assumption to think the inside of your home or fenced/gated property is sufficient containment for the family pets. I believe caging them in your home or chaining them up really indicates you should not have a pup. Who lives with a family pet worrying their lifestyle will invite armed attack by the law enforcement community.
Even more to the point: No American should be allowed to keep any pets whatsoever. They don't allow pets in jail, do they?
Look, why do Americans insist on keeping deadly ‘assault dogs’ with high-capacity teeth? If it saves ONE CHILD, cops should be able to search for and kill any dogs you have! Dogs are dangerous! And the life of any cop is far more important than the life of any citizen!
Get yer mind right!
I'm with you! That which is not banned, should be mandatory! No way should Americans be allowed to own guns, cars, dogs, cats, anything metal, anything that uses electricity.... NOTHING! Americans should be locked in our cells 23 hours per day, with one-hour common area time, and exercise in the yard from 2-4 on Saturdays!
ANYTHING ELSE IS PURE ANARCHY!!!!!11~!!1~1
But I'm a little concerned. You carved out an exception for 'service animals'. You're not one of those whackadoodle Constitution-waving libertarians, are ya?????????????????????????????????????
So, protecting a dog is legal, which means if a cop is going to shoot a dog for barking then a cops can be shot in return, which means a cop can be shot for a dog barking. Got it.
“Even more to the point: No American should be allowed to keep any pets whatsoever. They don’t allow pets in jail, do they? “
Tingle up the spine moment: That is exactly how the fascists liberals thinks.
If a firearm is discharged in my home or on my property, I will be in fear of my life and will act accordingly.
Do you mean I replied to the wrong person?
I was *aiming* at Koal-puke.
My most abject apologies, Gargantua. I know you’re one of the good guys.
May the year ahead hold more understanding, and less misunderstanding.
;^)
(P.S.) I promise to try hard do my part!
I’m not saying anything like that. Anyone is free to have as many “pets” as they please. I think I might be projecting my utter distain for people who place an animals life above a human. Ya know, the people who put a sweater on their doggie and hope people will adore it. Listen, I don’t hate dogs at all, I just don’t understand having one as an ornament. Hunting dogs, service dogs, I get that. All I did was voice my opinion. That’s why I love this site. Because you can voice it, agree or disagree and move on.
Merry Christmas to all!!
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.