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."
Better knock and serve papers polightly, kick in my door and lead is flying out a hell of a lot faster than you are running in. I ain’t waiting to see if Santa comes in. Actions speak louder than words.
Wouldn’t thugs yell POLICE if they kicked in your door? Real cops knock and give you a warrent. Thugs kick in doors,
Nope, I live very rural, cops here are good guys, quite a few are my friends. I trust them. Kick in my door and you will not shoot my dog unless I missed.
Pull a weapon on my dog and we’ll all go down.
Do you even understand the point I was making?
You DO have functioning brain cells do you not? You can READ, correct? These dogs were well-contained IN THEIR OWNER'S HOUSE! How short a chain do you keep YOUR pets on INSIDE YOUR OWN HOUSE? The cops chased the second one into the basement and shot it in cold blood, even though there was NO THREAT!
You evidently know little about dog behaviour. A dog that is growling after running away from you is warning you to leave it be. Dangerous dogs that are about to attack are SILENT.
Some days I wonder about some of my fellow FReepers...
I have several close relations for whom I do not care nearly as much as I do my dogs. They are as much a part of my family as any human.
Any person that attempts to shoot one of my dogs is dead long before he clears leather. Cops included.
"To Serve And Protect" does not, cannot include killing loved, cherished family members. Want proof?
Ask a cop, or a judge, what happens if I shoot a police dog? See what I mean? Double standards suck ass, and need not apply.
I'd kill them deader than Glenn Beck's "The Blaze."
“hurt my dog, and I’m going to jail...whether I’ve done ANYTHING else or not.”
You and I think exactly alike. Our dogs have always been considered family. Moreso now, that all of our children are grown and have their own families.
I’d prefer to twist his nuts off with some vice-grips. For starters...
You realize that you are describing what happened at Twin Peaks restaurant in Whacko, Texas a little over a year ago. And here on FR you have “people” ( and I use the term loosely) that think it was o.k. for the cops to indiscriminately kill people because “they didn't like them," or that they "deserved it" because of who they were!
It can get confusing. Here, let me help:
Some of our fellow FReepers are assh0les. Plain and simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmvudelfYcw
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/police-officers-who-shoot-dogs/283764/
I’m sure the owners had those dogs because they were sweet-tempered and imperturbable.
There are many memories of the sixties in my book in my tagline.
To me, there is a very big problem in government deciding what it can be held liable for or not. ‘Oh, we’ve decided that was reasonable force.’ On the other hand, officers are liable if they break the porcelain teapot while searching the china cabinet.
So to boil down the decision - anything which a court can imagine being a threat to officers is reasonable force. So here’s my question to the court: IF such action is indeed ‘reasonable’, then are they indeed stating that if a civilian took the SAME actions they too would be shielded from repercussion?
Because if the answer is no, there is a problem. A huge problem that needs to be rectified.
Sometimes that doesn’t help. I’ve seen videos of cops shooting dogs who were restrained and no danger to anybody.
Valdo said, “You better call off your dogs or I’m gonna shoot ‘em.”
The voice from inside the house said, “Go ahead and shoot ‘em.”
The old man looked down and rubbed his forehead with his fingertips. He looked up and said, “You’ve done it now, mister.”
An older Hispanic woman stepped out of the house carrying a lever action rifle. She said, “But if you shoot my dogs, then I’m gonna have to shoot you.” She kept moving forward. “But I’m an old woman. My eyes don’t work so good no more. I’ll have to shoot a lot of bullets to make sure you don’t shoot back.” She reached the end of the porch and stepped onto the driveway. “I guess I’ll just have to keep shooting until you start to change shape. You know, just to be sure.”
The man said, “She isn’t kidding.”
A drop of muddy sweat ran down the side of Valdo’s face.
The woman moved forward again, stopping about 20 feet from the car. “That’s what going to happen to you if you shoot my dogs,” she said. “Come to think of it, I might just shoot you anyway.”
She brought the gun stock up to her shoulder and lined the sites up on Valdo. Everybody froze. Nobody said a word. In the silence they heard a squirrel chatting in a nearby tree. A bluejay called out in the distance. The wind blew and rustled the leaves in the aspen trees.
The woman pulled the lever down and back up, cocking the gun.
From the book, Collateral Crimes
Living with the carnage a pit bull has caused in my life I have zero sympathy for these useless creatures. Much like the trash crashing our borders and causing damage to innocent humans.
We are from the government, and we are here to help........ What a slippery slope.... Me, I’m with Tho. Paine.
Yep. Same here.
L
There is absolutely No reason to own a dog, unless you are using it as a service animal. I’m not just talking about police service either.
To own a dog and put it above a human being, is beyond my comprehension. In my opinion, anyone who thinks/says that, means their logic is clouded.
Yet, if a Police Dog comes on my property and I shoot it, I'm arrested and charged with the murder of a Police Officer.
Isn't the irony rich? Seems your equivocation doesn't hold real-world water, FRiend.
In the real world, the only thing lower than a dog, is a dog killer. And I'll shoot every one that has the bad judgement to show me his darkest colors. So FU and your smarmy human-worshipping bullsnot.
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.