|
?:reviewBody
|
-
A 26 December 2016 article published by the Dogington Post reported that a federal court ruling then-recently allowed for police across the United States to shoot dogs if they move or bark when an officer enters a home: The item embedded a full copy of the ruling (Brown v. Battle Creek Police Department) but many were exposed only to the initial paragraphs, as well as a headline that said police have the authority to shoot a dog if it barks or moves. A 28 December 2016 report (widely repeated across local news affiliates) began in a similar way: Although that item concluded with a more accurate assessment of the ruling, the headline suggested that a court had ruled all police officers can shoot all dogs for infractions as minimal as moving or barking (expected activities when strangers approach or enter homes): As the concluding paragraph noted, the ruling does not grant police authority to shoot dogs on sight. However, given the affection pet owners have for their companion animals, the claim began sweeping social networks alongside widespread concerns that dogs were no longer safe in the presence of police officers. The 19 December 2016 ruling centered on the execution of a search warrant relating to an investigation of drug-related activity in 2013. Two pit bulls were shot during the raid, an outcome their owners said violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The basic facts were reported in the article quoted above, and largely written from the ruling: Much of the decision [PDF] outlined precedents from which the court's conclusions were ultimately drawn, citing cases in which such losses were deemed unreasonable as well as citing circumstances under which the collateral death of a pet or pets was found to be objectively reasonable: The court decided that as a matter of first impression there is a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to not have one’s dog unreasonably seized, language that conflicted with insinuations that the ruling disregarded pets' lives: Earlier testimony from the officers indicated that the dogs were not just moving and barking, but lunging: The officers here described a scenario during which the dogs' behavior posed what they perceived as an imminent threat to their safety. A second officer testified that the decision to shoot the dogs was made almost immediately. The court ruled that the plaintiffs continually failed to demonstrate that the dogs did not behave in an aggressive and alarming manner as the raid began. The decision further held that in the absence of mitigating factors, a jury would conclude the specific action was reasonable (but not saying that this assessment applied to all dogs in all situations): The court also looked over the circumstances under which the second dog was shot, concluding that its behavior and presence presented a reasonable cause for alarm as officers looked through the basement: The ruling concluded: No portion of the ruling could be construed as sweeping permission for all officers to shoot dogs for barking or moving. While the court sided with the defendants, members of the court established that a particular set of circumstances justified shooting the dogs, and repeatedly affirmed that in normal circumstances such an action does constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}