|
A Factual Account of Immi's Shooting |
The following excerpt from an appellate court opinion contains the actual facts that occurred when a 3-year old Rotweiller named Immi was unreasonably shot to death by a police officer.
|
|
Akron ex rel. Christman-Resch v. Akron |
City of Akron, Ohio cat owners filed suit against city, its mayor, and city council president, seeking declaratory judgment that new city code sections, relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats, were unconstitutional. After the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County granted summary judgment to defendants, the cat owners appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the city's ordinances relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats did not violate cat owners' substantive due process rights. Further, the ordinances which allowed a cat to be euthanized after three business days following the date of impoundment, did not violate cat owners' procedural due process rights or right to equal protection. Finally, the ordinances, which allowed city to seize free-roaming cats in response to complaints, did not violate the Fourth Amendment and city's actions were covered by sovereign immunity.
|
|
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert |
|
|
Brief Summary of Legal Challenges to Farm Animal Welfare Laws |
This summary introduces the legal challenges to farm animal welfare laws. It begins with a discussion of the means by which farm animal welfare laws are enacted. Next, there is a discussion of the forms of farm animal confinement that welfare laws are aimed at phasing out of the agriculture industry. It touches upon the current legal framework at the state and federal level that affords welfare protections to farm animals. There is then a brief discussion of the legal challenges that are brought to these laws. Lastly, the latest Supreme Court case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, is examined. |
|
Brief Summary of Local and State Dog Laws |
This summary examines the nature and authority of state and local dog laws. It also describes the general subjects included in dog laws, such as loose dogs and impoundment procedures. The concept of preemption of local laws is also defined.
|
|
Brief Summary of Police Shooting Pets |
The following is a brief summary of areas that will be covered for this topic.
|
|
Cotton v. Ben Hill County |
In this case, Cotton filed suit against Ben Hill County after Cotton’s cattle was seized for alleged animal cruelty and roaming at large. Cotton filed suit against Ben Hill County and the Sheriff’s Department arguing that he had been deprived of his property in violation of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and in the violation of the Constitution of Georgia. The court reviewed the issue and granted summary judgment in favor of Ben Hill County and the Sheriff's Department. The court granted summary judgment because Cotton was unable to establish that his rights were violated under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cotton was unable to establish that his Due Process rights were violated because he was unable to provide any evidence that the allegations against Ben Hill County and the Sheriff’s Department were “the result of an official policy, custom or practice of the county or that the County acted with deliberate indifference to these rights.” Also, the court found that there was not a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause because under state law, Georgia provided for a “post deprivation remedy for the loss.” Lastly, the court found that Cotton’s claims against the Sheriff's Department failed as a matter of law because Cotton was unable to establish that anyone from the Sheriff’s Department actually participated in the seizure and impoundment of the cattle. For those reasons, the court held in favor of Ben Hill County and granted summary judgment. |
|
Cueing and Probable Cause: Research May Increase Defense Attacks on and Judicial Skepticism of Detection Dog Evidence |
The Supreme Court has recognized the uniquely non-intrusive nature of a canine sniff means that using dogs in certain situations does not involve a search. This has encouraged the use of detection dogs in law enforcement, and limited the costs associated with producing evidence of canine alerts in court. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decisions do not mean that any claim that a dog may have alerted can justify a further search, and courts have recognized that a dog must be reliable for an alert to have this consequence. Thus, a high level of reliability must be expected of a canine team, and a failure to conduct adequate training or maintain complete records to establish that reliability will not exclude the possibility that a called alert may actually have been cued, precluding the use of the alert at trial.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Legal Challenges to Farm Animal Welfare Laws |
This article explores the legal challenges to farm animal welfare laws. It begins with a discussion of the means by which farm animal welfare laws are enacted. Next, there is a discussion of the means of farm animal confinement that welfare laws are aimed at phasing out of the agriculture industry. Then, it explores the current legal framework at the state and federal level that affords welfare protections to farm animals. The article then explores the organizations and people that bring lawsuits to challenge farm animal welfare laws. There is then a discussion of the legal challenges that are brought to challenge these laws, and an exploration of some example cases. Lastly, this article explores a Supreme Court case regarding a state farm animal welfare law, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. |
|
Hardrick v. City of Detroit |
In January of 2005, the Detroit City Council passed an ordinance granting special police powers to officers working in the Animal Control Division (ACD). The ordinance allowed ACD officers to have “the right of entry without a warrant” for the purpose of capturing or restraining any animal. Detroit residents filed a petition arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional and the court granted a petition for a preliminary injunction on the basis that the ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment. Following the injunction a number of residents filed suit seeking damages against the City of Detroit arguing that the City improperly seized their pets and failed to provide adequate post-deprivation remedies. Lastly, the residents argued that the City operated its animal shelter in a “grossly negligent manner” after numerous dogs suffered severe illnesses after having been taken to the shelter for quarantine by the ACD. The court reviewed the testimonies of the individual residents who claimed that their pets had been improperly seized and determined that the seizures of the pets were “objectionably reasonable.” In order to determine whether the seizures were “objectionably reasonable” the court stated that it “must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individuals Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake by analyzing the totality of the circumstances.” Ultimately, the court found that it was reasonable for the officers to have seize the pets in each situation based on the facts presented and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Detroit. Finally, the court reviewed the residents’ arguments pertaining to the Fourteenth Amendment and held that because the vast majority of the pets were found “unrestrained, unlicensed, abandoned by their owner, or accused of biting another animal or human,” the City’s interest in protecting the public was far greater than any “pre-seizure due process owed to the plaintiffs.” As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. With regard to the residents’ claim about the state of the City’s animal shelter, the court declined to assert supplemental jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the claim. |
