TIME U.S. Law Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs Brittany Preston Bereaved owners argue that when police shoot dogs it a violates their Fourth Amendment rights <\/p>\n
Correction appended, Sept. 26 <\/p>\n
Lexie, a Labrador mix, was barking in fear when the police arrived at her owners suburban Detroit house early in the morning last November. The officers, responding to a call about a dog roaming the area, arrived with dog-catching gear. Yet they didnt help the one-year-old dog, who had been left outside the house, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court: Instead, they pulled out their guns and shot Lexie eight times. <\/p>\n
The only thing Im gonna do is shoot it anyway, the lawsuit quotes an officer saying. I do not like dogs. <\/p>\n
Such a response, animal advocates say, is not uncommon among law enforcement officers in America who are often ill-equipped to deal with animals in the line of duty. And now bereaved owners like Brittany Preston, Lexies owner, are suing cities and police departments, expressing outrage at what they see as an abuse of power by police. Animal activists, meanwhile, are turning to state legislatures to combat the problem, with demands for better police training in dealing with pets. <\/p>\n
There are no official tallies of dog killings by police, but media reports suggest there are, at minimum, dozens every year, and possibly many more. When it comes to Prestons dog, officials from the city of St. Clair Shores and the dog owner agree on little. City police say the dog attacked, prompting officers to open fire in self-defense. But the lawsuit filed by Preston cites police audio recordings to argue that the November 2013 shooting was premeditated, prompted by officers eager to kill a dog. Preston is suing the city for violating her Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. <\/p>\n
We want whatever it takes to make sure it doesnt happen again, said Christopher Olson, Prestons lawyer. Before this case I wasnt a dog shooting lawyer, but I am now. <\/p>\n
St. Clair Shores defended the officers actions. <\/p>\n
The animal was only put down after a decision was made that it was in the best interest of the residents, said city attorney Robert Ihrie, who is defending the city in the lawsuit. Sometimes police officers are in a position where they need to make very quick decisions for the protection of themselves and others. <\/p>\n
The Fourth Amendment argument gained traction in 2005, when the San Jose chapter of the Hells Angels sued the city and the police department because officers had killed dogs during a gang raid in 1998. A federal appeals judge found that the Fourth Amendment forbids the killing of a persons dog when that destruction is unnecessary, and the Hells Angels ultimately won $1.8 million in damages. In addition to the St. Clair lawsuit, other lawsuits stemming from police shootings of dogs are being planned or filed in Idaho, California, and Nevada. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Go here to see the original:<\/p>\n
Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" TIME U.S. Law Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs Brittany Preston Bereaved owners argue that when police shoot dogs it a violates their Fourth Amendment rights Correction appended, Sept. 26 Lexie, a Labrador mix, was barking in fear when the police arrived at her owners suburban Detroit house early in the morning last November Continue reading