Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    757

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    Quote Quoting Dogmatique
    View Post
    It's an article from a law journal in case you missed that part.
    At least it's not YouTube.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    not in a prison
    Posts
    732

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    I know its a different state, but im sure some type of due process is in any state regarding dogs, cops lie, twist laws, no way they can order a dog killed just like that after the fact with no due process.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere near Canada
    Posts
    35,894

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    Quote Quoting rmh8400
    View Post
    I took him to the vet to avoid having my home invaded, and to avoid my poor dog being treated badly in his last few moments.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Doesn't it seem that this is a bit like allowing police to use uncorroborated statements made by anonymous witnessed, and no evidence in order to conduct a warrant less search? the sky is the limit at that point to police power.
    I'm sorry tony has derailed your thread, and I'm sorrier that you had to lose your pet.

    You've got to keep it realistic though. The law does not afford rights to animals (well...they do, but not house-pets). Call a couple of local attorneys in the morning.

    And my actual advice on this thread? Take everything tonynewman says and throw it out of the window. He knows as much about the law as I do about the mating habits of Galapagos penguins.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    in alto mare
    Posts
    1,123

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    Quote Quoting tonynewman
    View Post
    I know its a different state, but im sure some type of due process is in any state regarding dogs, cops lie, twist laws, no way they can order a dog killed just like that after the fact with no due process.
    I looked at the link and as Dogmatique mentioned, it was from a law journal with case law from all over the country..my error there.. but that's really not what the OP needs.

    There may be a due process in the OP's locale but without knowing the specific town or county (animals are usually governed at the local level) we don't know what that is.

    OP should discuss with a local atty.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    OH10
    Posts
    17,019

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    You should have called a lawyer and gotten a temporary injunction to allow a hearing. I do however agree if the dog mauled the cat to death, it is only a matter of time until a baby or small child he feels is threatening his home gets killed or mauled.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    There is, interestingly enough, apparently no case law regarding the application of SD statute § 40-34-1 that makes lawful the killing of a dog that is “found chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals.” Certainly that section would shield a person from prosecution for killing a dog during the actual episode of chasing, worrying, etc. But when the attack is well over and the dog is no longer an imminent risk to any domestic animal I have my doubts that this statute would be of much help to the person who killed the dog. More significantly when it comes to the government killing the dog, the statute must be read in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process prior to the government depriving a person of his property, and dogs are considered property under the law. The Fifth Amendment applies to state and local governments via the 14th Amendment. Here, had the police officer shot the dog sometime after the actual attack was over and at at time when the dog is not posing an immediate threat to any person or domestic animal without first giving the owner any chance at due process I think it likely that the courts would say the dog owner’s Constitutional rights had been violated. The issue here will be one of balancing the need to take prompt action to protect the public versus the right to due process the dog owner has under the Constitution. The less immediate the threat, the less likely it is that state can justify prompt destruction of the dog without affording the owner some kind of hearing or other court review first. So the exact facts of this are very important. If you wish to pursue the matter, consult some SD attorneys who practice is the area of civil rights claims and see what they have to say. The main problem that I see here that there is a possibility that what you pay a lawyer to litigate this might well exceed what you’d win, even if the court might award the payment of some of the attorney's fees to you. That’s something you’d want to discuss with the lawyer if the lawyer says you have a good claim on the merits.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    in alto mare
    Posts
    1,123

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    There is, interestingly enough, apparently no case law regarding the application of SD statute § 40-34-1 that makes lawful the killing of a dog that is “found chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals.” Certainly that section would shield a person from prosecution for killing a dog during the actual episode of chasing, worrying, etc. But when the attack is well over and the dog is no longer an imminent risk to any domestic animal I have my doubts that this statute would be of much help to the person who killed the dog. More significantly when it comes to the government killing the dog, the statute must be read in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process prior to the government depriving a person of his property, and dogs are considered property under the law. The Fifth Amendment applies to state and local governments via the 14th Amendment. Here, had the police officer shot the dog sometime after the actual attack was over and at at time when the dog is not posing an immediate threat to any person or domestic animal without first giving the owner any chance at due process I think it likely that the courts would say the dog owner’s Constitutional rights had been violated. The issue here will be one of balancing the need to take prompt action to protect the public versus the right to due process the dog owner has under the Constitution. The less immediate the threat, the less likely it is that state can justify prompt destruction of the dog without affording the owner some kind of hearing or other court review first. So the exact facts of this are very important. If you wish to pursue the matter, consult some SD attorneys who practice is the area of civil rights claims and see what they have to say. The main problem that I see here that there is a possibility that what you pay a lawyer to litigate this might well exceed what you’d win, even if the court might award the payment of some of the attorney's fees to you. That’s something you’d want to discuss with the lawyer if the lawyer says you have a good claim on the merits.
    The owner (OP) actually put the dog down, presumably under threat from the sheriff's deputy. That really makes me wonder what recourse they have.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    Quote Quoting geek
    View Post
    The owner (OP) actually put the dog down, presumably under threat from the sheriff's deputy. That really makes me wonder what recourse they have.
    That fact needs to be put in context with everything else, though. It is important to know exactly what the officer told the OP. Just because the OP took the dog to vet to be put down doesn’t automatically mean that it was not compelled by the government.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    What bothers me about all this is that a sheriff's deputy just knocks on the door and says I'm going to take your dog and kill him without any authorization or order from a judge. Don't they need a warrant to seize someone's property inside the house where there is no eminent threat?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Sheriff Ordered Dog Die/ No Due Process/Never Bit Anyone. Killed a Stray Cat

    Quote Quoting rmh8400
    View Post
    He told me that my dog was vicious and had to die this very day. He told me he would come into my house and get him if I refused his order.
    There is a body camera recording of this exchange.
    As things progressed, though, he did leave without the dog.

    As Taxing Matters indicates, the deputy's exact words are significant to whether or not you have a potential claim.
    Quote Quoting rmh8400
    Now to add insult to injury, the sheriff told me I had to pay the vet bill to kill Buddy or he would sue me.
    This was not a vet you chose? Are you saying that you were instructed by the Sheriff to take the dog to a specific vet by a specific time? If so, were you told at any time that you would be charged or billed for the service?
    Quote Quoting rmh8400
    it seems to me, no dog is safe if a mere allegation of biting is sufficient to have a dog killed the next day without so much as a single hearing before a judge or at least some sort of process.
    It's difficult to say what would have happened had the deputy taken the dog. However, as the deputy did not take the dog, any legal requirements that might have followed from the dog's being taken into possession would not have been triggered.
    Quote Quoting rmh8400
    View Post
    Doesn't it seem that this is a bit like allowing police to use uncorroborated statements made by anonymous witnessed, and no evidence in order to conduct a warrant less search? the sky is the limit at that point to police power.
    You admit that the dog killed the cat. You have not indicated that the deputy in fact entered your home or conducted any sort of search.
    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    There is, interestingly enough, apparently no case law regarding the application of SD statute § 40-34-1 that makes lawful the killing of a dog that is “found chasing, worrying, injuring, or killing poultry or domestic animals.” Certainly that section would shield a person from prosecution for killing a dog during the actual episode of chasing, worrying, etc. But when the attack is well over and the dog is no longer an imminent risk to any domestic animal I have my doubts that this statute would be of much help to the person who killed the dog.
    I agree with that interpretation. The statute addresses a dog that is actually disturbing domestic animals, and it would be a real stretch to try to extend it to a later context in which the dog is no longer disturbing animals..
    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    That fact needs to be put in context with everything else, though. It is important to know exactly what the officer told the OP. Just because the OP took the dog to vet to be put down doesn’t automatically mean that it was not compelled by the government.
    But it does mean that the due process requirements that would have been triggered, had the dog been taken into police custody with the police asserting legal authority to euthanize the dog, were not triggered. The case becomes more complicated and, as you have indicated, the deputy's exact words are important to any analysis.
    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    What bothers me about all this is that a sheriff's deputy just knocks on the door and says I'm going to take your dog and kill him without any authorization or order from a judge. Don't they need a warrant to seize someone's property inside the house where there is no eminent threat?
    The deputy is allowed to bluff and, as no search or seizure occurred, it's not clear that the deputy would have engaged in any sort of search or seizure had the homeowner denied him entry. Had he attempted to seize the dog he presumably would have done so on the basis that it was a dangerous animal that posed risk to the public; but it's very possible that he would have sought a warrant.

    The Sheriff's general authority is set forth in SDCL Sec. 7-12-29:
    Quote Quoting SDCL Sec. 7-12-29. Taking and holding animal suspected of being dangerous--Formal determination--Disposal of dangerous animal.
    The sheriff may take possession of any animal suspected of being dangerous. The sheriff may hold such animal until a formal determination can be made of the extent of the danger such animal poses. If the animal has attacked or bitten a human or an animal pet, the formal determination shall include consultation with the department of health for the purposes of rabies control. The sheriff may dispose of any animal so determined to be dangerous.
    There is no question but that, under that statute, a sheriff's department is not supposed to destroy an animal it takes into its possession without a formal determination of the animal's dangerousness. I see no definition of what constitutes a "formal determination" but I think it reasonably follows that the requirement would have been for an independent hearing, likely before a judge or magistrate.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Eviction Process: What Process Should Be Used to Evict a Family Member
    By sharons1960 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 01:09 PM
  2. Custody and Visitation Issues: DOR Child Support Ordered but No Custody/Visitation Ordered
    By ixbiggunzxi in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-11-2011, 08:11 PM
  3. Non-Court Ordered Support, Becoming Ordered
    By govtmule in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 09:50 AM
  4. Eviction Process: Eviction Process As a Process Server
    By mtruong19983 in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-08-2009, 01:07 PM
  5. Court Proceedings: Court Ordered Family Counseling - What Can Be Used Against a Parent?
    By MomWhoCares in forum Abuse and Neglect
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 05:00 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources