My Uncle is involved in a situation that deals with the 4th Amendment. Evidently someone called the Cops on him for having a noisy dog and that it was also on the loose terrorizing the neighborhood.
The thing is, he doesn't have a dog. The Cops didn't believe him, demanded to be let inside, he refused, the officer threatened to arrest him and he did.
The supervisor was called and so was the Local ASPCA, they entered the house without a warrant and searched his backyard.
They didn't find the dog but get this, they took him to jail for disorderly conduct and gave him a citation for a dog without proper shots and tags. As of now this case is in court and the persecution is arguing that my Uncle did indeed have a dog but let it loose so as to thwart the Cops.
The issue of them illegally entering the premise has yet to brought to light, he's still fighting in court that he never owned a dog and has neighbours to prove it.
2007-07-12 12:07:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
Your Uncle's 4th Amendment Right against unreasonable search and seizures is likely to have been violated. In order to sustain a motion of supression for a 4th Amendment violation, there must first be governmental conduct. Here, you stated that the local police officers entered the house without consent and without a warrant. Thus, this prong of the test is met. Second, if there is government conduct, you must then determine if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place to be searched. An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home. Thus, this requirement is also met. Next, if the individual has a reasonable expecation of privacy in the place to be searched, the question then is whether or not the police officers had a warrant. Here, they didn't. As such, the search without the warrant would be unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Such exceptions would include, but are not limited to, consent, the automobile exception, searches incident to arrest, protective sweeps, and exigent circumstances. It is unlikely that one of these exceptions apply. Accordingly, he should be able to successfuly submit a motion to supress. If the motion to supress is granted, a motion to dismiss should be filed and is likely to be granted assuming the facts stated herein accurately state what happened and no material facts have been ommitted.
Those are my thoughts. Again, this is NOT a legal opinion. For legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
2007-07-12 17:38:32 · answer #1 · answered by Edward r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The issue all hinges around the ownership of the dog.
If your uncle can prove that he never had the dog then he can file a lawsuit and win the case. But, if your uncle can't positively that he didn't have the dog then everything the police did was legal and right. They wouldn't have arrested him if they didn't have at least some evidence that he owned the dog. It is almost impossible to prove a negative. How do you prove that you are not beating your wife?
The only way that he will win the case is if he gets the person who filed the complaint to recant and retract the claim. Otherwise it is the word of him or her against your uncle.
I am not a lawyer, but my advice would be for your uncle to pay the fines and let the case die as quietly as he can. It is the easiest and sanest way for him. Otherwise he will be fighting all up hill for little to no profit. After all what damages can he possibly get out of the police? If they said he was resisting arrest hen everything they did was legal and they will have a report and witnesses to back them up on that. He won't be able to prove otherwise.
2007-07-12 12:45:14 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if the story you are re-telling is true and accurate, but if it is, then yes the police committed an illegal act.
Your uncle will need some evidence that he does NOT own a dog to make a successful claim - that means he'll need testimony from as many neighbors as possible,
2007-07-12 12:18:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
omg where do u live? thats insane....no them cops are insane! your uncles rights have been violated all around. number one, they cannot go in his house without a warrant. if he did not want them in, they cant go in until they got that paper saying they can. and the whole dog situation......i cant help but laugh at how ignorant these cops sound. my best advice is to let them charge ur uncle with whatever.....but then def. take them to court and sue. your uncle should have never had to speak with them to begin with since he doesnt have a dog.....
2007-07-12 12:13:45 · answer #4 · answered by baby_love_marybeth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So someone just randomly accused him of having a dog? If everything you say is true, then yeah, the cops probably didn't have probable cause. On the other hand, you are related so I can't help but wonder if we're getting the whole story here.
2007-07-12 12:12:41 · answer #5 · answered by John W 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As an illegal parasite I believe he has no constitutional rights. I hope he loses the ability to breed so we can lesson the burden of these parasitic people. If you really cared about morality then you would get in line instead of sneaking under the fence like a peasant stealing an apple.
2016-05-21 00:34:56 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of the dog issue, sounds like his home was entered illegally.
He needs to contact an attorney or even his public defender. If this is how it ACTUALLY happened, his PD will be all over it.
2007-07-12 12:14:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if all this is true ,i would like to talk to you about borring some money in a while,,you should have plenty soon,,
call the crookedest snake you can find and go for the jugular
2007-07-12 12:15:18 · answer #8 · answered by daorangejello 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I smell a huge lawsuit!!!
2007-07-12 12:10:22 · answer #9 · answered by Rainman 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋