<\/p>\n
By Jay Syrmopoulos
\nThe Free Thought Project<\/p>\n
Detroit, MI \u2013 Nikita Smith\u00a0filed a lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0against the Detroit Police Department after they killed her three dogs during a\u00a0raid of her home in search of pot last year. On Wednesday, a judge absurdly ruled the dogs were considered \u201ccontraband,\u201d noting that Smith had no legal basis to sue the police department for shooting and killing her dogs, due to the canines\u00a0not having been properly licensed<\/a>.<\/p>\n Subsequently, the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Smith after a raid of her home by the Detroit police was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh.<\/p>\n According to a report by\u00a0Reason<\/a>:<\/p>\n The ruling is the first time a federal court has considered the question of whether an unlicensed pet\u2014in violation of city or state code\u2014is protected property under the Fourth Amendment. Federal courts have established that pets are protected from unreasonable seizures (read: killing) by police, but the city of Detroit argued in a motion in March that Smith\u2019s dogs, because they were unlicensed, were \u201ccontraband\u201d for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, meaning she had no legitimate property interest in them and therefore no basis to sue the officers or department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sadly, Judge Steeh agreed with the city\u2019s ridiculous assertion that since the dogs were not licensed, they were not a legitimate property interest, thus giving Smith no legal basis to sue either the department or the individual officer\/s that killed her dogs.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Court is aware that this conclusion may not sit well with dog owners and animal lovers in general,\u201d<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0the judge Steeh wrote in his opinion.\u00a0\u201cThe reason for any unease stems from the fact that while pet owners consider their pets to be family members, the law considers pets to be property.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cThe requirements of the Michigan Dog Law and the Detroit City Code, including that all dogs be current with their rabies vaccines, exist to safeguard the public from dangerous animals,\u201d\u00a0<\/em>he continued.\u00a0\u201cWhen a person owns a dog that is unlicensed, in the eyes of the law it is no different than owning any other type of illegal property or contraband. Without any legitimate possessory interest in the dogs, there can be no violation of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Think about that for a moment, the judge is legally equating owning an unlicensed dog, with\u00a0\u201cillegal property or contraband.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n So, does someone owning an unlicensed car give you no Fourth Amendment protections over it, and does it constitute illegal property or contraband simply because it isn\u2019t licensed with the city\/state?<\/p>\n Federal judge rules that unlicensed pets are "contraband." Cops can kill them with (legal) impunity. https:\/\/t.co\/PZ0T0WX42Q<\/a><\/p>\n — Radley Balko (@radleybalko) August 3, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n