LT.
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Los Alamos, New Mexico
Here is an excerpt on the fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
One threshold question in the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a "search" has occurred. Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on a citizen's property rights—that is, when the government physically intrudes on "persons, houses, papers, or effects" for the purpose of obtaining information, a "search" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment has occurred. Early 20th-century Court decisions, such as Olmstead v. United States (1928), held that Fourth Amendment rights applied in cases of physical intrusion, but not to other forms of police surveillance (e.g., wiretaps).[SUP][35][/SUP] In Silverman v. United States (1961), the Court stated of the amendment that "at the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."[SUP][36][/SUP]
This was taken from Wikipedia directly. Basically I understand it as an illegal search. Once the officer opened the gate he was wrong. If the officer had just peered into the yard then he would have been okay. The officer physically intruded onto the property via fenced off area and entered through the gate I.E. illegal search.
I know that this is just my interputation here and that there will always be a gray area. But, I define a "Hot Pursuit clause as though an officer is chasing down a known felon. It that case, an officer may run through a yard, business and such in an effort to apprehend the suspect.
I am no expert perhaps just a little more versed in this area due to my employment. There is always going to be a disagreement among folks who read the law. How I read it and understand it will be different from others who do the same.
The real question is was there probable cause for the officer to be there in the first place. And, how will a judge interrupt the officers actions. I believe there is so much wrong with this instance and nothing right. Gate was latched, latch was too high for a toddler to reach, toddler may not have been able to work latch, officers did not start their search in the home, officer did not use reasonable force, deadly force was not authorized, a single shot to a dogs head?, tough shot to make while under extreme stress such as being attacked by a dog, are there any wounds on the officer?, illegal search, trespassing without probable cause, not backing out of the yard once officer felt threatened, no preclusion, no serious bodily harm from officer, and this is just what I can see.
Problem is though, simply termanating the officers employment is not enough. It is a start but, the department is dealing with some serious training issues. I still believe the owner of the dog has a serious case on his hands. One that should keep him from ever having to work again.
LT.
Last edited:
