Is your dog contraband?

An awful ruling for pet owners has come from a federal court, in a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh.  But the threat is not just to Fido and Fluffy, because, as anyone familiar with how precedent becomes corrupted knows, the ruling will be cited and abused far beyond its original, flawed bases.

C.J. Ciaramella writes about this ruling at Reason Magazine, in  “Federal Judge Rules Unlicensed Dogs Aren't Protected By Fourth Amendment.”  In deciding an unlicensed dog is “contraband” not protected by the Fourth Amendment, the ruling confuses government “licenses” with “title,” i.e., private ownership and possession. The ruling will eventually be cited in cases involving property other than dogs and other unlicensed activity in our overly license-happy statist society.

The crocodile tears shed by the judge for dog owners, however, will be particularly disdained. Quoting the judge’s written opinion Ciaramella writes:

"The Court is aware that this conclusion may not sit well with dog owners and animal lovers in general," the judge wrote. "The 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."

"The 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," he continued. "When 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.


Read more at American Thinker