CA6: 53 days after an occurrence is hardly exigent

Detroit has a stray dog problem and passed an ordinance in 2004. The ordinance allowed warrantless entries into yards to search for and seize dogs. The district court enjoined that, and the city did not appeal. On individual claims, an entry into one plaintiff’s yard 53 days after his dog bit another wasn’t with exigent circumstances, assuming that there can be exigency based entry for dogs. A jury will have to decide this claim. “But exigent circumstances, counter the officers, justified the search and seizure because a neighbor had reported that the three dogs had attacked another dog. That reality might justify a warrantless entry in some circumstances.” Hardrick v. City of Detroit, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23653 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2017).

The stop was justified by suspicion of DUI. Other information developed for reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, and the use of the drug dog then was reasonable. United States v. Thomas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187937 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.