M.D.Pa.: “Dog breeding is a pervasively regulated activity”

“Dog breeding is a pervasively regulated activity and has been the subject of federal and state regulation since at least 1976 and 1982 respectively.” It also satisfies the Burger analysis. Prof’l Dog Breeders Advisory Council v. Wolff, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83054 (M.D. Pa. September 11, 2009):

Dog breeding is a pervasively regulated activity and has been the subject of federal and state regulation since at least 1976 and 1982 respectively. See 7 U.S.C. § 2131, et. seq.; see 9 C.F.R. § 1.1 et. seq. (federal regulations); 3 P.S. § 459-101 et. seq; see 7 Pa. Code § 21.1 et. seq. (state regulations). In Pennsylvania, dog breeders have been on notice since 1982 that their businesses are subject to random inspections. Furthermore, by Plaintiffs’ own contention, the industry is heavily regulated, hence the reason for this suit. Plaintiffs cannot successfully argue that the kennel industry is not pervasively regulated while at the same time maintaining that the kennel industry is too pervasively regulated. Regulations concerning the kennel industry in the areas of licenses, enforcement, fees, penalties operations, and various other provisions have been around for years. Furthermore, the kennel industry has been subject to random inspections and searches since at least 1982. As such, the kennel industry is a pervasively regulated activity.

Motion to reconsider under Gant denied because the defendant concedes his stop and patdown were valid, and removing a spoon from his pocket was valid, and drug residue on the spoon gave justification for a search of his car under the automobile exception too. United States v. Herman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83243 (E.D. Wash. September 11, 2009).*

The County failed to show that a strip search was required for an arrest for violating a restraining order to stay away from another person. There was also nothing in her mental health history which would justify it. Barnett v. County of Contra Costa, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83130 (N.D. Cal. September 11, 2009).* As to the latter:

Similarly, Defendants have failed to persuade the Court that Chan’s mental history necessarily gave rise to reasonable suspicion to perform a strip search. Although Chan admitted that she tried to harm herself six years prior to her arrest and was a patient in a mental hospital on two occasions, three and six years prior to her arrest, she also stated that she was taking no prescription medication at the time of her arrest, did not use street drugs, had no current problems with depression, and had no current thoughts of harming herself. Chan’s health questionnaire also indicates that she was not observed to be sweaty, shaking, agitated, disoriented, or confused. In addition, Chan was held for several hours prior to the strip search being performed — a fact that, when viewed in the light most favorable to Chan, suggests that Defendants did not consider her a threat to herself or others. The Court cannot, on these facts, find it undisputed that Defendants had reasonable suspicion to strip search Chan based on her mental health history.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.