{"id":6252,"date":"2012-02-08T06:12:24","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T07:48:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-11-10T07:48:18","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6252","title":{"rendered":"CA6: \u201cConsent once removed\u201d applies only to entries, not reentries; animal control entries stated a claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cConsent once removed\u201d applies only to entries, not reentries. Plaintiff also stated a due process claim for animal control officers entering the property to take animals, plant microchips in them, and then require plaintiff to pay $1,000 to get the dogs back. A Fourth Amendment claim for the reentry. O\u2019Neill v. Louisville\/Jefferson County Metro Gov\u2019t<\/a>, 662 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n

Akinsanya and Diaz, however, do not stand for the general proposition that achieving \u201cone consensual entry\u201d permits \u201claw enforcement agents [to] thereafter enter and exit a home at will.\u201d Diaz, 814 F.2d at 459. Both were drug cases in which the purpose of the undercover agent\u2019s or informant\u2019s exit was to immediately summon officers to help effectuate an arrest. See Akinsanya, 53 F.3d at 855-56; Diaz, 814 F.2d at 459. Those circumstances distinguish Akinsanya and Diaz from this case, where the backup LMAS officers did not\u2014after the undercover officers exited\u2014rush in to help effectuate an arrest. They instead knocked on the O\u2019Neills\u2019 door to request proof of a \u201cbreeder\u2019s license,\u201d carried on a discussion with the O\u2019Neills about the need for such a license, and entered only after the O\u2019Neills specifically objected to their coming into the residence.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

Applying the consent-once-removed doctrine to the LMAS officers\u2019 second entry, where no arrest was intended, would go well beyond the confines of this limited doctrine, which has yet to be adopted by the Supreme Court. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44, 129 S. Ct. 808, 172 L. Ed. 2d 565 (2009) (declining to rule on whether the consent-once-removed doctrine is constitutional by instead resolving the issue of qualified immunity on the basis that no clearly established law was violated). We therefore conclude that the O\u2019Neills have sufficiently pleaded a Fourth Amendment violation based on the second warrantless entry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Law.com: Dog owners have their day at 6th Circuit<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}