Big Win for Non Human Animals

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced today that in an emergency the police can enter private property to protect the lives of non-human animals. The case is Commonwealth v. Duncan , SJC-11373 (April 11, 2014).  The case involves a Lynn woman who let two of her dogs freeze to death outside and fought an animal cruelty conviction by claiming the police had no right to enter her property to rescue the third, still breathing, dog.  The court found that the emergency aid exception to the requirement of a search warrant permits the police in certain circumstances "to enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that there may be [an animal] inside who is injured or in imminent danger of physical harm." It moderated that finding with the statement that "the reasonableness of the search must be determined on a case-by-case basis upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances". Massachusetts joins other states in recognizing "a public interest in the preservation of life in general and in the prevention of cruelty to animals in particular.how society values animals". Congratulations to Essex Assistant District Attorney Paul C. Wagoner who did an excellent job arguing this case before the court.

Glickman Turley LLP represents animal welfare nonprofits and others interested in animal welfare.

Supreme Court to Hear Cases About Dog Sniffing Dogs

The New York Times reported on October 29, 2012, that the US Supreme Court will hear cases involving Aldo, a German shepherd, and Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever. The cases focus on how accurate a dog's nose is when trained to sniff drugs as interpreted under the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search.

In 2005, Justice Stevens opined that a drug-sniffing dog does not invade a human's right to privacy because "no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess." In his 2005 dissent, Justice Souter referred to a study that showed "dogs in artificial testing situations return false positives anywhere from 12.5 to 60 percent of the time," and that "[t]he infallible dog...is a creature of legal fiction."

Some drug-sniffing dogs are more accurate than others, and some have good days and bad days, according to the article. The result? Difficulty determining false positives from real ones. In 2006, Aldo sniffed chemicals used for concocting methamphetamines in Clayton Harris's pick up truck in Bristol, Florida, after he had been pulled over by police for driving with an expired license place. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Aldo was unreliable and "ordered that the evidence he found be suppressed." Franky's case involved whether police are permitted to use drug-sniffing dogs outside of people's homes to detect the scent of drugs and drug-making chemicals. The Florida Supreme Court threw out the evidence brought forth by Franky's nose. The US Supreme Court will hear these cases this month.

For more on this story, click here.

For representation on criminal matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.

Supreme Court Ruled on GPS Tracking Devices

The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court decided on Monday that a Global Positioning Device (GPS) tracking system placed on a suspect's car by police violated his Fourth Amendment privacy rights. The Court ruled unanimously  on this decision, with the majority agreeing with the rationale that the issue was the placement of the GPS device on private property.

The case, United States v. Jones, involved a Washington nightclub owner who was suspected of participating in a cocaine-selling operation. Antoine Jones's movements were tracked for a month when police placed the GPS device on his Jeep Grand Cherokee without obtaining a valid warrant. Jones had been sentenced to life in prison based on the evidence gathered by police, including the information gathered by the GPS.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, stated "The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."

Justice Alito, who concurred with the majority on the ruling, differed on the rationale: "We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely cross before the 4-week mark. Other cases may present more difficult questions."

The lawyer for the defendant in this case said the ruling was a "signal event in Fourth Amendment history," according to the article.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.