Preserving the 4th Amendment: Presence of “Pit Bull” Does Not Justify ‘No-Knock’ Warrant
“The presence of a pit bull in a house does not provide probable cause for issuance of a “no knock” search warrant, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals has ruled.
The police received information from an informant that the defendant had stolen property in his home and dispensed narcotics there. They also learned that he had two dogs, including one pit bull. Based on that information, they sought and obtained a no-knock search warrant on the grounds that the pit bull could alert occupants to the presence of officers, heighten danger to them and prompt the destruction of narcotics and evidence.
When the police executed the warrant, they found stolen property along with cocaine, heroin and packaging materials associated with distribution of illegal drugs.
The defendant was charged with the receipt of stolen property and various drug offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that the affidavit failed to justify a no-knock warrant.
The court agreed.”
Read this article in its entirety here.
Related Posts By Category
- Is It Crazy to Believe That Anti-Tether Legislation Is Being Used to Erode 4th Amendment Privacy Rights? Crazy Like a Fox
- Maryland Bills — SB 160 and HB 78 — Would Overturn “Pit Bull” Strict Liability of Tracey v. Solesky
- Denver Violates Dog Owners’ Due Process Rights…Again
- The sixth amendment gives you the right to face your accusers, but only in a court of law. What if you never get there?
- Medford, Oregon to Look at Pit Bull Ban or Forced Pit Bull Sterilization