Police Seize Chicks Without A Warrant! ****PHOTOS ADDED****

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Incorrect. Seizure requires a warrant or writ issued by a judge. This is a 4th Amendment Constitutional Right.

Seizure does not require a warrant. I have seized all sorts of evidence to be used in a court proceeding without any judges involved.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 5th Amendment to the US Constitution

 

[Birch Run Farm]

Very good post Sonoran!

 

[wombat]

It is, but there's a huge body of case law out there that provides exceptions.

 

[wombat]

Quote:
Seizure does not require a warrant. I have seized all sorts of evidence to be used in a court proceeding without any judges involved.

In this case a court order or writ was required as it was on personal property that the police had no right, obligation, or responsibility to breech unless there is an open crime, or evidence of crime. As the chickens were already being adjudicated in a approaching hearing the chickens where off limits. And what is worse the police KNEW this, they clearly violated a court proceeding and really deserve to be jailed. This is the very thing we need to guard against in this country.

I'd agree with all of the above, except for the part about jailing police officers for carrying out the directive of the town council, even if a judge later found the town council to be exceeding their authority. That's a bit of an exteme measure for temporarily depriving someone of some poultry. The town council directed the action even though the case was already before a judge. In my opinion, they're the ones to answer for all of this, not some street cop carrying out his assigned tasks.

Also ... I'm not familiar with Vermont's laws, but some states provide rather broad powers to animal control officers to enter property and to specifically seize only animals, so they may or may not have an "out" there ...

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
In this case a court order or writ was required as it was on personal property that the police had no right, obligation, or responsibility to breech unless there is an open crime, or evidence of crime. As the chickens were already being adjudicated in a approaching hearing the chickens where off limits. And what is worse the police KNEW this, they clearly violated a court proceeding and really deserve to be jailed. This is the very thing we need to guard against in this country.

I'd agree with all of the above, except for the part about jailing police officers for carrying out the directive of the town council, even if a judge later found the town council to be exceeding their authority. That's a bit of an exteme measure for temporarily depriving someone of some poultry. The town council directed the action even though the case was already before a judge. In my opinion, they're the ones to answer for all of this, not some street cop carrying out his assigned tasks.

Also ... I'm not familiar with Vermont's laws, but some states provide rather broad powers to animal control officers to enter property and to specifically seize only animals, so they may or may not have an "out" there ...

Being given a illegal order, directive, or request is not a excuse for violating the law. This has been made clear in several cases, and came about because of war crimes, but branched into all areas of society. It is clearly written in UCMJ and in state statures along with SCOTUS case law. The police in this case should have clearly refused, as in other cases that caused bloodshed where the police overstepped their bounds. We and they are lucky this was a peaceful breach of peace, but still a breach non the less.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

State laws cannot override The Constitution. Yes, the specifics in this case are peaceful confiscation of poultry. But the principle that was violated could have far reaching consequences if it is ignored, and that is the ultimate reason for loudly crying foul against all persons involved. Case law has provided some exceptions to seizure, but the case summaries I have read are unlikely to apply given the specific circumstances in this case. The most likely 4th amendment exception for searching is the "open fields" exception, but given the small size of the lot, which is a large part of the case against keeping poultry, that argues strongly that it is part of the cutelige (I think I spelled that incorrectly), which is as protected as the home itself. Not sure what if any case law exceptions to the 5th would apply, especially since it would appear that rather than being taken to the pound or an offical animal shelter, the birds were given to a private person.

 

[cphilip]

Not always... The Constitution is a restriction placed upon the Federal Government as to what it can and cannot do. Not on the states (for the most part)

It may or may not be that entirely all of it, verbatim, is applicable to the states. States have their own constitutions as well. And not all of them are exactly the same as the Federal Constitution and not all of them exactly incorporate the Bill of Rights as it is written in the Federal version. And then there is the incorporation of some of them through the 14th amendment as well. But it might not be exactly correct to say that the Constitution is specifically state law in every word and amendment. There is much debate about exactly which other amendments of the Constitution are directly incorporated to the states.

However most states and case law heavily cover search and seizures fairly well without resorting to Constitutional law.

Not that this really has much to add to the discussion but a point that needs be made I think...

 

[wombat]

Being given a illegal order, directive, or request is not a excuse for violating the law.

You'd have to be able to make a case that it was a clearly illegal order. That would assume that the police would have had to have ascertained that the town council had no jurisdiction in the matter, and/or been aware that the case was already before a judge, and that the town's order contradicted the judge's most recent instructions in the case.

Good luck prosecuting that one.

I don't think that this issue was handled properly, and I think that the town council should get some grief from the judge for trying to go around him, but you'll not likely convince me that a police officer should go to jail over this.

At best, there's a civil case on the part of the chicken owner against the town for violating her right to due process, in my opinion.​

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
You'd have to be able to make a case that it was a clearly illegal order. That would assume that the police would have had to have ascertained that the town council had no jurisdiction in the matter, and/or been aware that the case was already before a judge, and that the town's order contradicted the judge's most recent instructions in the case.

Good luck prosecuting that one.

I don't think that this issue was handled properly, and I think that the town council should get some grief from the judge for trying to go around him, but you'll not likely convince me that a police officer should go to jail over this.

At best, there's a civil case on the part of the chicken owner against the town for violating her right to due process, in my opinion.

Not meaning to argue, but every and I mean every police officer knows in a civil case property movement, seizure or anything that might interfere with the outcome of the pending case is strictly illegal and forbidden. These officers should be punished so they do not hinder honest officers from doing there job. There is no doubt absolutely no doubt they knew they were violating the court and the constitution.

 

[bargain]

My heart goes out to this owner. How can we live in America and this goes on? I simply don't understand. When I see freedoms of every kind stripped away and my heart and soul just ache......

When I think of the things that need addressing.....violent crime, drugs, car jackings, etc. and I see something like this????

I don't understand. I just don't ........Wouldn't our early founders just flip out if they saw something like this?

Well, I'll just keep my mouth shut here and pray for her to get her rights and flock back......