|
Civil LawsuitsWhat Can I Do When the Government Gets it Wrong?By Anna Morrison-Ricordati Last year, a man called my office, distraught. He recounted the previous night's events: "The police kicked in the front door and yelled at me to surrender. I had been asleep, but then the dogs started barking and running down the stairs. Before I could get to the door, they'd shot the dogs "¦ both of them "¦ dead. The police showed me the warrant. It wasn't my address. They were at the WRONG house." Upon entering a home adjacent to the residence police were authorized to search, the police had shot and killed an innocent man's dogs. Unfortunately, that was not the first time I had been informed of such an incident. And it has not been the last. While somewhat difficult, it is not impossible to hold the government and its employees accountable for wrongful actions taken against animals. This article addresses an individual's right to sue the government, to challenge ordinances and government policies, and to monitor the government's adherence to animal welfare laws. LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT Civil lawsuits against the police and other government employees are fairly common and have been applied in situations like the one described above. United States Code, Title 42, Section 1983 applies when constitutional issues are involved, such as violations of the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, and association), Fourth Amendment (arrest and detention, search and seizure, and use of excessive force), or Fourteenth amendment (due process), among others. Section 1983 is a federal statute that creates a right to sue any person who, acting under color of law, deprives a person of his/her constitutional rights. It allows suits against state and local officers/employees as well as municipal government entities. It includes behavior otherwise prohibited by the letter of law but carried out with state or local government authority. Federal officers/employees may also be sued in similar "Bivens" actions. Section 1983/Bivens lawsuits have been brought by owners of dogs shot by the police during unconstitutional searches and seizures. Where no constitutional violation has occurred and where the injured party is seeking only monetary compensation, a lawsuit may be filed with the Court of Claims. Unfortunately, these suits do not include the possibility of punitive damages against individual officers or government employees. Damages for the shooting and killing of a dog could be limited to replacement costs. For most dog owners, such compensation is nowhere near the actual value of their irreplaceable companion. CHALLENGES TO ORDINANCES AND POLICES Alternatively, where a government cites an individual for violation of a particular law, usually by way of City ordinance, the affected individual may challenge the application of that law to his/her case. For example, in the City of Chicago, dogs accused of biting a person or other domestic animal may be impounded pursuant to Chicago's Municipal Code (Section 7-12-050). For the entire duration of a "dangerous dog" investigation, an impounded dog is confined to an approximate 5' x 5' x 5' cage. Human contact with the shelter employees is strictly limited for these dogs. Food is provided via a slot in the cage and excrement is removed by hosing the cage. Owners of impounded dogs, who are limited to weekly visits, have accused Animal Control of failing to administer their dogs' prescribed medications and failing to provide adequate veterinary care, and have reported injuries from the impound environment. Dog owners have long objected to the daunting conditions of impound. Yet, the City Code only minimally requires that "[w]here the animal has been FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS Still other situations involve monitoring the government's adherence to animal welfare policies. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ensures public access to United States government records and provides a mechanism for individuals to request information such as the results of state agency inspections of puppy breeding facilities, the number of dog fight investigations performed by a city, or the numbers of healthy animals euthanized in publicly funded shelters. While there are nine specific exemptions under FOIA, FOIA carries a presumption of disclosure. Therefore, the burden is on the government"”not the public"”to demonstrate why the requested information may not be released. Governments are required to disclose the information upon written request. Most federal, state, county, and local governments provide FOIA request forms on their websites. As Americans, we are lucky to live in a country where government ideals include transparency and where court systems allow individuals a means to challenge certain government actions. Great strides can be made in animal welfare when individuals take advantage of this privilege.
For more information or to contact: |
GREAT OPPORTUNITY
Special Promotion
Subscribe
START A MAGAZINE
New Product
