BROWN v. MUHLENBERG TOWNSHIP
October 15, 2001 11:46 AM Subscribe
BROWN v. MUHLENBERG TOWNSHIP A municipal law enforcement officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he intentionally and repeatedly shoots a pet without any provocation and with knowledge that it belonged to a family readily available to take
custody.
Is being called a 'tortfeaser' preemptive punishment for the cop?
posted by mmarcos at 12:55 PM on October 15, 2001
posted by mmarcos at 12:55 PM on October 15, 2001
Not my case--I can't imagine being involved in something as bizarre as this. I got it from a newsletter about constitutional court cases.
posted by espada at 1:49 PM on October 15, 2001
posted by espada at 1:49 PM on October 15, 2001
Now, what was the verdict.. I can't seem to find any clear ruling anywhere... Just a lot of muddled law talking.
posted by a11an at 2:28 PM on October 15, 2001
posted by a11an at 2:28 PM on October 15, 2001
Now, what was the verdict.. I can't seem to find any clear ruling anywhere... Just a lot of muddled law talking.
Lower courts had found for the defendants. This court (U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals) upheld that verdict for everyone except the officer doing the shooting:
posted by mcwetboy at 3:15 PM on October 15, 2001
Lower courts had found for the defendants. This court (U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals) upheld that verdict for everyone except the officer doing the shooting:
The judgment in favor of Officer Eberly will be reversed, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
posted by mcwetboy at 3:15 PM on October 15, 2001
Wow, legal mumbo jumbo, Bleah ...
Basically it's that the kind folks can sue the pants off the cop as they please but the government and the police force are not to blame.
Did I get that right?
posted by a11an at 5:34 PM on October 15, 2001
Basically it's that the kind folks can sue the pants off the cop as they please but the government and the police force are not to blame.
Did I get that right?
posted by a11an at 5:34 PM on October 15, 2001
It makes me wonder. The dog might not have had a history of being aggressive, but still, why would anybody want a dog like a rotttweiler as a pet?
posted by salmacis at 1:11 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by salmacis at 1:11 AM on October 16, 2001
This case is really interesting. It involves issues we're studying in three of four of my first year classes in law school (Civil Procedure, Legislation, and Torts). Thanks for posting it.
posted by norm at 7:24 AM on October 16, 2001
posted by norm at 7:24 AM on October 16, 2001
« Older Bin Laden starring in his own arcade game. | Treo. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Is this _your_ case? How on earth did you stumble across this?
Aside from the strangeness of the link... it certainly sounds tragic. It would have been even more interesting, though, to have a little bit more information than just the court docs.
posted by silusGROK at 12:51 PM on October 15, 2001