Is PA violating constitution?

I am writing to to express my concern that the Pennsylvania Agriculture Department is violating citizens rights. A few weeks ago I noticed a article in the local paper saying dog wardens were going door to door at people's homes in the county demanding to see people's dog licenses. I wrote an email to the department expressing my concern that they were lacking respect for the property and 4th Amendment rights of citizens. I told them that I was concerned that they were going door to door "questioning" more like harassing citizens with no reason to believe that they were violating the dog laws or even owned a dog for that matter. I said that the "burden of proof" to prove someone is committing a crime rests with the police (dog warden/ Government) and that we as citizens have no responsibility to prove we are following the laws. I told them in the email that if they were to come to my house and question me that unless they had a warrant I would not show them my dog license even though I have one and I would politely ask them to leave my property.
I received an email back from a lady at the department named Kristen Donmoyer. What she sent me made me quite frankly very angry and concerned about the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians. The email she sent contained 5 Pennsylvania state laws that she believed allowed the department to do this. One law she cited was 3 P.S. 459-401(e) states in relevant part, “It shall be unlawful for any person to whom a license certificate has been issued to fail or refuse to produce the license certificate for such dog upon demand of any police officer or employee of the department”. I think this is very unconstitutional because look at the essence of the law it allows them the police (dog warden) to come to your home and demand to see your dog license without any reasonable cause and then makes it illegal for you not to show it to them. I think this must violate the 4th Amendment since it states "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". I think this is violating the security you are supposed to have in both your home and your papers (dog license). Isn't the 4th Amendment also supposed to prevent searches (demanding to see dog license) without any reasonable suspicion or cause? The dog warden has no reason to believe that you don't have a dog license, they don't even have any reason to believe that you own a dog. My concern with this law is that it could expand well beyond dog licenses. By reading this state law it looks like it would allow for the police to come to your door and ask if you own a gun and if you do they could demand to see your registration and it would be illegal for you to refuse to show it which I think is very scary since that is the same tactic used by regimes across the world.
Another law she cited that I find very questionable is 3 P.S. 459-801(a) states, “In any proceeding under this act, the burden of proof of the fact that a dog has been licensed, or has been imported for breeding, trial, performance event or show purposes, or that a dog is under the required licensed age of three months as hereinbefore provided, shall be on the owner of such dog. Any dog not bearing a license tag shall prima facie be deemed to be unlicensed except as provided under this act. It is unlawful for any person dealing in and with dogs, to use a false or fictitious name unless such name is registered with the Commonwealth”. If I am reading this law correctly that means that we as citizens now lose our right of "innocent until proven guilty". Under this law it seems as if we now must prove to the dog warden (or any officer for that matter) that is at our door that we are following the laws and we now have the burden to prove our innocence.
The final law she cited that I am concerned of is 3 P.S. 901(a) states in relevant part: “State dog wardens and employees of the department are hereby authorized to enter upon the premises of any person for the purpose of investigation. A dog warden or employee of the department may enter into a home or other building only with the permission of the occupant or with a duly issued search warrant.” The second part of the law goes along with what I believe is constitutionally prescribed but the first part is where I take my concern. It says "for the purpose of investigation" but my question is in order to have an investigation you have to have probable cause which I don't see them having.
I am writing to see if you think that my legal interpretations are correct. If you do think my interpretations of the law are correct and that these laws violate the constitution what steps do you think I should take in the legal process any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your consideration

I suggest you build a sound proof room to hide your dog in and protect your rights. This is one of those things where a license is required and they can inspect it within the parameters of the law. I suggest you voice your displeasure to the local news and county commissioners.

huntermerideth said:

I am writing to to express my concern that the Pennsylvania Agriculture Department is violating citizens rights. A few weeks ago I noticed a article in the local paper saying dog wardens were going door to door at people's homes in the county demanding to see people's dog licenses. I wrote an email to the department expressing my concern that they were lacking respect for the property and 4th Amendment rights of citizens. I told them that I was concerned that they were going door to door "questioning" more like harassing citizens with no reason to believe that they were violating the dog laws or even owned a dog for that matter. I said that the "burden of proof" to prove someone is committing a crime rests with the police (dog warden/ Government) and that we as citizens have no responsibility to prove we are following the laws. I told them in the email that if they were to come to my house and question me that unless they had a warrant I would not show them my dog license even though I have one and I would politely ask them to leave my property.
I received an email back from a lady at the department named Kristen Donmoyer. What she sent me made me quite frankly very angry and concerned about the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians. The email she sent contained 5 Pennsylvania state laws that she believed allowed the department to do this. One law she cited was 3 P.S. 459-401(e) states in relevant part, “It shall be unlawful for any person to whom a license certificate has been issued to fail or refuse to produce the license certificate for such dog upon demand of any police officer or employee of the department”. I think this is very unconstitutional because look at the essence of the law it allows them the police (dog warden) to come to your home and demand to see your dog license without any reasonable cause and then makes it illegal for you not to show it to them. I think this must violate the 4th Amendment since it states "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". I think this is violating the security you are supposed to have in both your home and your papers (dog license). Isn't the 4th Amendment also supposed to prevent searches (demanding to see dog license) without any reasonable suspicion or cause? The dog warden has no reason to believe that you don't have a dog license, they don't even have any reason to believe that you own a dog. My concern with this law is that it could expand well beyond dog licenses. By reading this state law it looks like it would allow for the police to come to your door and ask if you own a gun and if you do they could demand to see your registration and it would be illegal for you to refuse to show it which I think is very scary since that is the same tactic used by regimes across the world.
Another law she cited that I find very questionable is 3 P.S. 459-801(a) states, “In any proceeding under this act, the burden of proof of the fact that a dog has been licensed, or has been imported for breeding, trial, performance event or show purposes, or that a dog is under the required licensed age of three months as hereinbefore provided, shall be on the owner of such dog. Any dog not bearing a license tag shall prima facie be deemed to be unlicensed except as provided under this act. It is unlawful for any person dealing in and with dogs, to use a false or fictitious name unless such name is registered with the Commonwealth”. If I am reading this law correctly that means that we as citizens now lose our right of "innocent until proven guilty". Under this law it seems as if we now must prove to the dog warden (or any officer for that matter) that is at our door that we are following the laws and we now have the burden to prove our innocence.
The final law she cited that I am concerned of is 3 P.S. 901(a) states in relevant part: “State dog wardens and employees of the department are hereby authorized to enter upon the premises of any person for the purpose of investigation. A dog warden or employee of the department may enter into a home or other building only with the permission of the occupant or with a duly issued search warrant.” The second part of the law goes along with what I believe is constitutionally prescribed but the first part is where I take my concern. It says "for the purpose of investigation" but my question is in order to have an investigation you have to have probable cause which I don't see them having.
I am writing to see if you think that my legal interpretations are correct. If you do think my interpretations of the law are correct and that these laws violate the constitution what steps do you think I should take in the legal process any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your consideration

Click to expand...

Q4P.

And thankfully, you're not in charge.

huntermerideth, you can check out Moser v Pennsylvania Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2012 (accessible through the links below), for a good discussion on the Fourth Amendment. Moser is an animal "search and seizure" case where, without consent of the property owner and without a warrant, property was searched by Humane Society officers and animals were seized.

The facts of Moser differ from the facts involved in the canvasing of homes for dog license violators, which was done by Pennsylvania game wardens last summer (and apparently this year?), but the case seems to cover your concerns about the legalities of the door-to-door canvasing. It is important to note that, under Pennsylvania law, both game wardens and Humane Society officers have, to use the words of the Moser Court, "law enforcement capability. This authority is all the more notable when one considers that Pennsylvania law grants this authority without also imposing a warrant requirement."

For Moser, you can go to Recap the Law at http://archive.recapthelaw.org/paed/359604/ to download the pdf files, or http://ia601206.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.paed.359604/gov.uscourts.paed.359604.28.0.pdf, which should give you direct access to the Court decision on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Scroll down to "B. Unconstitutional Search and Seizure, Count II").

I am bothered by the door-to-door "search" for violators (violators can be fined $300 per violation if they cannot provide evidence their pets are properly licensed) and I think OHR's suggestions are pretty good. Even though I think pet owners should have their pets licensed and all pets should be vaccinated, I admit that this way of ensuring compliance with the animal laws disturbs me.