Question

1. In August of 2008, a mayor of a small town arrives home and finds a
package addressed to his wife on his front porch. He carries it into
the house, not knowing it contained drugs. Certain traffickers had
been sending packages to random people to get the drugs into the
country. After the mayor carries the package into the house, SWAT and
narcotics officers stormed the house, cuffing the man and his
mother-in-law, and shooting the man’s two dogs to death—one in the
back as it fled the sound of loud noise. The officers claimed to feel
threatened by the dogs. When asked to see the warrant authorizing the
raid, the mayor was denied—finally viewing the warrant three days
after the incident. Was the police action Constitutional? Use whatever
Amendments you think are appropriate to say why or why not.

Answer 1

Answer:

I believe that it was not constitutional. They did not have a reason to kill the dogs. They didn't say they were barking or growling or anything. I think that was also unconstitutional. Per the 4th amendment that they need to show a warrant right away when asked and they didn't. I deem that unconstitutional.

Answer 2

I believe that the SWAT team's actions were not constitutional, as the homeowner had a right to see the warrant before the police entered the house. Additionally, killing the dogs was unnecessary, as it was not stated that the dogs were barking or attacking the SWAT team, only that they felt threatened. Furthermore, one of the dogs was even running away from the SWAT team, posing no threat whatsoever.