Cross-posted with permission And please make mention (cross post this also) of the New York City Bar (The Association of the Bar of the City of New York) opinion on Intro 425 tethering restrictions (contained in the " Hearing Testimony 12/17/10 " which I mentioned in my first post), which is four pages long and not only supports passage of 425 as currently written, but would like to see (among other additions) restriction of tethering indoors. To quote from this document: "The Committee recommends broadening the Proposed Legislation to also restrict tethering indoors, enforcement of which would have legal support". This sentence is footnoted (Footnote 1) to cite, in a lengthy paragraph, previous cases (not local to NYC, but across the US) which in their opinion would support warrantless entry by law enforcement into a private residence to prevent injury to a dog upon receipt of a complaint of an animal in imminent danger by "tethering" or other means. The paragraph won't copy from the pdf so I can't include it here (too lengthy to type out by hand), but you can easily read this discussion for yourselves by opening the file. The cases cited in this paragraph need to be studied in depth to see what they do, and do not say since no doubt these will be appearing at future times to support not just indoor restrictions of tethering in NYC, but passage of other AR-backed laws across the US, in an attempt to show that enforcement of such laws inside a private residence is legal. The passage of laws that relate to specific facets of care and treatment (e.g., tethering) of a dog inside a private dwelling would thus provide additional means for warrantless searches of private residences, if I am interpreting this all correctly. This is very much different from neglect/cruelty laws we already have on the books in most jurisdictions, since, as we all know, when such laws such as anti-tethering laws are passed, a person can be charged and convicted ***without an animal having been harmed or being in any danger***. If the opinion of the NYC Bar is correct based on cases they cited (we need to study these), such laws would also provide legal support for warrantless searches of private property should tethering or other restricted activity be alleged by claiming that an animal tethered in a way that didn't meat the specifications of the law was in "imminent danger" and therefore needed to be rescued, whether or not that that animal was, indeed, facing any threat. We are in for some very dangerous times ahead. This is nothing short of a complete abrogation of our property rights as dog owners, since anyone could allege mistreatment by "tethering" or other means as reason for warrantless search of a private residence, once such laws are passed. And this begs another question (since I don't live in NYC) -- WHO is feeding all of this to the NYC Bar?? And who else (and where else) are they feeding it to? Margo Milde ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2010. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Each Author is responsible for the content of his/her post. This group and its administrators are not responsible for the comments or opinions expressed in any post. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/ ============================================================================