Did the defendants violate the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . L DID THE DEFENDENTS VIOLATE THE PLAINTIFFS FOURTH ; AMENDMENT RIGHTS? A. Does the 4" amendment protect authorized custodians of a private rural residence against law enforcement officers from raiding the surrounding yard armed with AR-15 assault rifles and . executing a warrantless search in order to seize and destroy private property, a pet dog found not harming anyone inside its own back porch? : ; B. Did the District Court of Kansas error when it did not follow the standard of review and relevant law when it refused to recognize the Mayfields’ RV parked in the driveway provided them with additional protections of the Fourth Amendment. California v Carney (No. 83859)471 U.S. 386 (1985)? ; ° Cc. Does the established weight of authority show that the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure of personal property include a pet dog? Mayfield v Bethards . Memorandum and Order 2015. “It has also been clear since at least Jacobson that seizure of ; property implicates the Fourth Amendment...The claim survives defendants’ motion to dismiss.” a Harrington v. Miles, 11 Kan. 480,482-83 (1873) Dz. Did Deputy Carman Clark violate the Plaintiffs Second and Fourth Amendment rights when he, absent of a warrant or probable cause, with the threat of deadly force seized Mr. Mayfields legal sidearm? . 1 Did the Harvey County Sheriffs Dept. violate the Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment Rights when they seized and kept the Plaintiffs ammo clip, providing no written documentation or justification for the illegal confiscation? : 2. Can a law abiding citizen exercising their state right to open carry a firearm, be detained, threatened, dis-armed, harassed, have their ammo clip stolen then left with no tickets, arrests or documentation of the entire encounter? Does this amount to a violation of the Plaintiffs Fourth Amendments protections to be free from unwarranted invasions of our person, our possessions, our means of protection, our freedom and our dignity? 3. Does a citizen forfeit his constitutional rights when they peacefully approach an officer of the law to inquire about a reported incident, if that person happens to have a holstered legal firearm? : E. Did the Plaintiffs properly assert a Fourth Amendment claim for the warrantless search of their property? ; II. DID THE DISTRICT COURT OF KANSAS’S INTERPRETION OF KANSAS | STATUTE AND KANSAS SUPREME COURT DECISION CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL oo CONFLICT? | A. Will the Supreme Court allow the District of Kansas to expand the current Kansas Statute KSA 47-646 to allow officers of the law to execute a warrantless search of private property armed with assault rifles with sole intent to destroy the owners dogs based on a report of a . livestock attack that they did not witness. (This expansion of power also conflicts with Ks statutes regarding how and when an animal can be destroyed after legal hearings and all other attempts to capture have been exhausted. KSA 21-6412.) “According to Deputy Bethards, the Kansas Supreme Court in McDonald v Bowman, 433 P.2d 437 (Kan. 1967) interpreted this statute to permit a person not only to kill an offending dog caught in the act... butto pursue and 7 kill the dog after it has returned to its owners’ land. But that case cannot be read as broadly as Deputy Bethards suggests.” Mayfield v Bethards, 10" Circuit 2016. . B. Is there a degree of imminent danger created when allowing law enforcement officers to arm themselves with military grade assault rifles and raid a private residence without a warrant in order to hunt down the owners dogs and shoot them when found. “Significantly, neither Section 47-646 nor McDonald v Bowman addresses the killing of a dog on its owners property by either a third party or a police officer acting in his official capacity in response to an . accusation by a livestock owner about an attack the third party or. police officer did not witness.” Mayfield v Bethards, 10" Cireuit 2016 Cc. Does the