A rural Kansas landowner challenging government’s warrantless searches of his homestead and business has a green light to continue the fight. Scott Johnson’s civil rights and private property lawsuit, reinstated by an appeals court, cuts to the heart of the Fourth Amendment.
In 2022, represented by the Kansas Justice Institute, Johnson filed suit against the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA), contending the state agency’s demand for surprise, no-warrant access to his property under penalty of fines and loss of business license is a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Commonsense Principle
In Cowley County, Kansas, roughly one hour southeast of Wichita, Johnson operates nationally recognized Covey Find Kennel and trains prize-winning bird dogs. His house, shop, and kennels sit together, adjacent to pastureland and wheat fields.
In Kansas, bird dog training is a “pervasively regulated industry”—lumped into the same restricted arena as commercial fishing, animal breeding, horse racing, liquor, firearms, and mining. Operation of a dog training business requires a state-issued license, and all applicants must waive Fourth Amendment rights. Licensees must agree to warrantless, unannounced inspections of premises and facilities.
Johnson lives where he works. In 2020, when KDA demanded no-warrant access to Johnson’s property, Johnson fought back. Backed by the Kansas Justice Institute, he launched a lawsuit against KDA in October 2022, asserting that KDA’s warrantless search policy violates Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections, and contesting the inclusion of dog training as a pervasively regulated industry. (Johnson did not challenge Kansas law concerning breeders, shelters, animal rescues, pet stores, research facilities, or distributors.)
On May 6, 2023, Johnson’s lawsuit against KDA was denied in federal court. He appealed to the Denver, Colo.-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and in June 2024, the appeals court ruled that Johnson’s Fourth Amendment lawsuit should not have been dismissed and reinstated the case.
Kansas Justice Institute attorney Sam MacRoberts addresses the crux of the ruling: “The point of the Tenth Circuit’s decision is that government cannot conduct warrantless searches because it feels like it.”
“Warrantless searches are totally unnecessary for dog trainers like Scott Johnson,” MacRoberts continues. “Scott has a vested interest in making sure the dogs he trains are very, very well taken care of. His business model is to do right by the dogs and do right by the customers. The Tenth Circuit understands this commonsense principle.”
Incredibly Narrow
Why is dog training and dog handling considered a pervasively regulated industry—on the same level as government oversight of mining and firearms—by the state of Kansas?
(Citing ongoing litigation, Kansas Department of Agriculture declined a Farm Journal interview request.)
“It makes no sense that Kansas insists on lumping dog handling and training in with underground mining or other such industries, but the Tenth Circuit ruling makes clear that this Fourth Amendment exception is industry specific, fact-dependent, and incredibly narrow,” MacRoberts notes.
“As a means to get around the Fourth Amendment, both municipalities and state governments increasingly have used the pervasively regulated industry exception, starting in about the mid-1980s and thereafter exploding in use. It has become a blank check for government to conduct warrantless searches. That is one reason why Scott Johnson’s case is so important. The government must have an extremely unique necessity to conduct a warrantless search—not dog handling.”
No Waiver, No License
Following the Tenth Circuit ruling, Johnson’s lawsuit goes back to district court in Kansas.
At present, to maintain his livelihood, Covey Find Kennel, Johnson still must waive Fourth Amendment rights. No waiver, no license. No license, no business.
“Our legal arguments have remained the same since day one,” MacRoberts says. “Your home is your castle, and the government can’t search it just because it wants. We’re confident that ultimately we will succeed based on the merits of Scott’s case. This is a great step toward protecting property and privacy rights.”