Amendment, provides that [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.... U.S. Const, amend. IV. Plainly, a dog is not a “person,” “house,” or “paper.” Thus, in order for a dog to be protected by the Fourth Amendment, it must fall within the category of “effects.” Neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit has ever addressed the issue whether dogs are “effects.” Three other circuits, the Third, Eighth, and Ninth, have considered whether dogs are protected by the Fourth Amendment. Those circuits have uniformly concluded, although based only on eonelusory assertions, that dogs are indeed so protected. See Brown v. Muhlenberg Township, 269 F.3d 205, 209-10 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Fuller v. Vines, 36 F.3d 65, 68 (9th
holding that an eis must consider the extent to which adverse effects can be avoided by discussing possible mitigation measures holding that dogs are effects holding that the effects of injury caused by discriminatory employment policies first manifested when the policies were implemented holding that employment practices which are neutral in form but which result in discriminatory effects are prohibited unless justified by business necessity holding that adverse employment effects include but are not limited to such discrete actions as discharge demotion or reduction in pay