{"id":575,"date":"2024-02-26T16:11:18","date_gmt":"2024-02-26T20:11:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/?p=575"},"modified":"2024-02-26T16:11:18","modified_gmt":"2024-02-26T20:11:18","slug":"fourth-circuit-sends-family-dog-shooting-case-to-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/2024\/02\/26\/fourth-circuit-sends-family-dog-shooting-case-to-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"Fourth Circuit Sends Family Dog Shooting Case to Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently reversed a summary judgment in favor of a police officer who had been sued for an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment arising out of an incident that had resulted in the shooting death of a pet dog.\u00a0 According to the appellate court, the conflicting accounts of what happened could only be resolved by a jury.\u00a0 Ray v. Roane<\/em>, No. 22-2120 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2024).<\/a><\/p>\n

The case arose out of police officers\u2019 attempt to serve an arrest warrant on plaintiff.\u00a0 Plaintiff\u2019s dog, a 150-pound German shepherd named \u201cJax,\u201d allegedly lunged at defendant, one of the officers, who thereupon shot the dog in the head and killed him.\u00a0 Plaintiff\u2019s original complaint had been dismissed, but the appellate court reversed on the ground that plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to make it plausible that defendant did not reasonably perceive the dog as a threat.\u00a0 On remand, the case proceeded through discovery at which point the district court granted summary judgment for the defendant.\u00a0 However, the Fourth Circuit found that the conflicting accounts of what had transpired required a trial.<\/p>\n

According to the plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, Jax was tethered to a \u201czip line.\u201d \u00a0When defendant arrived at the property and attempted to serve the warrant, Jax approached, barking, and the defendant back-pedaled but ultimately stopped when it was clear that Jax had reached the end of his tether.\u00a0 At that point, defendant took one step forward and shot the dog.\u00a0 According to plaintiff, this made the shooting unreasonable and therefore a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law.\u00a0 Defendant\u2019s witnesses, however, testified that defendant was back-pedaling the entire time until the moment of the shooting and did not take a step forward.\u00a0 According to defendant, this corroborated his testimony that he was unaware that the dog was tethered.\u00a0 The district court found that no witness contradicted the defendant\u2019s account of defendant\u2019s view point, but the court of appeals disagreed:\u00a0 \u201cIt is time for that dispute to go to a jury for resolution.\u201d Slip. op. at 12.<\/p>\n

The case is a rather unexceptional application of federal court summary judgment principles.\u00a0 However, it is an important reminder that there is a well-developed body of case law that recognizes that the concept of unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment extends to animals \u2013 and to pets in particular.\u00a0 As the court observed (harking back to its decision reversing the granting of the motion to dismiss):<\/p>\n

[T]he Fourth Amendment protects the interest of individuals in dogs they keep as pets. \u00a0. . . To assess the constitutionality of a shooting of a family dog, we \u201cbalance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual\u2019s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.\u201d . . .\u00a0 Both sides have strong interests: \u00a0the individual in \u201cMan\u2019s Best Friend\u201d . . .\u00a0 and the government \u201cin protecting citizens and officers from dogs that may be dangerous or otherwise a source of public nuisance.\u201d . . .\u00a0 And in weighing the government\u2019s side of the balance, we recognized, we must account for the officer\u2019s need \u201cto make split-second judgments,\u201d and consider \u201conly the information known\u201d to the officer \u201cat the time of the shooting.\u201d \u00a0[Slip op. at 5 (quoting and citing Altman v. City of High Point<\/em>, 330 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2003).]<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Thus, if a reasonable officer would have believed that shooting the dog was necessary to protect officer safety, then the Fourth Amendment would permit the shooting.\u00a0 If not, the shooting would violate the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently reversed a summary judgment in favor of a police officer who had been sued for an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment arising out of an incident that had resulted in the shooting death of a pet dog.\u00a0 According to the appellate court, the conflicting … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Fourth Circuit Sends Family Dog Shooting Case to Trial”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":317,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[49,631,1014,5,204,1015],"ppma_author":[697],"class_list":["post-575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-animal-law","tag-dogs","tag-fourth-amendment","tag-john-simpson","tag-pets","tag-unreasonable-seizure"],"authors":[{"term_id":697,"user_id":317,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jmsimpson","display_name":"John M. Simpson","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2018\/06\/simpsonjohn-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/317"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=575"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}