Cop shoots unarmed dog
Turns out the police aren’t always immune from civil lawsuits when they shoot people’s pets in
the face.
At least not in this bizarre case out of a federal court of appeals.
See...there’s these two ladies, Ms. Livingston and Ms. Lamay.
They live together in a house in Minneapolis with two small children and two very large pit bulls.
One night, someone in the house accidentally sets off the burglar alarm.
The alarm company calls the police and the police send two officers to respond to the
call...Officer Ledman and Officer Mays.
Before the police arrive...one of the ladies call the alarm company to let them know it was an
accident.
The record’s not clear whether or not the alarm company notified the police it was a false alarm.
Either way...doesn’t matter.
So the police arrive at the house.
Ledman goes to the front door and knocks.
Mays jumps over the six-foot privacy fence and into the backyard.
Did I mention the two very large pit bulls that lived with the humans in that house?
Ciroc - a 60-pound male, and...
Rocko - a 130-pound male.
Very sweet dogs, apparently.
They’re service animals for their owner and a child who suffers from emotional disorders.
Anyway...Ms. Livingston opens the front door and apologizes to Ledman for accidentally
triggering the alarm.
All’s well the ends well...but Ledman fails to alert Ms. Livingston that his partner’s in the
backyard.
And so here’s Mays checking out the backyard when Ciroc walks up to greet him, all friendly-
like, tongue hanging out and slobbering with his tail wagging back and forth...
So Mays pulls out his gun and shoots the dog in the face.
Whoa!
The gun shot gets Rocko’s attention.
Court papers say the second dog went outside and presented himself to Officer Mays in a non-
threatening manner.
So Mays takes aim and shoots Rocko several times in the body.
Miraculously...both dogs survive.
But they’re both rendered unable to perform their jobs as service animals.
So LaMay and Livingston sue the City of Minneapolis and Officer Mays.
They claim that shooting the dogs was an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
But Officer Mays files a motion to dismiss the lawsuit claiming he has qualified immunity to do
whatever the hell he wants as a government agent.
Problem is…
Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages only if their conduct
does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person
would have known about.
So for a person to overcome a qualified immunity defense...that person has to file papers with
the court showing two things…
First...you gotta show that the government official violated a statutory or constitutional right…
And...
Second...you gotta show that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged
conduct.
Now...that’s what you call a two-pronged test.
And if either prong isn’t satisfied…
...the police officer skates on qualified immunity, and…
YOU LOSE!
So when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and the right of the People to be secure in their
persons...houses...papers...and effects...against unreasonable searches and seizures…
Our courts have held that pet dogs are effects under the Fourth Amendment.
And that means that if a cop is going to seize (i.e. shoot in the face) your dog...the cops conduct
must be “reasonable.”
And courts judge the reasonableness of a police officer’s conduct from the perspective of a
reasonable police officer...not on the subjective intent of the actual officer’s actions.
To do this...courts have to balance the nature of the invasion on the person’s Fourth
Amendment right…
...weighed against whatever interest the government claims justifies shooting your docile puppy
right square in the chops.
And sure...the government has an interest in protecting life and property from wild-assed dogs
running amok creating an imminent danger of death and destruction…
But when an officer shoots and kills the family pet when the pet presents no danger...and when
non-lethal methods of capture would have worked…
That, my dog-loving friends, is an unreasonable, warrantless seizure of property…
And it is a clear violation of the Constitution of the greatest Nation ever created by God the
Almighty … i.e. America.
And in this case...the court was satisfied that Ms. Livingston and Ms. Lamay said the right things
to show that Officer May’s conduct was not reasonable.
And as for the second prong of that two-pronged test...the prong about the right of dog owners
to not have their friendly pet dog shot in the face by a police officer…
It is well-established law that an officer cannot shoot a dog in the absence of a legitimate and
imminent threat to the officer or to others.
That’s the law of the land.
And Officer May was on notice that unnecessarily killing a man’s dog is a violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
Of course...that doesn’t fully settle the matter.
After all, this was an appeal from the District Court’s denial of Officer May’s motion to dismiss.
So, like Ciroc and Rocko...Officer May’s case has some big holes in it, but for now it’s still alive.
Until next time…court’s adjourned!