Mark and Cheryl Brown petitioned their local court to hold the city as well as police officers from Battle Creek, Michigan, accountable for killing their dogs during the execution of a search warrant of their home.
The search warrant was to look for evidence of drugs, and the dogs never attacked the officers.
The plaintiffs say that the police officers’ actions were nothing short of unlawful seizure of property in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The circuit court on Monday, remarkably, sided with the police officers.
“The standard we set out today is that a police officer’s use of deadly force against a dog while executing a warrant to search a home for illegal drug activity is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when, given the totality of the circumstances and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer, the dog poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the court’s opinion.
With Browns’ two pit bulls, there was a claim of “imminent threat came from the dogs barking and moving around.”
Ryan Lovelace of theWashington Examiner notes that “one officer shot the first pit bull after he said it “had only moved a few inches” in a movement that he considered to be a “lunge.” The injured dog retreated to the basement, where the officer shot and killed it as well as the second dog while conducting a sweep of the residence.”
“Officer Klein testified that after he shot and killed the first dog, he noticed the second dog standing about halfway across the basement,” the court’s opinion explained. “The second dog was not moving towards the officers when they discovered her in the basement, but rather she was ‘just standing there,’ barking and was turned sideways to the officers. Klein then fired the first two rounds at the second dog.”
When the wounded dog ran to a back corner of the basement, the other officer shot the dog rather than seeking help for it.
“Officer Case saw that ‘there was blood coming out of numerous holes in the dog, and … [Officer Case] didn’t want to see it suffer,’ so he put her out of her misery and fired the last shot,” Clay wrote.
Lovelace notes that the court decided that “the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence showing the first dog did not lunge at police officers and that the second dog didn’t bark. Clay wrote that Mark Brown’s testimony that he didn’t hear any barking when the officers approached the residence did not have any impact on whether the dogs were a threat to the officers after they entered the house.”
(Article by M. David)