AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Animal Control Issues
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Civil
Liability for Use of Police Dogs, Part 1, 2014 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Use of
Police Dogs, Part 2, 2014 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Use of
Police Dogs, Part 3, 2014 (10) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A homeless man was living on the streets of Los Angeles, and caring for 20 birds when animal control officers showed up at his tent to investigate complaints about the animals. Officers found 18 pigeons, a crow, and a seagull in boxes and cages in his home on a sidewalk, all in various states of health. The city decided to seize all of the animals, giving the man 10 days to request a hearing to regain custody. But before that deadline was up, a city veterinarian euthanized all the pigeons, claiming they could've been carrying pathogens without ever testing their blood. The man sued the city, and his case was dismissed by a trial court. But a federal appeals court revived some his claims, saying his constitutional rights might've been violated. It upheld a grant of summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against the officers and dismissal of the state law claims, but vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim challenging the seizure of the birds because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s healthy-looking birds posed any meaningful risk to the other birds or humans at the time they were seized. It further instructed the trial court to consider whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established at the time it was committed. Recchia v. Los Angeles Dept. of Animal Services, #13-57002, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 11364 (9th Cir.).
Occupants of a home sued two
officers and a city for a warrantless entry into the home's yard to investigate
a tip that two guns were in an abandoned vehicle on the property, in the course
of which one of the officers shot and killed the family dog. A federal appeals
court found that the officers had no warrant, no probable cause plus exigent
circumstances, and had not offered any other basis that would make their entry lawful.
The officers therefore violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights and
were not entitled to qualified immunity as their actions, under the undisputed
facts, would not have been objectively reasonable. Harris v. O’Hare, #12-4350,
770 F.3d 224 (2nd Cir. 2014).
A private non-profit
corporation that contracted with a city to provide animal welfare services
received complaints about conditions at a local pet store. Employees of the
company found, during a visit to the store, that the animals there lacked water
and that the air conditioning was not working. They removed animals and
business records from the store and revoked the store's permit to be a pet
dealer. The store sued the city, the company, and its employees (in both their
individual and official capacities), claiming that the warrantless seizures
violated the Fourth Amendment and that removing the animals and revoking the
store's permit without a prior hearing violated procedural due process. A
federal appeals court held that one employee, who acted solely as a private
animal-welfare officer, could not assert a qualified immunity defense to a
personal capacity claim. Two other employees, however, acted both as private
animal-welfare officers and also as specially commissioned city police
officers. They were granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity
on the procedural due process claims, and Fourth Amendment claims regarding the
seizure of the animals. One was granted summary judgment on claims regarding
the seizure of the business records, while a second employee was denied summary
judgment on the same claims. Qualified immunity was not available to any
employees on the official capacity claims. The city had a strong interest in
immediately seizing the animals to protect them from squalid and hot conditions
without water, and the post-deprivation hearing was an adequate remedy, so
their removal did not violate due process or violate the Fourth Amendment. The
revocation of the store's permit violated due process, however, as neither a
pre-deprivation or post-deprivation hearing was offered. United Pet Supply,
Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, #13-5181, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17900, 2014 Fed.
App. 240P (6th Cir.).
A woman owned a property that she operated as an
animal shelter until an ASPCA investigation led to a search of that property,
her firing as the county dogcatcher, and her being sentenced for animal
neglect. The ASPCA investigator, although a private party, was able under state
law to obtain a warrant to search the property, and it directed officers to
enlist veterinarians or other persons or agencies authorized by the county
prosecutor to assist in the search. Deputy sheriffs entering the property were
accompanied by 40-50 undeputized animal rights volunteers who actually carried
out the search, with the deputies just there to keep the peace. A federal
appeals court upheld an award of damages in a lawsuit claiming unreasonable
search and negligence in failing to adequately train or supervise the amateur
searchers, resulting in needless property damage. The "incompetence of the
amateur searchers is apparent from the reports of the deputy sheriffs,"
the court noted. Petkus v. Richland County, #13-3700, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
16054 (7th Cir.).
Police mistook a Hispanic teenage boy and his
friends, who were in his own home, for two white male intruders being sought.
They pointed guns at them, entered the home without a warrant, and shot and
killed the family's pet dog. An excessive force claim could go forward, as the
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, indicated that
they fully complied with the officers' orders at all times. An unlawful entry
claim could also go forward as the officers did not have probable cause in the
absence of any information to suggest that the boys were illegally on the
premises, and the lack of an objective basis for applying an emergency aid
exception, as well as disputed issues of fact as to whether any violence was
imminent. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The shooting of
the dog did not amount to a deprivation of a familial relationship. Sandoval v. Las Vegas
Metro Police Dep't., #12-15654, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12395 (9th Cir.).
Two undercover animal services officers visited a
couple's home, where they observed some puppies that the couple advertised in a
local newspaper. The couple had bred their two pet bulldogs to produce the
puppies for sale. Uniformed animal service officers then knocked on the door,
entering and seizing all nine of the dogs, claiming, erroneously, that the
couple had violated an ordinance about breeding dogs. All dogs were taken to an
animal shelter, where they had microchips placed in them, and the adult dogs
were neutered. The couple was asked for over $1,000 for the return of the dogs.
It turned out that the couple was not violating the ordinance, as they were not
operating an unlicensed Class A kennel, as defined in the ordinance. The
initial entry by the undercover officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment,
as it was pursuant to the couple's newspaper ad inviting the public to come
inspect the dogs for sale. The subsequent entry by the uniformed officers
without a warrant, for law enforcement purposes, however, raised valid Fourth
Amendment claims. The officers may have also violated procedural due process by
depriving the couple of their property, the dogs and the ability to breed them,
without written notice of the alleged violation on which the seizure was based.
O'Neill v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, #10-5699,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 22530 (6th Cir.).
Public housing residents claimed that
"precipitous" seizures and "cruel" killings of their pet
cats and dogs by city personnel violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. Upholding the denial of qualified immunity to a city's mayor on
procedural due process and Fourth Amendment claims, a federal appeals court
found that killing a pet without the owner's consent is a Fourth Amendment
seizure. The appeals court, relying on caselaw from other federal circuit
courts of appeal, rejected the argument that the law on the subject was not
clearly established. The court did, however, grant the mayor qualified immunity
on the plaintiffs' substantive due process claims because of his lack of sufficiently
direct personal involvement in the killings, applying the analysis adopted by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, #07-1015, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).
Maldonado v. Fontanes, #08-2211, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 12716 (1st Cir.).
A local ordinance banning "pit bull"
dogs was not impermissibly vague, and was specific enough that it did not
encourage arbitrary enforcement. Ruling on dog owners' challenges to the
ordinance, a federal appeals court held that there was no showing that the
"human/companion animal" bond involved a constitutionally protected
liberty interest, so that strict scrutiny analysis would not apply to the
ordinance. The plaintiffs, however, did assert a possibly viable claim that the
ordinance did not have a rational relationship to a legitimate government
interest, so further proceedings were required on their substantive due process
claims. Dias v. Denver, #08-1132, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11163 (10th Cir.).
Man's claim that a county animal shelter
mistakenly killed his pet dog was insufficient to show a violation of the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fourth Amendment, since the
claim essentially was for negligence or accident, rather than a violation of
civil rights. Raiford v. Greenville County Animal Shelter, #6:09-0287, 2009
U.S. Dist. Lexis 20367 (D.S.C.), magistrate's recommendation adopted by Raiford
v. Greenville County Animal Shelter, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20173 (D.S.C.).
Woman allegedly attacked and injured on public
property by a privately owned dog while walking home from work failed to show
that a city was liable for her injuries under either federal civil rights law
of Texas state law, despite her argument that the city's past failure to
adequately enforce its animal control laws was a due process violation that had
resulted in the attack. The plaintiff claimed that, on "one or more
occasions prior to [the date of the attack]. . . the dog attacked a human”
within the city and that the city knew that but, contrary to the provisions of
its animal control ordinance, did not seize the dog and deliver it to an animal
control shelter, declare it a vicious animal, notify the owners of or conduct a
hearing to declare the dog vicious, and “did not condition the city’s
release" of the dog to its owners. The city, however, did not own, use, or
possess the dog. "There is no allegation whatever in the complaint that
the city or any city officer or employee or anyone acting for the city ever had
any intent to injure plaintiff or anyone else, or knew of any danger to
plaintiff or to any particular, identifiable discrete group including plaintiff
(as distinguished from members of the public at large within the city). ...
[N]or is it in anyway alleged that the city ever did anything to the dog which
made it more vicious or changed it in any way." Jaramillo v. City of
McAllen, Texas, No. 08-40308, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 275 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
Officers who searched the plaintiff's house
without a warrant were entitled to qualified immunity because the information
they had at the time of their entry indicated to them that a number of her
dogs, seen and heard barking inside the apparently uninhabited, partially
renovated house, lacking heat and electricity on a cold day, were in urgent
need of assistance. There was no clearly established law as to whether officers
could make a warrantless entry into a home to provide emergency assistance to
animals. Shapiro v. City of Glen Cove, No. 05-3827, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12138
(2nd Cir.).
Officer did not act unreasonably during
plaintiff's arrest by shooting and killing his pit bull. Evidence showed that
witnesses saw the dog growling, being aggressive, and advancing towards the
officer, justifying the officer's actions. Chambers v. Doe, No. Civ. 04-415,
2006 U.S.Dist. Lexis 69965 (D. Del. 2006). [N/R]
Police chief was not entitled to qualified
immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim that he acted unreasonably in shooting and
killing a family's pet dog while it was in their enclosed backyard, mistakenly
believing that it was a loose dog that he had earlier pursued through the
neighborhood. Andrews v. City of W. Branch, No. 05-1188, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
18748 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
Officer's shooting and killing of man's pet dog
was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The officer could
have, under the circumstances, reasonably believed that the dog posed an
imminent threat to his safety, based on its weight of 55 to 60 lbs, its speed
in traveling 15 feet in five seconds, and the fact that it would have reached
him in five seconds had he not shot it. While the dog owner did yell that the
dog would not hurt the officer, the officer did not have to wait until the dog
was within biting range before taking action to protect himself. Dziekan v. Gaynor,
No. 3:03CV1486, 376 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
Owner of dog failed to assert a viable
constitutional claim in seeking damages for the loss of 60 days of the
companionship of her pet on a theory that her due process property rights had
been violated by the dog's detention. Plaintiff ordered to show cause why she
should not be sanctioned for making a "frivolous argument in a meritless
case." Wall v. City of Brookfield, No. 04-313, 406
A police dog bite of a handcuffed vehicle passenger
at the scene of a traffic stop was not a Fourth Amendment seizure, because the
police officer did not intentionally use the dog to seize the passenger or
direct the dog to bite him. Cardona v. Connolly, No. 3:03CV1838, 361 F. Supp.
2d 25 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
Police officers and sheriff's deputy were not
entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly seizing "truckloads" of
personal property while executing search warrant at residence for the sole
purpose of supporting sentencing enhancement in a pending case by proving that
the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was a gang, or for shooting two dogs at the
residence. San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San
Jose, No. 02-16329, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jun]
The seizure and immediate euthanization of over
200 dogs and cats seized from a woman's trailer home and its attached fenced-in
yard did not give rise to a viable claim for deprivation of property without
due process of law when the county employees' actions were "random and
unauthorized" under state law. This made it impracticable to provide a
pre-deprivation hearing, and was not unconstitutional so long as there were
available state remedies to compensate the woman for any losses. Bogart v.
Chapell, No. 03-2092, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1650 (4th Cir.). [2005 LR Mar]
Police officer who shot and killed a dog which
had chased and pinned down a man in his back yard was entitled to immunity from
liability under a Louisiana statute providing that an officer may kill any
dangerous or vicious animal and shall not be liable for damages as a result of
such killing. Hebert v. Broussard, No. 04-485, 886 So.2d 666 (La. App. 3rd Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to extend
"firefighters' rule," barring landowners' liability for injuries
firefighters suffer in coming onto their property to fight fires to injuries
suffered by police officers in the course of performing their duties. Wisconsin
police officer, therefore, was not barred from pursuing injuries claims against
the owners of a loose dog which bit her. Cole v. Hubanks, No. 02-1416, 681
N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
Family could not recover damages for loss of
consortium or intentional infliction of emotional distress based on county dog
warden's shooting of their pet dog. Loss of "love and affection" from
death of dog was not the kind of damages family could obtain under Kentucky
state law, the shooting did not take place in front of the family, and there
was no evidence that defendant intended, by his actions, to inflict emotional
harm. Court also refuses to find a practice of destroying impounded dogs by
shooting them inhumane, leaving such issues to be decided by the legislature.
Ammon v. Welty, No. 1999-CA-001759-MR, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court holds that privately owned
pet dogs are personal "effects" protected under the Fourth Amendment
from unreasonable searches and seizures, but also finds that animal control
officers' actions in shooting and killing the plaintiffs' dogs were objectively
reasonable under circumstances where the dogs posed an actual or potential
threat to the officers or others. Altman v. City of High Point, North Carolina,
No. 02-1178, 330 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
Building owner was not liable to deputy sheriff
for dog bite suffered while attempting to serve process on a tenant in an
eviction case. Landlord was not reasonably on notice of the presence of the dog
on the building premises simply because of dog droppings in the yard. Landlord
was also entitled to protection under the one-bite rule even if they knew of
the dog's presence, when they had no knowledge of this dog's dangerous
propensities. Montier v. Silver Lake I, L.P., #2001-514, 813 A.2d 978 (RI 2003).
[N/R]
Under District of Columbia law, a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress could be based on officers' alleged unlawful
entry into and search of arrestee's home without justification, killing of his
pet dog inside the residence, and failure to secure the premises after his
arrest, resulting in the loss of property alleged to have a value in excess of
$6,000. Amons v. District of Columbia, 231 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
326:20 Police officers did not violate dog owner's
property rights when they shot and killed her pit bull, which had just bitten a
woman and was coming towards them and ambulance attendants in a menacing
manner; city did not act with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's rights by
limiting training to situations involving mad dogs with rabies. Hooper v. City
of Detroit, 50 F.Supp. 2d 689 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
318:94 Jury awards $255,000 in damages to owners
of pet dog shot and killed by officers in the yard of owner's home; officers
claimed that dog jumped at them, while plaintiffs argued that dog merely stared
at officers, was arthritic, and was unable to leap in the air. Fuller v. City
of Richmond, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Cal