Mark Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep't
2016 FED App. 0293P, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22447, 844 F.3d 556 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The killing of a companion animal by law enforcement constitutes a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment. Such a seizure is constitutionally reasonable if, from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer on the scene, the dog poses an imminent threat to the officers' safety.
Facts:
- The Battle Creek Police Department (BCPD) obtained a warrant to search a residence for drugs based on evidence linking Vincent Jones, a man with a known history of gang affiliation, violence, and firearm possession, to drug distribution from that location.
- Mark and Cheryl Brown were staying in the basement of the residence, which was owned by Cheryl's daughter, and owned two pit bulls that lived there.
- On the day of the raid, police detained Vincent Jones away from the residence. The raid team was informed Jones was in custody but that other armed associates could still be inside.
- Just before the raid team breached the door, Mark Brown, who had been detained outside, informed an officer he had a key and that only his two dogs were inside. The lead officer of the entry team did not hear this information.
- Upon making a forced entry, Officer Klein saw two pit bulls. He testified the first dog, a 97-pound pit bull, barked aggressively and lunged at him, prompting him to fire a non-lethal shot.
- The wounded first dog ran to the basement. When officers descended the stairs to clear the basement, the dog was at the bottom, barking and blocking their path. Officer Klein then fired two fatal shots.
- Officers then saw the second, 53-pound pit bull in the basement. Officer Klein testified it was barking, and he shot it. Officer Young also shot the second dog, stating it was moving in his direction. Officer Case fired a final shot, stating he did not want the animal to suffer.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark and Cheryl Brown filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal district court against three police officers and the City of Battle Creek, alleging an unconstitutional seizure of their dogs.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the seizure was reasonable and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court (the court of first instance) granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims.
- Plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where the Defendants are the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's use of deadly force against a dog during the execution of a high-risk search warrant violate the dog owner's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures when the officers testify that the dogs behaved aggressively and impeded their ability to safely secure the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Clay, Circuit Judge
No. A police officer's use of deadly force against a dog is a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment when the dog poses an imminent threat to officer safety. The court first established as a matter of first impression in the circuit that the killing of a dog is a 'seizure' of property under the Fourth Amendment. The court then analyzed the reasonableness of the seizure by balancing the intrusion on the individual's rights against the government's interests, primarily officer safety. Viewing the events from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, the court found the seizures were justified. The officers were executing a high-risk warrant for a dangerous suspect known to have armed associates, creating a tense and uncertain environment. The officers' unrebutted testimony described the first dog lunging and both dogs barking aggressively and impeding their ability to safely clear the residence. Mark Brown's testimony that the dogs were not barking as police approached was deemed immaterial because he could not see what transpired inside. Given the totality of the circumstances—including the nature of the raid, the breed and size of the dogs, their aggressive behavior in an enclosed space, and the need to secure the premises—the officers' belief that the dogs posed an imminent threat was objectively reasonable.
Analysis:
This case formally establishes in the Sixth Circuit that the killing of a pet dog is a Fourth Amendment seizure, aligning the circuit with a consensus of its sister circuits. However, the ruling also demonstrates the significant deference courts grant to an officer's on-the-scene assessment of threat, particularly during high-risk warrant executions. By deeming the owner's contradictory testimony from outside the house 'immaterial' and focusing on the officers' 'unrebutted' testimony about the dogs' indoor behavior, the decision sets a high bar for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in such cases. The precedent suggests that without direct, contradictory evidence of the animal's non-threatening behavior at the moment of the shooting (e.g., video evidence), officer testimony will likely be sufficient to establish reasonableness and secure qualified immunity.
Unlock the full brief for Mark Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep't