Christopher Maney v. Terence Garrison
681 F. App'x 210
4th Cir.2017Background
- Late May 4, 2010, Officer Garrison and his trained tracking/bite police dog Bikkel followed a robbery suspect scent to a vacant house; Bikkel is trained to bite-and-hold when commanded, on scent of the tracked subject, or in response to attack.
- Christopher Maney (homeless, unarmed, white, shorter than suspect description) was crouched in sparse bushes near the porch; the area was lit; officers did not announce themselves to Maney before approaching.
- Bikkel unexpectedly lunged into the bushes and bit Maney; Garrison did not command the initial bite, then recognized Maney did not match the suspect description but ordered Maney to show his hands before calling the dog off; the dog bit Maney two more times before being called off.
- Maney suffered significant injuries and sued under the Fourth Amendment (excessive force/unreasonable seizure) and North Carolina battery law.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Garrison on qualified immunity and state-law immunity grounds; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding the law was not clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known Garrison’s brief conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, and that North Carolina immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maney) | Defendant's Argument (Garrison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garrison violated the Fourth Amendment by prolonging a dog-bite seizure to order Maney to show his hands | Maney: allowing the dog to continue biting after it was clear he was not the suspect was excessive force and an unconstitutional seizure | Garrison: brief continuation (seconds) to assess officer safety in a tense, rapidly evolving situation was reasonable | Court: Even if constitutionally problematic, the right was not clearly established; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether officers must give a verbal warning before using a police dog (on-leash vs. off-leash) | Maney: Kopf and Vathekan require warnings before deploying dogs; rule applies regardless of leash status | Garrison: Melgar limited the warning rule when substantial control over a leashed dog exists; he maintained control and did not release Bikkel off-leash | Court: Melgar muddied a per se warning rule for leashed dogs; no clearly established requirement applied to these facts |
| Whether there was no basis to seize Maney at all (i.e., whether any force was permissible) | Maney: he was not suspected of any crime; mere presence doesn’t justify seizure or dog attack | Garrison: his tracking, Bikkel’s scent indicators, and Maney’s hiding at the scene could reasonably give rise to suspicion and immediate safety concerns | Court: A reasonable officer could have (mistakenly) formed reasonable suspicion under Terry; brief force to resolve threat was not clearly beyond constitutional bounds |
| Whether Garrison is immune from Maney’s state-law battery claim under North Carolina law | Maney: Garrison acted maliciously or with reckless disregard, so state immunity should not apply | Garrison: acted within official duties and without malice or corrupt intent | Court: State-law immunity applies because conduct did not violate a clearly established federal right and no evidence of malice or wanton intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity balances accountability and protection from suit)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (standard for qualified immunity)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (right must be clearly established)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonable-suspicion standard for brief investigative stops)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (seizure requires intentional acquisition of physical control)
- Kopf v. Wing, 942 F.2d 265 (police-dog deployment without warning may be unreasonable)
- Vathekan v. Prince George’s County, 154 F.3d 173 (failure to warn before deploying a dog can violate the Fourth Amendment)
- Melgar ex rel. Melgar v. Greene, 593 F.3d 348 (distinguishing on- vs. off-leash dog deployments; qualified immunity where officer exercised substantial control over leashed dog)