Dillard Putman v. Quentin Harris, 66 F.4th 181

May 2019: Dillard Putman sent his wife texts threatening suicide, including that he had "a gun in [his] mouth." His wife called 911 and consented to officers searching the property.
Officers found a rifle in the house, deployed a K-9 team (Corporal Quentin Harris and Sgt. Travis Hayton) to search surrounding woods, and the dog tracked Putman to a shallow ditch; no weapon was visible on scene.
Bodycam footage shows Putman refusing repeated orders to turn and put his hands behind his back, speaking aggressively, and refusing to show his back/waistband; officers warned the dog would be released.
Harris released the dog twice; the dog initially latched onto Putman’s shirt, and on the second release bit Putman’s upper arm, severely injuring his brachial artery and requiring emergency surgery; no firearm was found on Putman.
Putman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and related state-law claims. The district court denied Harris qualified immunity on the excessive-force count, finding a jury could conclude Harris lacked a reasonable belief Putman was armed and that the right was clearly established.
The Fourth Circuit reversed: viewing the undisputed record in full (texts, behavior, refusal to show waistband), a reasonable officer could have believed Putman was armed and posed an immediate threat, so Harris’s K-9 deployment did not violate the Fourth Amendment; appellate court remanded with instruction to enter judgment for Harris on the federal excessive-force count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordering the K-9 to bite was excessive force under the Fourth Amendment	Putman: He was nonviolent, not posing an immediate threat; using a dog that could cause serious injury was excessive	Harris: Given texts threatening suicide with a gun, aggressive behavior, and refusal to show waistband, a reasonable officer could believe Putman was armed and an immediate threat	No constitutional violation; K-9 deployment was objectively reasonable
Whether the denial of qualified immunity is reviewable on interlocutory appeal (genuine factual dispute)	Putman: District court found disputed fact about whether Harris reasonably believed Putman was armed, barring review	Harris: Material facts are undisputed (bodycam and record); reasonableness is a legal question the court can decide	Appellate court had jurisdiction: reasonableness is legal; no genuine dispute over material facts
Whether the right was clearly established at the time (qualified-immunity prong two)	Putman: Right to be free from serious force when not posing immediate threat was clearly established	Harris: His conduct fell within reasonable judgment and thus likely not clearly established liability	Court did not decide clear-establishment (no need after finding no violation); remanded for judgment for Harris on federal count

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (sets objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity framework and permissive sequencing of the two-prong inquiry)
Barrett v. Pae Gov't Servs., Inc., 975 F.3d 416 (4th Cir. 2020) (probable cause supports emergency mental-health seizure where facts support belief person poses danger to self or others)
Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892 (4th Cir. 2016) (force risking serious injury can be justified where an immediate safety risk reasonably exists)
Young v. Prince George's County, 355 F.3d 751 (4th Cir. 2004) (force on compliant, handcuffed, and identified individual can be unreasonable)