Mark Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep't
844 F.3d 556
| 6th Cir. | 2016

Background

  • Police executed a search warrant at a residence suspected of drug distribution connected to Vincent Jones; ERT (Emergency Response Team) was used because Jones had gang ties and a violent/criminal history.
  • Officers learned en route that Jones had been detained elsewhere and that at least one dog was at the residence; Mark Brown (resident) was detained outside and told officers he had keys and that two dogs were in the house.
  • Officers breached the front door, saw two pit bulls through a window, and entered. Officer Klein shot a large (≈97 lb.) pit bull after it lunged/barked; that dog retreated to the basement where officers shot it again. Officers Klein and Young shot the smaller (≈53 lb.) pit bull in the basement as it barked/moved; Officer Case delivered a final fatal shot when it was bleeding behind the furnace.
  • Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure (killing) of their dogs and unreasonable property damage, (2) municipal liability under Monell for failure to train, and (3) excessive force in breaching the door. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
  • The Sixth Circuit (panel) held that killing a dog is a Fourth Amendment seizure, that the right was clearly established in 2013, but that officers’ shootings were reasonable on these particular facts; it affirmed summary judgment for the officers and the City.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether killing the dogs is a Fourth Amendment "seizure" Brown: unreasonable killing of dogs constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure of property Defendants: Circuit/Supreme Court had not recognized such a right Held: Yes; killing a dog is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment (aligning with other circuits)
Whether the right was clearly established in 2013 Brown: officers should have known killing dogs could violate Fourth Amendment Defendants: not clearly established then Held: Clearly established by 2013 based on sister-circuit authority and district court precedent
Whether shootings of the two dogs were objectively reasonable Brown: shootings were unreasonable; Mark Brown offered keys and subject (Jones) was detained Defendants: dogs posed imminent threat, raid was high-risk, officers acted in split-second circumstances Held: Reasonable—given size/behavior of dogs, aggressive barking/lunging, confined space, and need to clear basement, a reasonable officer could use deadly force; summary judgment for officers affirmed
Whether the City is liable under Monell for failure to train/supervise Brown: City failed to train re: handling dogs and allowed a culture (tally stickers) showing indifference Defendants: no constitutional violation; no pattern of unconstitutional shootings or evidence of deliberate indifference Held: No Monell liability—Plaintiffs failed to show prior similar unconstitutional incidents or that failure to train amounted to deliberate indifference
Whether breaching the front door with a ram was excessive Brown: key was offered; no exigency because Jones was detained Defendants: risk of evidence destruction and armed suspects; keys might be wrong Held: Reasonable entry and minor door damage justified under Fourth Amendment precedent

Key Cases Cited

  • Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step)
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (official immunity standard)
  • Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability standard)
  • Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (deliberate indifference/failure-to-train standard)
  • Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness excessive force framework)
  • Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (balanced Fourth Amendment force analysis)
  • Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (method of executing warrants and property damage)
  • Robinson v. Pezzat, 818 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (dog-shooting precedents; split reasonableness outcome)
  • Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2008) (killing a companion dog can constitute an unreasonable seizure)
  • Carroll v. County of Monroe, 712 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2013) (dog seizure analysis)
  • San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005) (killing guard dogs unreasonable where officers had advance notice)
  • Brown v. Muhlenberg Twp., 269 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2001) (dog as protected effect under Fourth Amendment)
  • Altman v. City of High Point, 330 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2003) (dog shootings found reasonable in certain circumstances)
Read the full case