Mayfield v. Bethards
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11096
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- On July 13, 2014, Deputies Clark and Jim Bethards entered the Mayfields’ unfenced front yard in Halstead, Kansas, approached two dogs (Suka and Majka), and fired; Majka (a white Malamute Husky) was shot three times on the front porch and died.
- The Mayfields allege neither dog acted aggressively and that deputies later moved and tried to conceal Majka’s body; they sued Bethards under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure (destroying personal property).
- Deputy Bethards moved to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court denied qualified immunity as to Bethards (granting it as to Clark and dismissing other claims/defendants).
- Bethards appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Tenth Circuit exercised interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review the legal issue.
- The court accepted the Complaint’s factual allegations as true (pro se plaintiff), and evaluated whether (1) a constitutional right was violated and (2) that right was clearly established at the time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether killing Majka constituted a Fourth Amendment "seizure" of property | Mayfields: dogs are personal property; killing Majka is a meaningful, permanent interference (a seizure) absent warrant or exception | Bethards: animals not "effects" or, alternatively, killing was reasonable under circumstances (statutory authority to kill dogs injuring livestock) | Held: Killing Majka is a Fourth Amendment seizure of personal property; Complaint plausibly alleges an unreasonable seizure |
| Whether killing Majka was reasonable as a matter of law under Kansas §47-646 / McDonald | Mayfields: allegations show no aggression and dispute prior livestock-attack accusation; no facts in Complaint justify an exception to warrant requirement | Bethards: Kansas law permits killing dogs injuring livestock and McDonald permits pursuit off premises, making his conduct lawful | Held: McDonald is fact-intensive and requires proof (and authorization to enter owner’s land); allegations do not establish an exception as a matter of law, so dismissal was improper |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment protection for pet dogs was clearly established in 2014 (qualified immunity question) | Mayfields: controlling precedent and weight of authority put a reasonable officer on notice that killing pets is a seizure violating Fourth Amendment absent justification | Bethards: law not sufficiently specific; no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit on-point decision | Held: Clearly established—Tenth Circuit had treated livestock seizures under Fourth Amendment and multiple federal circuits held killing companion dogs is a seizure; Bethards not entitled to qualified immunity at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (jurisprudence on motion-to-dismiss standards and legal issues for interlocutory review)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (establishing interlocutory appealability of qualified immunity denials)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (characterizing seizures of personal property under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (defining property "seizure" as meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- McDonald v. Bauman, 433 P.2d 437 (Kan. 1967) (Kansas interpretation of statute allowing shooting dogs injuring livestock; fact-intensive prerequisites)
- Pauly v. White, 814 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity: clearly established standard)
- Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707 (7th Cir.) (holding killing companion dog constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir.) (applying Fourth Amendment analysis to seizure of horses)