Samuel Campbell v. City of Springboro, Ohio
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24548
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- SPD formed its first canine unit in 2004, with Officer Nick Clark in charge of selecting Spike and the training program.
- Spike completed a 300-hour core canine handling course in May 2005 and achieved state certification with Clark.
- Maintenance training was intended to occur every other week, but Clark admitted it was not consistently done.
- Spike’s state certifications lapsed for several months in 2007, though recertification occurred before the incidents.
- Clark supervised Spike’s deployment in the field despite training lapses, and there was disagreement about Spike’s bark-and-hold versus bite-and-hold training for tracking.
- Two bite incidents occurred: Campbell (October 20, 2007) and Gemperline (October 11, 2008), both resulting in injuries to the suspects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark violated the Fourth Amendment with excessive force in Campbell | Campbell alleges unreasonable canine bite after eye contact, with no warning or timely release. | Clark argues reasonable, trained use of the dog under total circumstances and warnings were not clearly required. | A genuine dispute about reasonableness; qualified immunity not barred at summary judgment. |
| Whether Clark violated the Fourth Amendment with Gemperline | Gemperline was not resisting, posed no threat, and was bitten without warning; training questioned. | Dog’s tracking and bite were within reasonable use given circumstances; warnings disputed but not dispositive. | Reasonableness disputed; qualified immunity not warranted at summary judgment. |
| Supervisory liability of Chief Kruithoff for training/supervision | Kruithoff’s failure to supervise and publish K-9 policy caused the defective training and injuries. | Kruithoff had no direct involvement; cannot be held liable for training deficiencies without personal participation. | Disputed facts preclude summary judgment; majority finds no personal involvement; City liability still possible for policy-based claims. |
| Municipal liability for failure to train (City of Springboro) | City’s deliberate indifference to training defects caused constitutional violations. | Insufficient evidence of prior notices or causal link; cannot show deliberate indifference under Canton standard. | Record inadequate to establish municipal liability; appellate jurisdiction limited on this issue. |
| Ohio law immunity for Clark under RC 2744.03(A)(6) | Clark acted in bad faith or with wanton recklessness, defeating immunity. | Immunity should apply absent manifest outside-scope or malice; facts could show bad faith. | Jury could find bad faith/wanton conduct; summary judgment denied on state-law immunity grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (6th Cir.1988) (explains qualified immunity where dog was used against a suspect with probable danger)
- Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir.1994) (dog used after warnings;fight over appropriate use of canine force)
- White v. Harmon, 65 F.3d 169 (6th Cir.1995) (untrained canine bite on handcuffed suspect deemed excessive force)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force under Fourth Amendment)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal failure-to-train claims)