CA8: Duty to warn of use of police dog was clearly established

Officers sicced a police dog on plaintiff who was fleeing, but without warning. Use of a police dog usually requires a warning. “The warning requirement was clearly established by the time of Cameron’s arrest. As we stated in Adams, Kuha provided ‘fair notice’ that ‘the failure to give a warning and an opportunity to surrender violated clearly established law.’ 74 F.4th at 940. Defendants have failed to show that this case is an exception to that rule. Cameron has thus raised a genuine dispute of material fact whether Officer Meunsaveng violated a clearly established right by failing to warn before releasing Bero.” Also, leaving the dog on him until handcuffed was reasonable here. “Once officers completed handcuffing Cameron, Officer Meunsaveng removed Bero within roughly two seconds. ‘At most, one could argue that [Officer Meunsaveng] could have called the dog off a second or two sooner. But that kind of fine-sliced judgment call amid “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” circumstances just isn’t the stuff of a Fourth Amendment violation.’ See Ashford v. Raby, 951 F.3d 798, 804 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 397). In total, Bero’s bite lasted roughly fifteen seconds. Given the totality of the circumstances, including ‘the short time frame at issue,’ Officer Meunsaveng acted reasonably in using Bero to hold Cameron until he was handcuffed. See Kuha, 365 F.3d at 601.” Cameron v. City of Des Moines, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5692 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2026).