CA8: It was not clearly established at the time that a dog bite is a 4A seizure

“After an on-duty police K9 bit Officer Daniel Irish while they both pursued a suspect, he sued the K9’s handler, Deputy Keith McNamara, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and unreasonable seizure. The district court denied Deputy McNamara’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Because it was not clearly established on these facts that the bite was a seizure, we reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.” Irish v. McNamara, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17630 (8th Cir. July 18, 2024). Update: techdirt: Appeals Court Says Cop Whose Cop Dog Bit Another Cop Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity by Tim Cushing

“Weighing the testimony at the motions hearing, reviewing the body worn camera footage of the incident, and looking at the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the pat-down was consensual and thus reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. As such, the pat-down did not violate Mr. Dillard’s Fourth Amendment rights, and so the Court will not suppress the firearm.” United States v. Dillard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126386 (E.D. Va. July 17, 2024).*

Defendant filed a Franks motion but the USMJ said he was going with standing, and there was no objection nor offer of proof for Franks. And no standing. United States v. Lopategui-Paoli, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126908 (D.P.R. July 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Seizure, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.