CA8: Ricocheting bullet not a seizure

Unintended shooting target: “When an officer fires at a dog, is there a seizure of the dog’s owner when the stray bullet hits her instead? We conclude the answer is no.” Hight v. Williams,  2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 781 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026):

The undisputed facts in this case all point to the absence of a seizure. … Perhaps the most important one is that, as Hight concedes, “Deputy Williams fired his county[-]issued service weapon at [the] Pomeranian.” His words matched his actions, given that each of his statements was about getting the dogs under control, including ordering them to “get back!” And finally, the bodycam video shows that he fired downward toward the dog as it approached, which supports the conclusion that it was his target, not Hight. Hitting her was an unfortunate accident. See Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989) (explaining that the Fourth Amendment does not address “the accidental effects of … government conduct”). To be sure, we have stopped just short of fully embracing an objective test in unintended-target cases.

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.