Sixth Circuit Affirms SMB&P Summary Judgment for Police K-9 Handler

The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a summary judgment obtained by SMB&P’s Government Entities group in favor of a police K-9 handler accused of using excessive force while attempting to detain an individual experiencing a mental health emergency. Police were contacted by members of the individual’s family after he exhibited signs of mental instability over several days. Officers attempted to make contact with the individual and themselves witnessed mentally unstable behavior. Later, officers stopped a vehicle the individual was riding in as a passenger for the purpose of taking him to the hospital for mental health treatment. Another police officer, who was the department’s K-9 handler, was separately dispatched to the scene of the traffic stop. During stop, the driver of the vehicle informed the officers that the individual had a gun.  At the same time, the individual exited the vehicle and began walking away from the officers toward a busy intersection with open businesses. The officers ordered him to stop, but he did not comply. The K-9 handler then released the K-9 in an effort to get the individual to stop. This was ineffective, however, and the individual continued to walk toward the intersection and businesses. The K-9 officer then moved towards the individual and took him to the ground. The individual then drew a revolver from his waistband and some of the officers fired their duty weapons.  The individual’s Estate filed suit making several claims against the officers and the police department, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the K-9 handler violated the individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure and detention by releasing the police dog and taking the individual to the ground. SMB&P Partner Katie Barbiere represented the K-9 handler and filed a motion for summary judgment on his behalf. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the K-9 officer’s decision to release his dog, and his subsequent decision to attempt a takedown maneuver, were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  The court reasoned that the individual did have a mental condition that might lead him to pose a danger and that the force used was “reasonably necessary” to address that danger.  The court ruled the officer’s conduct during this tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation was reasonable given his knowledge of the individual’s conduct prior to the stop and the individual’s actions during the stop. As a result, the court ruled that the officer’s actions did not constitute an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court’s decision can be viewed here.