I think it is a pretty good opinion. They recognize that "seizing" the dog is protected by the 4th amendment, and that the cops don't have qualified immunity on it because that's well established. So then the look at the reasonableness of the officers' actions based upon the facts they have. And they looked at it in the context of a motion for summary judgment, so they looked at it in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. That's all correct.
The Plaintiff couldn't provide any evidence that the dogs weren't a threat. The best he could do was say that the dogs (a 97 pound pit and a 57 pound pit) weren't barking in the window before the officers entered. He also testified that the smaller dog never barked before in its life (seems fishy but you take it at face value for a motion for summary judgment). The officers were executing a warrant on a house and defendant with a known violent criminal history, gang ties, resisting arrest, and had just been released from prison a month ago after serving his full time. The officer said they thought that him serving his full sentence. They had actually detained him away from the house right before serving the warrant at the house, and learned right before executing the warrant that at least one more person and at least one dog were in the house. The officers testified that both dogs were barking at them from the window, continued to bark at them when they entered, and the large dog lunged at them, so they shot it. The wound wasn't fatal and both dogs ran into the basement. But, this being a drug raid on a gang house, they had to clear the basement. So they looked down there and the big dog was barking at them at the bottom the stairs. They didn't feel safe going down there considering it had lunged at them before, and they didn't know if anyone else was down there, so they shot the big dog again, killing it. They then went down the stairs, and the basement was full of stuff. The smaller dog was sitting there barking at them, and they couldn't tell if anyone was hiding down there. So they shot the smaller dog to keep it from attacking and creating chaos, it started running towards an officer and he shot it as well. It went behind the furnace, at which point it was bleeding badly and suffering, so the cops took aim and delivered a fatal shot to end its suffering.
There's no evidence to the contrary on any of the above, so it is unrebutted fact. The closest question is definitely the first shot on the second dog. The court looked at other cases where cops have gotten in trouble for shooting dogs, including a case where they shot guard dogs at a Hell's Angels clubhouse. In that case, they knew or should have known the dogs were there, and evidence was put on that they could have avoided shooting the dogs. In this one, the cops didn't know there were dogs there beforehand so they couldn't have taken more care, and once they were in a small basement full of junk in gang house with one escape route with a barking 57 pound pitbull and who knows what else, it was reasonable that they feared the dog represented a threat of imminent bodily harm. I think it was a good decision.
I am not aware of a cop being killed by a dog. I am aware of people being killed by dogs. Legally, "man's best friend" is nothing more than property to the owner. Obviously, they are living beings that should be free from being treated with cruelty or neglect, but they are not people no matter how much you care for them.
If this owner cared for his pitbulls, he ought not to put them in that situation. When you move you and your dogs into a house with a violent ex-felon gang member who is selling large amounts of cocaine and heroin, you should consider that the house might be raided, and that the dogs might be considered a threat unless they are completely restrained. If you don't want your 97 pound pit to get shot, don't put it in charge of security at a drug house run by gangs.
s, their SOP has been to routinely shoot little terriers for just being present where bodily harm isn't even in the question.
