Collins v. City of St. Paul

Background

Desiree Collins brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people who violate constitutional rights while acting with government authority. She alleged that Thaddeus P. Schmidt, acting individually as a St. Paul police officer, used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when his police dog, Gabe, bit her while officers searched for burglary suspects.

At about 6:25 a.m. on September 23, 2017, Schmidt and Gabe responded to a reported burglary. Schmidt gave Gabe a command to track and initially issued two warnings. Gabe searched several yards and an alley on a 20-foot leash. During the search, officers learned that one suspect had been apprehended, but Schmidt continued looking for the suspect’s clothing. Gabe eventually went behind a dumpster, where he encountered Collins, who was taking out the trash. The dog bit and held Collins’s arm for roughly 30 seconds. She received treatment for lacerations to her arm and leg.

A police investigation concluded that Schmidt’s conduct before the bite violated department policy and training standards. The investigation identified his failure to give additional warnings, use of the 20-foot leash, and handling of the dog’s electronic collar. Schmidt received a one-day unpaid suspension and accepted the discipline as accurate and fair. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Fourth Amendment seizure

The court first considered whether Gabe’s bite was a seizure. A seizure occurs when police intentionally use physical force or authority to restrain a person’s freedom of movement. The court concluded that Schmidt intended for Gabe to seize the first person the dog encountered, even though Schmidt did not know Collins was there and she was not the intended burglary suspect. Because Collins was the first person Gabe encountered and the dog seized her, the court ruled that she was seized under the Fourth Amendment.

The court distinguished a case involving a police dog that mistakenly bit a bystander while pursuing a suspect because Collins was not injured when the dog missed a suspect. Instead, the court viewed this case as one involving mistaken identity: Gabe was trained to bite the first person it encountered, and Schmidt knew that was likely to happen.

Reasonableness of the seizure

The Fourth Amendment requires police force to be reasonable. The court recognized that the seriousness of the burglary and the fleeing suspect supported deploying Gabe initially. But the court found a serious question about whether any government interest justified continuing the search after officers learned that a suspect had been apprehended.

The court also ruled that Schmidt’s handling of Gabe was unreasonable as a matter of law. Collins could not hear the initial warnings, and Schmidt gave no additional warnings during the extended search. The court concluded that a warning must be effective and audible, particularly because warnings give innocent people a chance to leave the area and suspects a chance to surrender.

The court further concluded that a 20-foot leash was unreasonable in the urban setting because it allowed Gabe to move out of the officers’ sight behind the dumpster. The court noted that Gabe had previously disappeared from view while barking at a cat, which should have alerted Schmidt that the leash was too long. The court viewed the evidence favorably to Schmidt and concluded that his actions after the bite could have been reasonable, although a jury could disagree about that issue.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is protection from civil damages for government officials whose conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. The court ruled that Schmidt was not entitled to it. It found that existing law clearly established that a police dog trained to bite and hold could seize an unknown person and that an effective warning was required. The court also found that Schmidt had fair warning that deploying Gabe with a long leash, without effective warnings and without adequate control, was unreasonable in these circumstances.

Disposition

The court concluded that Collins had proved her constitutional claim as a matter of law. It denied Defendant Schmidt’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Plaintiff Collins’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The ruling resolved liability in Collins’s favor; the case was to proceed to trial on damages.