CHICAGO — A federal judge denied a request for summary judgment from the city of Chicago and three police officers in connection wtih a lawsuit alleging a police officer killed a family dog while raiding a home.
U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood said in the May 29 opinion that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by shooting and killing a dog on Sept. 4, 2015.
The opinion said plaintiffs James Anderson, Janice King and Semaj Henderson-Funchess were at Drexel Residence with the dog on the day Chicago police officers arrived there to search for another man, as well as for crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Anderson told the officers upon their arrival that the only people there were him, King, Henderson-Funchess and the dog, named Gucci King.
U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood
| fedbarchicago.org
The district court said the officers allegedly charged into the house with a ram and came in contact with Gucci King, who they claimed had no history of aggression and did not require the use of a choke collar.
The plaintiffs claimed two of the officers saw the dog, and one of the shot Gucci King, claiming they thought the dog was going to attack them.
The plaintiffs said the dog was not barking, growling or snarling, according to the order. After the dog was shot, the opinion said the officers handcuffed King and Henderson-Funchess, even though they were teenage girls and were not attempting to attack the officers.
The girls were allegedly subjected to offensive comments and injuries during the incident, according to their own testimonies, but the district court said the officers denied those allegations.
The plaintiffs claimed Gucci King was friendly and had no history of aggression. They said the dog enjoyed greeting visitors when they entered the home.
While the officers alleged the dog was going to attack them, the court said other evidence showed that Gucci King was approaching the door in a non-aggressive manner when he was shot and killed by Papke.
If the deadly force used against the animal was excessive, the judge noted, past precedent has established the act of killing a "companion dog," when the animal posed no immediate danger to the officers, would be considered an unconstitutional seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment.
"... Despite Defendants’ assertion to the contrary, there are material factual disputes regarding whether Gucci King posed an imminent threat to the officers and whether (the officers') use of force was unavoidable," the judge wrote.
In allowing the case to proceed, Judge Wood noted a jury could find for either the officers, or the plaintiffs, depending on evidence and testimony presented.
"Even if Gucci King posed a potential danger to officers entering the Drexel Residence, a reasonable jury could conclude that the officers could have avoided the fatal use of force by, for example, allowing the dog to be secured by its owners (as was the case during a prior raid on the residence)," Judge Wood wrote. "Because there are disputed material facts regarding the reasonableness of the officers’ conduct, summary judgment is not warranted on that basis."
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the firm of Henderson Parks LLC, of Chicago.
The city and police officers are represented by attorneys from the firm of Querrey & Harrow Ltd., of Chicago.