Saathoff v. Davis

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s verdict in favor of defendant-police officer in section 1983 action alleging that defendant violated plaintiffs’ 4^th Amendment rights by shooting and killing plaintiffs’ labrador retriever while responding to call indicating that plaintiff’s dog was involved in dog fight with what appeared to be stray pit bull. While portions of record could support plaintiffs’ claim, defendant explained that he shot plaintiffs’ dog out of fear that stray pit bull posed danger to bystanders witnessing dog fight, and jury could find that defendant’s actions were not unreasonable where: (1) vicious dog was involved; (2) defendant shot at what he believed to be more aggressive dog; and (3) situation could have deteriorated at any time. Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ claim that Dist. Ct. erred in: (1) allowing defendant to testify that police dispatcher had told him that one dog was “almost dead,” even though defendant had failed to include said fact in his discovery responses, since plaintiff’s interrogatories did not tightly focus on description of incident and plaintiffs otherwise learned of defendant’s trial testimony from other sources; and (2) rejecting plaintiffs’ proposed jury instruction telling jury that use of deadly force against household pet is reasonable only if pet posed immediate danger and use of force was unavoidable.