10th Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity to Police Officer Who Claimed There Was No Clearly Established Law Preventing Him From Shooting Dog Who Posed No Danger

Police officers are entitled to “qualified immunity” unless their conduct violates clearly established federal law. In Love v. Grashorn, 2025 WL 1162842 (10th Cir. 2025), a police officer tried to claim that there was no clearly established law preventing him from shooting a dog who posed no imminent danger. As a matter of first impression, the Tenth Circuit rejected his claim.

In Grashorn, 

The shooting occurred after a business owner called the police, reporting a truck in his parking lot after business hours.

In response, Officer Mathew Grashorn came to investigate. Upon entering the parking lot, he saw a truck owned by the plaintiffs, Ms. Wendy Love and Mr. Jay Hamm. The officer parked and got out of his car. A large dog (Bubba) had been lying on the ground, but got up and ran toward Officer Grashorn.

Officer Grashorn pointed his gun at Bubba. Mr. Hamm called for Bubba, and the dog returned to his owners. Another dog (Herkimer) then emerged from the truck, darting toward Bubba and then running toward Officer Grashorn. When Herkimer was a few feet away, Officer Grashorn fired two shots, injuring the dog. Herkimer was later euthanized as a result of the injuries.

Ms. Love and Mr. Hamm subsequently sued Officer Grashorn for violating the Fourth Amendment, and he unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied Officer Grashorn’s motion, prompting his appeal to the Tenth Circuit.

That court denied the appeal, ruling as follows:

Until now, we haven’t squarely decided whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from shooting a dog in the absence of an imminent danger. But we have addressed the constitutionality of a shooting when the victim is a person (rather than a dog). For example, in Morris v. Noe, we concluded that an officer had violated clearly established law by conducting a forceful takedown of the plaintiff….We found no cases involving the kind of force used by the officer….But based on the facts assumed by the district court, the plaintiff had posed no threat to the officers and had not resisted or fled….So we held that the alleged takedown would have violated a clearly established requirement for officers to act reasonably under the circumstances….The constitutional violation is just as obvious when the shooting involves a dog rather than a person.

Officer Grashorn points out that we lack any binding precedents on this issue. But a general rule may apply with obvious clarity….Here the constitutional prohibition applies with obvious clarity based on common sense, persuasive case law in other circuits, and our precedents addressing the shooting of persons….

Granted, officers may enjoy qualified immunity when an aggressive dog poses an immediate threat….For example, we’ve upheld qualified immunity when the undisputed evidence showed that the dogs posed an imminent danger by behaving aggressively and trying to attack a law-enforcement officer….Even when appellate courts have upheld qualified immunity for officers shooting dogs, however, the courts have relied on imminent dangers to police officers….

Given common sense, the consensus of case law, and our precedents on the shooting of persons, the availability of qualified immunity turns on the existence of an imminent danger to Officer Grashorn. But the district court concluded that a jury could reasonably find no immediate danger to Officer Grashorn, rendering a constitutional violation clearly established.

-CM