## Facts

- A narcotics team executed a no-knock search warrant at Sherry Carroll’s home in Monroe County, New York.
- Officers used a battering ram to enter; Deputy Sheriff James Carroll was the first officer through the door.
- Before entry, a supervising officer stated a dog would be present, but the team made no non-lethal plan to control the dog during the no-knock entry.
- At the doorway entry area described as a “fatal funnel,” the dog confronted Deputy Carroll; officers testified the dog was growling, barking, and aggressively approaching.
- Deputy Carroll fired one shotgun blast, killing the dog.
- The County had a written policy barring lethal force against an animal unless it posed danger to officers or others, but it did not provide formal training on handling dogs during searches.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required judgment as a matter of law or a new trial because the shooting of the dog during execution of the no-knock warrant was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure.
2. Whether the County’s lack of training and the team’s failure to plan non-lethal dog control made the shooting unconstitutional as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s post-trial motions under Rules 50(b) and 59 and left the defense verdict intact.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the plaintiff did not prove the shooting was an unreasonable seizure.
- The court rejected the argument that lack of non-lethal planning or training rendered the seizure unreasonable as a matter of law, given testimony about the immediacy of the threat and constraints of the no-knock entryway.

## Legal Principles

- The killing of a companion animal by law enforcement constitutes a “seizure” of property under the Fourth Amendment; it is unconstitutional only if unreasonable.
- Fourth Amendment reasonableness is fact-dependent and may permit lethal force against an animal where an officer reasonably perceives an immediate threat during a fast-moving entry.
- A jury’s reasonableness finding will not be overturned on Rule 50(b) or Rule 59 standards unless no reasonable jury could reach that result on the trial record.
- A failure-to-train or lack-of-planning theory does not establish a Fourth Amendment violation as a matter of law absent evidence that feasible non-lethal alternatives would have worked under the specific tactical conditions.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury’s determination that an officer’s lethal use of force against a dog during a no-knock entry was not an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure, and it declined to treat alleged shortcomings in training or pre-entry planning as dispositive without proof of workable non-lethal alternatives in the moment.


Carroll v. County of Monroe, 712 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2013)