City of Mesquite v. Wagner - K9 Use of Force Case Review
Facts
In March 2020, Officer Jason Crawford and K9 “Kozmo” responded to assist in a burglary in progress.
Multiple suspects were fleeing on foot. Officer Crawford deployed Kozmo during the pursuit.
At some point, Kozmo “lunged” and bit Wagner on the shoulder and head.
Crawford later produced an “Unintentional Bite” memorandum saying Kozmo darted from his left side to his right side, and that Crawford tripped over the leash, causing loss of control.
The City claimed the bite was unintentional and due to rapidly evolving circumstances.
Legal Issues
The appeal turned largely on governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and whether the City had waived immunity via the TTCA’s property‐use waiver. Key subissues included:
Official immunity of the officer
Whether Officer Crawford is entitled to “official immunity” (discretionary acts done in good faith), such that the City cannot be held vicariously liable.
Waiver under TTCA § 101.021(2)
Whether the injury resulted from the “use” of tangible personal property (I.e., the dog) such that the TTCA’s limited immunity waiver applies.
Intentional-act exception
Whether the bite or deployment should be deemed “intentional,” which is excluded from the TTCA’s waiver.
Emergency‐response exception
Whether the dog bite occurred while responding to an emergency, triggering the TTCA exception that denies waiver if acts are taken in emergencies without conscious indifference or reckless disregard.
Holding & Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction — I.e., it allowed Wagner’s suit to proceed.
The court found that the City failed to prove, as a matter of law, that Officer Crawford acted in good faith (a necessary element for official immunity) because his affidavit and evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that a reasonably prudent officer would have acted similarly under those conditions.
The court held that the use of the dog (a tangible thing) was sufficient to bring the claim within the TTCA waiver of immunity.
The intentional‐act exception did not require dismissal, because even though the memorandum and affidavit used the word “intentionally,” that alone did not convert the claim into an intentional tort; there was disputed evidence about whether the dog bite was negligent vs deliberate.
On the emergency‐response exception, the court held that a fact question existed whether Officer Crawford acted with conscious indifference or reckless disregard when deploying Kozmo under the circumstances.
The Texas Supreme Court later reversed (as per the 2025 case summary) and held that Officer Crawford was entitled to official immunity and derivative governmental immunity on behalf of the City.
Significance & Takeaways
The case is significant in K9 liability context in Texas because it forces courts to parse whether a bite was negligent or intentional, and whether immunity applies in high-stress dog deployments.
It highlights that the burden lies on the governmental actor to show they were acting in good faith and within the scope of their discretion when invoking immunity.
The “use” of a police dog is treated as the use of tangible personal property under TTCA for purposes of immunity waiver.
The role of factual disputes (trip, lunge, dark environment, leash control) can keep the suit alive past preliminary jurisdictional stages.
The final reversal by the Texas Supreme Court (per case summaries) underscores that appellate courts may adopt stricter immunity standards for law enforcement K9 use in emergency contexts.
