Putman v. Harris (4th Cir. 2023) Excessive Force Claim - K9 Use of Force Case Review
Facts:
In May 2019, Dillard Putman sent alarming texts to his wife, threatening self‐harm, saying he had a gun in his mouth, etc. She called 911. Officers arrived and were told about the texts.
Woods surrounded the property; officers found a rifle but didn’t find Putman immediately; they used a K9 unit, led by Corporal Harris.
The dog found a scent, and officers located Putman lying in a shallow ditch. No gun was visible. Officers ordered him to stand and show his hands; Putman initially refused, then partly complied, but wouldn’t turn around to show his backside. They asked, “Do you want to get bitten by a dog?”
Harris released the dog. The dog bit or latched on (twice). One bite lasted ~30 seconds, causing serious injury.
Procedural History / Holding:
Putman sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming excessive force (dog bite) under the Fourth Amendment. The officers sought summary judgment/qualified immunity.
The district court denied qualified immunity to Officer Harris on the excessive force claim because there were factual disputes, particularly regarding whether it was reasonable to believe Putman was armed.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed in part. It held that given the totality of circumstances, a reasonable officer could believe Putman was armed—based on the texts, context, behavior (refusing to comply, erratic behavior), and because Putman refused to turn around so that the back waistband could be observed. Thus, Harris was granted qualified immunity for the dog bite: the force was not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.
