Talmika Bates v. Ryan Rezentes / Brentwood (2024) Excessive Force/Time on Bite Claim K9 Use of Force Case Review
Facts
February 10, 2020: Bates and two others allegedly shoplifted items (approx. $10,000) from an Ulta store. Fled in a vehicle; vehicle collided with a patrol car; got out and hid in the bushes.
Officer Rezentes commanded his K-9 (named Marco) to search the area; no verbal warning to Bates before deploying the dog.
The dog located Bates hiding in the bushes and bit her in the head/scalp. Bates allegedly screamed, said she would come out, etc.
The dog held her scalp for a prolonged duration (~40-60 seconds after she began verbally surrendering) before being released. The bite caused severe injury: scalp torn, exposed tissue, more than 200 stitches, etc.
Legal Procedural History / Issues
Claim: Excessive force under the Fourth Amendment via § 1983. Bates sued in 2022.
Qualified immunity: The officer moved to dismiss / to get qualified immunity.
District court ruling (Judge Rita Lin):
The initial deployment of the K9 was found to be lawful under the facts alleged. That is, the court accepted that using a dog to apprehend was not per se excessive under those initial conditions.
But the duration of the dog bite (holding on after Bates verbally surrendered, and allowing the bite to continue) raises a triable issue of fact that could amount to excessive force. Therefore, qualified immunity was denied for the duration portion of the claim.
Settlement: While the case was on appeal regarding qualified immunity (the issue had been denied), the City of Brentwood settled for $967,000 in late 2024.
Key Legal Takeaways / Doctrinal Points
From Bates, here are important legal principles illustrated or reinforced:
Duration of Force Matters:
Even if an initial use of force (deployment of K9, initial bite) is justified, continuing the bite after the suspect surrenders or when the situation is under control can transform what might have been reasonable force into excessive force.Warning/opportunity to surrender:
Failing to give a verbal warning or otherwise allow surrender is relevant. In Bates, no warning was given before deploying the K9, which the court considered relevant to the reasonableness of the duration.Vulnerable body parts/severity of injury:
The head/scalp are treated as particularly vulnerable parts of the body. That increases the seriousness of the intrusion. The severity of the injury (torn scalp, exposed bone, etc.) is relevant in assessing reasonableness.Qualified immunity threshold / “clearly established” law:
The court found that from precedent, it was sufficiently clear in that circuit that prolonged K9 bites after surrender can be unconstitutional so that the officer couldn’t get qualified immunity for the duration issue.Dismissal of some claims but preserving others:
Bates abandoned her claim that the initial dog bite (the moment of contact) was itself excessive. The court granted summary judgment on that portion. But the continuation of the bite was preserved for trial. This illustrates how splitting the claim into phases (initial contact vs. continuation) can make a difference.Use of body cam evidence/video framing of what was said
Judge Lin’s order references body camera video timestamps (e.g., 16 seconds in, 30 seconds, 40 seconds, etc.) to support the view that Rezentes could see what was happening and that a reasonable officer should have intervened sooner.
