Whitworth v. Kling (2024, 8th Circuit) - K9 Use of Force Case Review
Facts
Whitworth alleged that a police K-9 (dog) bit him accidentally during a law enforcement operation, without provocation.
He claimed that even an accidental K-9 bite should be considered a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, since the K-9’s action restrains or interferes with a person’s bodily integrity.
He also brought a negligence claim against the city (or municipality) for how the dog was handled or deployed.
Issues on Appeal
The Eighth Circuit considered:
Whether an accidental K-9 bite qualifies as a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Whether the officer and city were entitled to qualified immunity (for the officer) or municipal immunity/dismissal (for the city) on the constitutional claims.
Whether the negligence claim should properly remain in state court after the dismissal of federal claims.
Holding & Reasoning
The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the officer and the city on the constitutional claims.
On the Fourth Amendment issue: The court declined to recognize that an unintentional (accidental) K-9 bite constitutes a “seizure.” It held that to trigger Fourth Amendment protection, there must be intentional government action or at least deliberate use of force—not a purely accidental act.
The opinion noted that other circuits have rejected similar arguments—that a non-intentional K-9 bite is a seizure.
Because the constitutional claims failed, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity, and the city could not be held liable on those constitutional grounds.
Negligence claim: The court remanded the negligence claim to the state court. Since the federal claims were dismissed, the supplemental negligence claim should be resolved under state law.
Significance & Takeaways
Limit on “seizure” under Fourth Amendment: The ruling clarifies that not every police K-9 bite triggers Fourth Amendment protections—only those involving intentional or non-accidental use of force (depending on jurisdiction).
Qualified immunity and municipal liability: The decision reinforces that once federal constitutional claims fail, officers often receive qualified immunity, and municipalities are shielded from constitutional damages as well.
State remedy for negligence: Even when constitutional claims are dismissed, plaintiffs may still pursue state-law negligence claims—courts can remand them rather than dismiss them outright.
Comparative authority: This case aligns with positions in other circuits that reject framing accidental K-9 bites as seizures. The treatment of K-9 use remains a contested area in policing and constitutional law.
