Irish v. McNamara, 8th Circuit, 2024
Facts
Irish was a law enforcement officer (or involved in a pursuit context) when McNamara deployed a K9 named Thor during the pursuit of a suspect.
During that deployment, Thor bit Irish. Irish alleged that the bite was an unconstitutional seizure (i.e., excessive force) because it was not justified under the Fourth Amendment.
Irish’s theory was that even though he was an officer in the chase, the K9 bite (directed, in effect, at him) amounted to a use of force against his person.
Issues Presented
The principal issues the 8th Circuit considered:
Does a K9 bite constitute a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, especially in a scenario where the bite may have been accidental or not intentionally directed at the person bitten?
Was the law “clearly established” so that Deputy McNamara should have known that deploying his K9 in that way would violate Irish’s constitutional rights?
Whether McNamara had the requisite subjective intent to seize Irish by use of the K9 bite.
Holding & Reasoning
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of McNamara’s motion to dismiss and granted him qualified immunity.
The Court held that the law was not clearly established to require that every K9 bite—even one that hits a person other than the intended suspect—must trigger Fourth Amendment liability.
Critically, the Court emphasized that to be a seizure, there needs to be intentional use of force or control over a person’s freedom of movement (or application thereof).
The Court found that McNamara did not subjectively intend to seize Irish, as demonstrated by McNamara’s commands to have Thor disengage and McNamara’s immediate actions to restrain or recall the K9.
Because Irish could not show that the law was clearly settled in this context, McNamara was entitled to immunity and dismissal.
Significance & Takeaways
This decision reinforces that not all K9 bites will qualify as constitutional seizures—especially where the bite may be inadvertent and where the K9 handler takes steps to restrain or stop the dog.
The Court emphasizes the significance of subjective intent in determining whether a K-9 deployment constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure under Eighth Circuit law.
The ruling highlights the challenges for plaintiffs in K9 bite cases to overcome qualified immunity: they must show that an officer’s actions violated clearly established law, including showing that the officer acted with intent (or reckless disregard) to seize via force.
This case may serve as a caution to lower courts in the Eighth Circuit: demands for bright-line rules on K9 bites must grapple with distinctions between deliberate use and unintended collateral bites.
