Martinez v. Jenneiahn, No. 22-1219 (10th Cir. Jul. 12, 2023 Excessive Force Claim

Sep 23

Facts

Viewed in the light most favorable to Adrian Martinez (the plaintiff), the key facts are:

On February 17, 2018, Martinez was in a hospital after being beaten, treated, etc. He left the hospital the next morning wearing only a hospital gown and underwear.
Felony warrants were outstanding for Martinez. Police were alerted that he had left the hospital without checking out.
Lafayette, Colorado, police officers searched for him in an apartment complex. At one point, they had information (via canine unit) that Martinez was hiding in a small closet (2.6 ft deep by 4 ft wide) on the 3rd floor.
The dog signaled that Martinez was in the closet. Officers (Jenneiahn, MacDonald, Voris) stood outside the closet for about 10-12 minutes. Then the officers decided to use a dynamic entry. Voris opens the door, and Jenneiahn releases the dog, commanding it to “get him.”
Martinez was lying face-down in the closet, apparently passed out or unresponsive (or had fainted).
When the door was opened and the dog released, the dog bit Martinez’s left arm. The bite hold lasted about 15-20 seconds, until Officer Jenneiahn pulled the dog off.
The result: Martinez suffered a ~4-centimeter gash in his arm.

Procedural History & Legal Claims

The defendants moved for summary judgment, including a claim of qualified immunity.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity. It concluded that, although force was used, the law was not clearly established, so it was unclear whether their actions would violate the Fourth Amendment undernce those circumstances.

Decision / Holding

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. That means the appellate court agreed that, under the evidence and law, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
The court found:

There was no clearly established legal precedent that, in those exact or “closely analogous” circumstances, the use of a police dog bite (lasting ~15-20 seconds) on a suspect lying in a closet after some delay would be clearly a constitutional violation.
Also, given what the officers knew (felony warrants, that Martinez might have been hiding, that the suspect might pose a danger, and the dog indicating his location), the deployment was not so obviously unconstitutional that qualified immunity should be denied.

Key Legal Points / Implications

What Martinez v. Jenneiahn shows, especially in K9-bite cases::

“Clearly Established Law” is crucial: Even if there are facts that could suggest excessive force, if there isn’t prior case law that puts officers on notice that similar behavior (e.g., using a dog to bite someone in a closet after waiting) is unlawful, then qualified immunity can shelter the officer. Martinez illustrates this.
Duration of the bite, and suspect’s condition: The bite was relatively short (15-20 seconds), and Martinez was either unconscious/passed out or lying face down and unresisting at the time. These are important in assessing whether the force was excessive. The court considered these in favor of the officers.
Dynamic entry + waiting time matters: Officers waited 10-12 minutes after learning Martinez was in the closet before making the entry and deploying the dog. The dog was signaled to locate the suspect. The closet was small. These contribute to the factual context. The court considered them in determining whether a reasonable officer could believe that the force was lawful.
No warning given that the dog would attack: Martinez’s complaint alleges there was no warning given prior to using the dog (no announcement that the dog would bite) before dynamic entry. That fact works in the plaintiff’s favor. But the lack of warning did not, under the legal standard, make the force constitutionally “clearly” excessive in that situation.

Sligh v. City of Conroe, No. 22-40518 (5th Cir. 2023) Excessice Force Claim