Bruno, the pit bull, was killed by a police officer responding to a domestic dispute at the home of the dog’s owners. Bruno’s best buddy and dog bone mate, an unnamed German Shepherd, was killed a few moments later by the same police officer. Both dog killings were classic police overkills. Bruno was shot three times, and the German Shepherd was shot four times.
The two dog killings were a critical component in an August 15, 2024 decision, Ramirez v. Killian, handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The dog-killing saga began on June 20, 2016, when Collingsworth County Deputy Sheriff James Killian responded to a domestic violence call at the residence of Rubicela Ramirez and Francisco Gonzales. When Killian arrived at the residence, he informed the dispatch officer that it sounded like someone was “getting beat” inside the home. He decided to enter the residence, informing dispatch of the decision.
Killian turned on his body camera before entering the living room of the residence with his gun and pepper spray drawn. With the body camera recording video and audio, the deputy walked into the kitchen, where he encountered Ramirez.
“Get over here and face that goddamn wall, bitch,” he ordered, simultaneously pepper-spraying Ramirez in the face.
About that time, Gonzales walked into the kitchen. At the same time, Bruno entered the kitchen by another door. The dog walked up to Gonzales, wagging its tail.
“Get over here, or I’ll shoot your dog,” Killian threatened.
Bruno, still wagging its tail, began to walk toward the deputy, who responded by shooting the dog three times, killing it.
Killian then ordered both Ramirez and Gonzales to the floor as he continued to pepper spray them both. Neither person immediately went down to the floor, although Gonzales did place both hands on his head. At that point, the German Shepherd walked into the kitchen and toward Killian. As the deputy retreated toward the living room, he shot the dog four times, killing it.
Neither dog made any move to attack Killian or gave any indication of an impending attack before the officer killed them. He could have easily thwarted any attack by using pepper spray instead of a gun. He threatened to kill Bruno before the dog ever started walking toward him.
Ramirez and Gonzales went to their knees after the German Shepherd was killed, all the while with Killian pepper spraying both of them. The three parties began to exchange profanities as the deputy demanded that they lie face down on the floor, which, at that point, was covered with the blood of the two dogs.
Approximately eleven minutes into this brutal encounter, Ramirez and Gonzales agreed to be handcuffed. Killian handcuffed the pair and made them sit on a sofa in the living room.
Collingsworth County Sheriff Kent Riley entered the living room shortly afterward. Ramirez immediately stood up in front of the sofa and addressed the sheriff by his first name, asking for his help. Killian responded to this plea by grabbing Ramirez by the hair and throwing her to the floor, causing his body camera to fall and momentarily go black. Both Ramirez and Gonzales said that during this brief time that Killian’s body camera was off, the deputy slammed her head into the floor.
In the aftermath of this encounter with excessive police force, Ramirez and Gonzales filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against both Killian and Sheriff Riley. The lawsuit alleged unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The claims against Riley were quickly dismissed, and neither Ramirez nor Gonzales challenged the dismissal.
As with Sheriff Riley, Killian also filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity. He also objected to ten exhibits Ramirez and Gonzales wanted to be entered into evidence. The federal district court granted all of Killian’s objections to the exhibits except one and granted his motion for summary judgment on all the Fourth Amendment claims except for the unreasonable seizure claim involving the fatal shooting of Bruno.
The Bruno claim went to a jury trial, and twelve reasonable jurors found that Killian “had acted in an objectively unreasonable manner” when he shot and killed Bruno; and that “no reasonable officer could have believed that shooting the dog was lawful.”
The jury awarded Ramirez and Gonzales $100,300 in compensatory and punitive damages for this constitutional transgression.
Following the jury verdict, Killian filed another motion saying he was entitled to have the jury verdict set aside as a matter of law. The court agreed, finding that Ramirez and Gonzales had failed “to identify evidence that no reasonable officer would have shot the pit bull” and that they had “failed to satisfy the burden they bear” to overcome Killian’s qualified immunity defense.”
Ramirez and Gonzales appealed the lower court rulings to the Fifth Circuit. The appeals court agreed with the trial court that Killian was entitled to qualified immunity on the warrantless entry into Ramirez and Gonzales’ residence because exigent circumstances (sounds of a fight) justified the entry.
The Fifth Circuit, however, held that the two excessive force claims—the continuous and unprovoked use of pepper spray and the slamming of Ramirez’s face into the floor—were “clearly established” violations of the law that barred Killian from the benefit of qualified immunity. The appeals court said the couple was entitled to a trial on the merits of these two issues.
The Fifth Circuit then addressed the Bruno issue. It noted that every federal circuit court of appeals (save the Eleventh) have held that the killing of a pet dog is a “seizure of property” within the confines of the Fourth Amendment. These unified federal circuits have held that the essential question in the killing of a pet dog is whether the dog posed an immediate danger to the officer and whether the killing was unavoidable.
Against this constitutional backdrop, the Fifth reversed the trial court’s overruling the jury verdict of damages. The appeals court specifically held that Killian was not entitled to qualified immunity on this issue:
“… the jury had ample evidence before it to find that qualified immunity did not apply. The jury, properly instructed, found Killian liable for violating Ramirez’s and Gonzales’s constitutional rights and awarded them damages. Our own review of the body camera video gives us no reason to disagree. Here, Bruno had displayed no signs of aggression prior to approaching Killian. Mere seconds before Killian opened fire, Bruno had walked up to Gonzales wagging his tail.”
We agree. Deputy Killian is a pet dog-killing cop who should be required to pay out the $100,300 to Ramirez and Gonzales. It will not bring Bruno back, but it will hurt either Killian’s pocketbook or the coffers of the City of Wellington. Killian should also lose his peace officer’s license and never be hired by another law enforcement entity. He is unprofessional and lacks the temperament to serve and protect the community.