The Pierce County Sheriff’s deputy at the center of a 2019 incident involving the wrongful attack of a domestic violence suspect by a K-9 unit may face legal consequences after a federal appeals court ruled against granting him qualified immunity. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that Deputy Levi Redding does not have the protection of qualified immunity in the federal civil lawsuit alleging violation of the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights. The lawsuit, initiated in 2022 against both Redding and the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office, underscores the ongoing debate around the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from civil lawsuits unless a clear legal precedent exists establishing their conduct as unlawful.
In the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Washington, the plaintiff claimed she was attacked by a police dog after a domestic dispute and subsequent attempt by Redding to locate her. The woman, who had reportedly hit her boyfriend and his teenage son while intoxicated, was allegedly unarmed and posed no real threat. Despite this, the K-9 unit, named Zepp, was deployed by Redding, resulting in her arm being severely bitten and permanently injured. The Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, representing the sheriff’s office and Redding, denied all allegations of wrongdoing and attempted to have the case dismissed, emphasizing their position that Redding was protected by qualified immunity.
The federal district court, however, left some claims intact, particularly the allegation of excessive force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights. This decision was subsequently upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found Redding’s actions—specifically his failure to command the K-9 to release the plaintiff—as undermining the qualified immunity defense. The court noted that the K-9’s prolonged bite constituted a seizure and emphasized that officers are trained to halt such scenarios but Redding did not do so.
The Bottom Line
This ruling has broader implications for law enforcement practices and community relations, particularly concerning the use of K-9 units. The decision challenges the safety protocols surrounding police dogs and emphasizes the accountability of officers in controlling their deployments. As such, law enforcement agencies may need to reevaluate training procedures and oversight mechanisms to prevent similar incidents, safeguarding both public trust and individual rights.
For the community, there is a growing focus on balancing the necessity of police dogs in law enforcement with ensuring humane and controlled engagements during apprehensions. The case serves as a reminder of the potential risks involved when K-9 units are deployed, and stresses the need for stringent guidelines to prevent excessive force. Residents and local law enforcement will likely observe any policy changes closely, as these could influence community-police dynamics and overall public safety perceptions.