Lowry v. City of San Diego, No. 13-56141 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the City's policy of training its police dogs to "bite and hold" individuals resulted in a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. A police canine bit plaintiff's upper lip during the execution of a search. Plaintiff had fallen asleep in her office and had accidentally triggered the alarm. The en banc court upheld the district court's conclusion that there was no genuine dispute as to whether the door was open, the suite was dark, and warnings had been given; the district court properly concluded that the use of force was "moderate" and not severe; the City had a strong interest in using the force; and the degree of force used was commensurate with the City's interest in the use of that force. The en banc court held that the force used was not excessive and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, because the officers' actions were constitutional, the City was not liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
Court Description: Civil Rights. The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of San Diego in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the City’s policy of training its police dogs to “bite and hold” individuals resulted in a violation of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleged that during the execution of a search by police officers, a police canine attacked plaintiff in her office where she was sleeping, and bit her upper lip. The en banc court held that there were no genuine disputes of material fact regarding plaintiff’s claim. From the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, the type and amount of force inflicted was moderate, the City had a strong interest in using the force, and the degree of force used was commensurate with the City’s interest in the use of that force. The en banc court concluded that the force used was not excessive and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Because the officers’ actions were constitutional, the City could not be held liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Dissenting, Chief Judge Thomas noted that plaintiff was sleeping in the privacy of her office, when she was attacked and injured by a police dog trained to inflict harm on the first LOWRY V. CITY OF SAN DIEGO 3 person it encountered. He stated that a reasonable jury could find that the City of San Diego’s use of a police dog was unreasonable under the circumstances presented.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 1, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.