Incredible....

Well, I'm not an attorney - but I do watch Law and Order.

My guess is at least 6 torts, including trespassing, destruction of property, and a few others.

I'm not sure it's not a criminal case though - trespassing, unlawful discharge of a firearm, violation of due process/civil rights (under color of authority), etc.

I'm not a 1L but...

1) Trespass to chattels.

x) IIED seems tempting, but I don't think his actions were calculated to cause the emotional distress. It was more that he disregarded the likely emotional distress.

2) Negligence based on his duties to follow police procedure and not violate the due process rights of the residents.

I think the action is going to be when they decide damages, which is where you get to introduce all the facts about emotional damage to the family, the harm to their dog and the egregious misbehavior of the deputy.

How about reckless endangerment, he did shoot the dog in the close vicinity of the family, and emotional distress, not only for thelodd of the dog, a family pet, but for the reasonable fear that an out-of-control cop might shoot them too?

The shooter's name is Deputy Joseph Gutierrez and he works for Teton County Sheriff Kim Cooke in Driggs, Idaho. Office telephone number is (208)354-2323.

The TV station now reports the following outrage:
>>> Local residents are also talking about the story. Justin Frandsen says he was in the sheriff's office the night before the dog was shot and he heard deputies talking about the animal.
Justin Frandsen: "They were joking and laughing about what weapons they wanted to shoot him with and how they were gonna shoot him. At the end of the conversation, they were almost feuding over who got to shoot the dog."
Shocked by what he heard, Frandsen says he spoke up to the deputies.
Frandsen: "You guys must feel like you're real big cops, real tough guys, to have to go out and basically assassinate somebody's house pet."

What type of Barney Fife clone shoots a dog with a rifle three times at close range and doesn't kill the dog?

This guy is probably going to lose his job, and it sounds to me like the citizens are going to be safer.

Barney Fife wouldn't shoot a dog three times.

He only carried one bullet.

I could be wrong, I'm rusty on Idaho law, but I think legally the dog is entitled to bite the deputy in the nuts when it has properly healed.

I think, if what was added to the original report is true, whereby there was a discussion the prior evening a la the movie "Hostel" about how to horribly destroy the dog, we've added quite a few more torts, wouldn't you say?

Just some good 'ole boys? Roscoe P. Coltrain would never have shot Flash.

That Deputy would have had to arrest me for not producing said dog. And probably would have had to defend himself....It would have been bad all around, but, that Sheriff would have had other problems to worry about.

I sense a sovereign immunity claim coming up.

Think it will work?

There has to be a title 18 violation in there somewhere. Civil fraud - theft by deception? He contaminated their land with lead.

Is Impersonating a Police Officer a tort?

Oh, and also
E-mail: [email protected] Fax# 354-3618

Tackleberry Syndrome. More common than you might think.

...thus demonstrating that 99 percent of the general public doesn't understand the difference between criminal and civil actions.

If Jethro went out there as the consensus choice of the group of LEOs competing to execute a house pet, sans court order, sans warrant, do we have a conspiracy... ?

Hope there is a BIG lawsuit that cuts into this sheriff's budget and he fires the deputy. This is not supposed to happen here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I doubt if any of you jovial, stout hearts have ever been just jogging down the road and been severely bitten in the buttocks by someone's large, "He would never bite anyone!" dog. I hope none of you ever do. I'm with Joseph Gutierrez on this one and you would be too if what happened to me happened to you. Trust me.

COTTUS,

Shut up, you sissy. You got bit on the ass by a dog? That's your big complaint? That's your contribution to a discussion about an LEO's abuse of his position?

WTF is wrong with you? You read this whole thing, and all you think about is what happened to you once while you were jogging?

On the ass? You got bit by a dog on the ass? And your what, traumatized? Man, you are pathetic. Go crawl back into your F'n hole and let the grownups talk.

Jesus.

COTTUS, you'd be justified in shooting a dog that was attacking you, but this dog was not attacking anyone at the time the deputy shot it. Furthermore, from what I have read the deputy did not himself witness the dog attacking anyone. Someone claims that the dog bit them. Don't you think some sort of legal proceeding should have occurred to determine what happened and what to do about it? Or do you support law officers just taking the law into their own hands and shooting dogs, and maybe people who are accused also?

You say we should trust you. You don't seem like someone I would want to trust.

COTTUS, did you read the part about the deputy shooting the dog in front of a 3 year old child? Would you like to retract your comment or do you stand by it?

Well, the guy who shot the dog should certainly be charged with Possessing a Firearm While Being an Asshole. But that's just my opinion.

COTTUS, are saying that you can't take a dog?

Carry a knife when you jog. Or wear something in a light caliber. No more dog problems.

While the police behavior was outrageous and deserves punishment, it would be interesting to find out if the dog in question indeed had a history of aggressive behavior. As my father, the veterinarian, said all the time, there's no such thing as a dog that doesn't bite. There were two people killed by pit bulls here in Michigan recently.

COTTUS, are saying that you can't take a dog?

Posted by: ATLien

Have you ever been attacked by a large dog? Unless you can get a knee up in it's chest when it leaps, all you can do is cover up.

So that would be a no. Sucks to be you. I'm 100% sure that i can outwit and defend myself from a dog.

Just out of idle curiosity, did the dog bite someone as reported?

While the police behavior was outrageous and deserves punishment, it would be interesting to find out if the dog in question indeed had a history of aggressive behavior.

According to the KIDK link there has only been 1 complaint against the dog and that was filed one year ago and dismissed. So your history of aggressiveness theory pretty much gets thrown out right there.

IANAL, but here's a bit of law I have memorized:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

If there was more than just the single deputy involved, then 241 also applies:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241

Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

Sounds like a job for Ice T & Body Count...

I have worked at a Sheriff's Office in Oregon for more than 16 years, though not as an officer.



One thing that all our deputies learn early on is that there is no type of call that can get you in trouble as fast as an animal call, particularly if you have to harm an animal.



I don't know how they do things in Idaho, but I cannot imagine anyone at our office going out and shooting a dog without a court order to do so. We have had to shoot dogs in the course of serving search warrants, usually rotts and pit bulls that are kept as "pets" by our local tweakers and dog fighters. It is still bad and no one likes doing it. (or at least they don't admit to liking it)



When I read a story like this I always wonder what the "rest of the story" is. I sincerely doubt that a group of LEOs would be arguing about who got to shoot the dog if a) the dog had not done anything and b) they had, or believed they had, legal justification for doing so.



They're either way off base or there's things that we are not being told. Not that the news media would do something like that.

Somewhere, Michael Vick is so proud.

I'm sorry, but the minute he said he didn't have or need a court order would have been my signal to shoot the b*st*rd. One way or another, he wouldn't be leaving.

Whatever the rest of the story is, and I agree there has to be more to this than we know, there is due process of law that is supposed to be followed to get to the rest of the story and make a decision of what is to be done. That would be justice, and allowing a deputy to short circuit that process would be injustice.

It one thing to shoot a loose dog or one that is demonstratably agressive or worrying livestock, that's well within bounds of legality.

But if you have to destroy an animal because it's aggressive and it's A. On the owners property B. It's ( obviously from the story) not being particularly agres C. All you have is some apparent hearsay that that's the dog. (If 5 neighbours all point at the dog, and stay that's the one! You might have good case. One neighbour, with zero evidence, not so much.)

It's pretty hard to imagine that the cop even had a right to be on the property ( other than give a warning) , much less demand that the animal be turned over.

We won't get into the gratuitous cruelty of shooting fido (not to death) in front of the owners and small children, which is deeply uncivilized and blatantly incompetent.

For heavens sake EVEN IF it was the proverbial bad dog, how hard would it have been to wait until it was out and about and then legitimately shoot it? Idiot cops.

Rule of thumb:

If you're bragging about how you'da shot the SOB whut crossed ya, using any form in communication carried by any electronic means, you're blowing smoke.

Let's all get real, OK? What the deputy did was terrible (IF the news media got the story right, which would be a rare event) but saying "I'd have wanted to shoot him" is a lot more honest than "I'd have shot him."

No way that dog bit COTTUS in the ass. Clearly someplace near, though, and it seems to have done lasting damage.

Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that a large dog did, in fact, bite COTTUS on the ass.

I mean, the brain damage he's suffered is readily apparent, as evidenced by his posting.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Police cheat, lie and exaggerate facts all the time. In court, it will be noted that the owner VOLUNTARILY turned the pet over to the Deputy for euthanizing. They will argue that the act of turning over the dog was an implicit authorization to euthanize the animal. The only problems will be:
1. He failed to perform the authorized killing properly. (Animal lived.)
2. He might have been reckless or careless with a firearm in that he performed the acts within sight of the family, thus endangering them with his handling of the firearm or possibly negligent richochets or inadequate backstops.
3. Might have violated a department policy, if they had an applicable one at the time. (That would be the 'don't get caught being stupid in front of witnesses' policy).

Everyone will claim immunity and dance drunkenly off into the sunset shooting their sixguns into the air a la Simpsons Texan celebration.

What's truly sad about this is that the family just dragged the dog out to their front yard and tied it up for the deputy to shoot while they watched like blubbering sheep.

"I don't need any proof" indeed. They've been well-conditioned to mindlessly obey authority figures. I feel a lot more sympathy for the dog, to be betrayed by his family like that.

One wonders if they would have made a fuss if the deputy had come for one of their kids with no warrant or other proper cause.

So...is there an animal-control office anywhere in that Idaho county.

If so, why didn't the deputy bring one of them along?

(I mention this as further proof that the news reporters didn't ask the right questions.)

Wow, 41+ comments? I don't think I have ever seen this many comments, or even close to this many comments, on this blog.

I worked as a police officer for a while, and if these facts are true it's a stunning betrayal of the people that officer was supposed to protect. Granted the media often gets stuff like this wrong, but they would have had to really, really really gone out of their way to get it this wrong.

Time will tell. It's also interesting to note that I didn't even see this level of discussion after the SWAT team killed the 88 year old woman in Atlanta several months back. Animal abuse really get's peoples attention (and rightly so).

All smoke blowing aside, that Deputy and his bosses put themselves right smack in front of a freight train, if that family lawyers up. Aside from the civil torts, (Title 42) the fact of the matter is that without a warrant and a court order to kill the dog, they at minimum get a bite
for destruction of livestock. That's usually either a gross misdemeanor or a low grade felony depending on where you're at.

Secondly, there is an approved way to shoot a dog. You take a wadcutter and fire it at an angle
into the spot right behind his head. That severs the spinal cord and gets the heart. It's usually painless since the bullet does it's job faster than the dog's nervous system can. (If memory serves, that technique is listed in Patrol Procedure, by George Payton, which is pretty much the standard police reference in the western half of the country.)

Third, your videocam is your friend. Cop comes to door, take camera, inform cop that he's being recorded, (no law against it and it's your property) and ask him two questions. (1.) Do you have a search warrant? (2.) Do you have a court order? If he can't produce either, wish him a nice day, close the door and call a friend and tell them you've got a tape you want safeguarded.

Most people usually have a good idea when trouble is coming, so there's no excuse to not be ready for a visit from the Village Idiot with a Deputy's Commission.

There are three things that I really hate about this deal besides what happened to the dog and it's owners. First off, the taxpayers in that area are gonna see their risk management pool take a major hit. Second, that bit if stupidity is gonna make it a lot harder for the cops to do their job, particularly in situations where you're looking at a neighbor vs neighbor fight, which is something that only a fool wants to get involved in. Third, this guy will resign, take a lateral to another department and become somebody elses problem. Nobody thus far has come up with a workable solution for Gypsycops who screw up in one jurisdiction and then get hired by another one where he proceeds to screw up again.

Third, your videocam is your friend. Cop comes to door, take camera, inform cop that he's being recorded, (no law against it and it's your property)

There are at least two sides to every story, but this deputy is lucky he didn't shoot Bob Lee Swagger's dog.

Seriously, though, if this is a cut and dried case of a law enforcement officer shooting the animal illegally and/or in an unsafe manner, then I think he should lose his job.

Deputy Joseph Gutierrez can always get a job as an exterminator.

would there also be some sort of Sec. 1983 claim. The cop certainly did not give them due process.

Quoting Milhouse
"Actually in a lot of places it is against the law, and people have been charged with it. It seems to me that such laws ought to be unconstitutional, but I'm not sure I could point to any specific clause that they violate; they just seem to run counter to the entire constitutional scheme. Be that as it may, in many places the police can record their interactions with you, but you can't."

Interesting. Would such a ban hold true if the cop in question is in violation of the law? If he's on my property he has no expectation of privacy and I could cover that by posting a sign stating that anybody on my property is subject to video and audio surveillence.

Seems to me that the fact that the Deputy in quesiton was operating illegally might be an affirmative defense if they tried to prosecute me for recording them on my own property.

Click on the "KIDK" link and check out the followup stories. It seems the Deputy in question is now suspended and the family has indeed "lawyered up".

If the jackbooted thug LEO community had a shred of honor they would take this prick out he should have just stayed in the donut shop. We the citizens are as usual entirely on our own. We are NOT in communist China. What if the whole town went out and took care of business and they all put a round into his miserable carcass?