Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park
486 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 2007)
Holding
The Eighth Circuit held that an officer's decision to release a police dog to bite and hold a suspect who was not actively resisting or fleeing constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, and that qualified immunity did not protect the officer because the unlawfulness of the conduct was clearly established.
What Happened
Henry Szabla was at his home in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, when police officers from Brooklyn Park and Crystal, Minnesota responded to a call. Officer Steven Baker, a K-9 handler, released his police dog on Szabla. The dog bit and held Szabla, causing significant injuries. Szabla alleged that he was not resisting, not fleeing, and not posing a threat to anyone at the time the dog was deployed. He filed a § 1983 action against the officers and the cities of Brooklyn Park and Crystal.
What the Court Said
The Eighth Circuit found that deploying a police K-9 to bite and hold a suspect who was not actively resisting or attempting to flee constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Applying the Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness standard, the court weighed the severity of the crime, the immediate threat posed by the suspect, and whether the suspect was resisting or fleeing. The court held that where a suspect is not dangerous and not fleeing, releasing a dog to attack is disproportionate and unconstitutional. Importantly, the court also found that the law was clearly established, defeating the officers’ qualified immunity defense.
Why This Case Matters
Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park is one of the most important Eighth Circuit decisions on police K-9 use of force. With 409 citations, it is widely relied upon throughout Minnesota, Missouri, and other Eighth Circuit states. For pro se litigants, this case establishes that police dogs are a significant use of force — not a routine compliance tool — and their deployment must be justified by the circumstances. If a police dog was used against you when you were not resisting or fleeing, this case is powerful authority for your excessive force claim. The defeat of qualified immunity in this case also sends a strong message that officers and departments will be held accountable for improper K-9 deployments.