Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.22

Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
KIRA HORNE,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF DETROIT POLICE )
OFFICER NATHAN MILLER )
and THE CITY OF DETROIT )
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________________________/
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Kira Horne (“Horne”), by and through her attorneys, Olson
PLLC, states the following for her First Amended Complaint against
Defendant Police Officer Nathan Miller (“Miller”) and Defendant City of
Detroit (“City”):
1.

This is a civil action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and common

law avenues of recovery for deprivations of Plaintiff’s rights.
2.

Plaintiff sues the Officer Miller in his individual capacity.

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.23

Page 2 of 15

JURISDICTION
3.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331.
VENUE
4.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

5.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff resided in and was a citizen

of the City of Detroit, County of Wayne, and state of Michigan.
6.

The incident giving rise to this case occurred in Wayne,

Michigan.
7.

Defendant Miller was at all relevant times a City of Detroit

Police Officer who acted under color of State law and is a “person” for
purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
8.

Defendant City is a political subdivision of the State of Michigan

acting under color of State law, and is a person for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action.
COLOR OF STATE LAW
9.

At all times relevant herein, Defendant Miller acted under color

of state law including statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and
usages of the State of Michigan.

2

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.24

Page 3 of 15

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10.

On or about November 13, 2018, Plaintiff owned two dogs.

11.

On or about November 13, 2018, Plaintiff resided with her dogs

at 19319 Algonac, Detroit, Michigan 48234 (“Residence”).
12.

On November 13, 2019, Defendant Miller while executing a

search warrant shot and killed Plaintiff’s two dogs.
13.

The November 13, 2018 Detroit Police Department Destruction

of Animal Report states that Defendant Miller:
observed a black pitbull and a tan pitbull showing his [sic] teeth,
charging, and attempting to bite crew . . . fearing for his safety and
the safety of other officers on scene fired five shots from his
department issued Remington 870 shotgun . . . which all took effect
neutralizing both animals. (“DOA Report,” Exhibit 1.).
14.

The November 13, 2018 Detroit Police Department Destruction

of Animal Report, “I conducted a review of that body camera video, and body
camera footage of other crew members and found no discrepancies.” (Exhibit
1.).
15.

The DOA Report was ratified and approved all the way up the

chain of command to Deputy Chief Marlon Wilson. (Exhibit 1, DOA Report.)
16.

However, the City of Detroit’s Citizen Complaint Subcommittee

Report, CCR 70419, BPC 18-960 (“CCR,” Exhibit 2) sustained Plaintiff’s
complaint that her dogs were wrongfully shot. (Exhibit 2.).

3

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

17.

PageID.25

Page 4 of 15

The CCR states that Defendant Miller stated to CCR

investigators that “the dogs were causing a threat and he needed to
neutralize them.” (Exhibit 2.).
18.

The CCR further noted the DOA Report narrative that the dogs

were charging, showing teeth and attempted to bite the crew. (Cf. Exhibits 1
and 2.)
19.

The CCR concluded that:

However, video footage and audio recordings captured did not show
the dogs actin in an aggressive manner. The video footage and audio
recordings also revealed that the [sic] Mr. Stackhouse, who was the
owner of the dogs was seated in the view of the dogs. It appeared that
dog (1) was coming towards Mr. Stackhouse. At no time did any of
the dogs charge at the officers, growl or try to bite them.
The actions of the officers were unjustified.
A preponderance of the evidence showed that the alleged conduct did
occur, and that the actions of the officer violated DPD policy,
procedure and training. (Exhibit 2.).
20.

The CCR Report identified Detroit Police Department Manual

Directive 3-4.2 – 4.7 Dangerous Animals, which prohibits shooting dogs
except to protect a member or person from imminent physical injury and there
is no opportunity to retreat or other reasonable means to eliminate the threat,
as the policy that Defendant Miller violated. (Exhibit 2.).

4

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

21.

PageID.26

Page 5 of 15

Detroit Police Department Manual Directive 3-4.2 – 4.7

Dangerous Animals further provides that “before using deadly force, every
attempt will be made to use other reasonable means to contain the threat of a
dangerous animal.” (Exhibit 2.).
22.

Defendant Miller’s seizure was unreasonable because the dogs

did not present a threat of imminent harm to Defendant.
23.

Indeed, as the CCR Report concluded, “at no time did any of the

dogs charge at the officers, growl or try to bite them.” (Exhibit 2.).
24.

Worse, Defendant Miller apparently lied about it in his reporting

of the incident and statements to investigators.
25.

On information and belief, Defendant Miller had no training with

respect to dog encounters.
26.

Such training is available, for free, through the United States

Department of Justice Community Oriented Policing Services.
27.

Plaintiff sought information regarding the incident giving rise to

this case, including the identity of Defendant Miller through a Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”) request.
28.

However, the City of Detroit responded with information that

redacted, inter alia, Defendant Miller’s identity.

5

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

29.

PageID.27

Page 6 of 15

Accordingly, Plaintiff has initiated this matter against a “John

Doe” Defendant police officer.
30.

On December 19, 2019, the City of Detroit disclosed the identity

of the police officer that shot Plaintiff’s dogs as Defendant Miller.
31.

Plaintiff now submits her First Amended Complaint, which

names Miller as a Defendant.
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT MILLER
FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES
AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
32.

Plaintiff re-alleges all of the preceding paragraphs.

33.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S.

Const. amend. IV, prohibits the government from unreasonably seizing a
citizen’s property.
34.

"The destruction of property by state officials poses as much of

a threat, if not more, to people's right to be 'secure . . . in their effects' as does
the physical taking of them." Fuller v. Vines, 36 F.3d 65, 68 (9th Cir. 1994),
overruled on other grounds, Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007, 1013
(9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
35.

An individual has a Fourth Amendment property right in their

pets. San Jose Charter of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San
6

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.28

Page 7 of 15

Jose, 402 F.3d 962, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2005); Brown v. Battle Creek Police
Department, 844 F.3d 556, 568 (6th Cir. 2016).
36.

That an individual has a property right in their pets was clearly

established in 2013. Brown, 844 F.3d at 567.
37.

Pets are more than just a personal effect. San Jose, 402 F.3d at

38.

The emotional attachment to a pet is not comparable to a

975.

possessory interest in furniture or other inanimate property. Id.
39.

Indeed, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment interests involved are

substantial because the bond between an owner and their pet is strong and
enduring and Plaintiff thinks of their pet “in terms of an emotional
relationship, rather than a property relationship.” Altman v. City of High Point,
N.C., 330 F.3d 194, 205 (4th Cir. 2003).
40.

Defendant Miller’s acts described herein were intentional,

grossly negligent, amounted to reckless or callous indifference to Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights.
41.

Defendant Miller’s seizure of Plaintiff’s dogs was objectively

unreasonable.
42.

No exigent circumstances warranted the intrusion involved in

this case.

7

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

43.

PageID.29

Page 8 of 15

No governmental interest justifies the search or seizure involved

in this case.
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
44.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Plaintiff is entitled to an award of

compensatory damages against each Defendant in his individual capacity,
which includes “damages for the emotional distress suffered by Plaintiffs . . .
and any other injury that is the result of . . . the unlawful seizure of Plaintiffs’”
dogs. Moreno v. Hughes, 157 F.Supp.3d 687, 692 (E.D. Mich. 2016).
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
45.

Defendant Miller’s actions were:
a.

Reckless;

b.

Showed callous indifference toward the rights of Plaintiff;
and

c.

Were taken in the face of a perceived risk that the actions
would violate federal law.

46.

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against

Defendant Miller in his individual capacity, in order to punish him and to deter
others.

8

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.30

Page 9 of 15

ATTORNEY’S FEES
47.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, if Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this

litigation, then she will be entitled to receive an award of reasonable attorney’s
fees, non-taxable expenses and costs.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
1988 against Defendant Miller in his individual capacity, for compensatory
damages in a fair and reasonable amount, for punitive damages, for reasonable
attorney’s fees, for and non-taxable expenses, for costs, and Plaintiff prays for
such other relief as may be just under the circumstances and consistent with
the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
42 U.S.C. § 1983 AND FOURTH AMENDMENT
AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY
FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
48.

Plaintiff re-alleges her prior allegations.
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
1ST ALTERNATIVE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
DELEGATION TO DEFENDANT MILLER

49.

As the first alternate basis for liability against Defendant City,

the policy maker for Defendant, the mayor, or someone else, and that person
delegated full authority and/or empowered Defendant Miller’s policy.

9

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

50.

PageID.31

Page 10 of 15

That delegation of authority by the actual policy maker of

Defendant City placed the Defendant Miller in a policy making position, and
the acts of the Defendant Miller may fairly be said to be those of the City of
Detroit. Id. at 483, and Kujawski v. Board of Com’rs of Bartholomew County,
Ind., 183 F.3d 734, 737 (7th Cir. 1999).
51.

Those acts therefore subject Defendant City to liability for the

constitutional violations of Defendant Miller. Id. at 483; Kujawski v. Board
of Com’rs of Bartholomew County, Ind., 183 F.3d 734, 737 (7th Cir. 1999).
52.

Deputy Chief Marlon Wilson ratified the DOA Report that stated

that that video evidence exonerated Defendant Miller (Exhibit 1) when the
video evidence shows that “at no time did any of the dogs charge at the
officers, growl or try to bite them.” (Exhibit 2.).
53.

Defendant Miller’s actions reflected in the video (that Deputy

Chief Wilson ratified) plainly violates the City’s written policy, Detroit Police
Department Manual Directive 3-4.2 – 4.7 Dangerous Animals.
54.

Defendant City routinely ratifies its police officer’s shootings as

reflected in its voluminous Destruction of Animal Reports that reflect that in
virtually no circumstances has the City concluded that its police officers
wrongfully shoot dogs.

10

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.32

Page 11 of 15

2ND ALTERNATIVE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL LIABILITY – FAILURE TO TRAIN,
SUPERVISE, CONTROL
55.

As the second alternative basis for liability against Defendant

City, Defendant City failed to properly hire, train, supervise, control and/or
discipline the Defendant Miller with respect to dog encounters.
56.

Defendant City was thus deliberately indifferent to the rights of

others in adopting its hiring and training practices, and in failing to supervise,
control and/or discipline the Defendant Miller such that those failures
reflected a deliberate or conscious choice by Defendant City made from
among various alternatives. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389
(1989).
57.

Those deficiencies were the moving force that caused Plaintiff

damages. Larson By Larson v. Miller, 76 F.3d 1446, 1454 (8th Cir. 1996).
58.

In light of the fact that it was the Defendant Miller who engaged

in the constitutional violations, the need to correct the deficiencies is so
obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of
constitutional rights, that the policymakers of Defendant City can reasonably
be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. Andrews v. Fowler,
98 F.3d 1069, 1076 (8th Cir. 1996).

11

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

59.

PageID.33

Page 12 of 15

If Defendant City had properly hired, trained, supervised,

controlled and/or disciplined Defendant Miller, the constitutional violations
committed by the Defendant Miller would not have occurred.
60.

These failures by Defendant City to hire, train, supervise, control

and/or discipline the Defendants Miller subject Defendant City to liability for
the constitutional violations committed by Defendant Miller.
61.

On information and belief, Defendant City had no policy or

training in place in how to handle dog encounters, which was evident in
Defendant Miller’s actions alleged herein.
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
62.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of

compensatory damages against Defendant City.
ATTORNEY’S FEES
63.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this

litigation, then she will be entitled to receive an award of reasonable attorney’s
fees, non-taxable expenses and costs.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
1988 against Defendant City for compensatory damages in a fair and
reasonable amount, for reasonable attorney’s fees, and non-taxable expenses,

12

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.34

Page 13 of 15

for costs and such other relief as may be just under the circumstances and
consistent with the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT III
CONVERSION
75.

Plaintiff repeats her prior allegations.

76.

"Conversion is any distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted

over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights
therein." Thoma v. Tracy Motor Sales, Inc., 360 Mich. 434, 438
(1960)(quoting Nelson & Witt v. Texas Co., 256 Mich. 65, 70)).
77.

Defendant Miller’ shooting of Plaintiffs’ dogs was a distinct act

of dominion wrongfully exerted over Plaintiffs’ dogs in denial of or
inconsistent with her rights.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief under applicable law or in equity,
including, without limitation, a judgment and an award of statutory treble
damages and all reasonable costs, interest and attorney fees. M.C.L. §
600.2919a.
COUNT IV
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
78.

Plaintiff incorporates her prior allegations.

79.

Defendant Miller’s conduct described herein was extreme and

outrageous conduct because it was beyond all possible bounds of decency and

13

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.35

Page 14 of 15

could be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community
and would (and in fact has) cause an average member of the community would
. . . exclaim, “Outrageous!”
80.

Defendant Miller’s actions described herein were intentional or

reckless
81.

Defendant Miller’s actions caused Plaintiff severe emotional

distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it,
including without limitation, severe horror, grief and anger over the loss of
her dogs, nausea, inability to eat, loss of sleep, inability to concentrate among
others. Haverbush v. Powelson, 217 Mich. App. 228, 234-35 (1996).
THEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment for damages, exemplary
damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief that the
Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Olson PLLC
/s/ Christopher S. Olson_______
Christopher S. Olson (P58780)
32121 Woodward Avenue
Suite 300
Royal Oak, Michigan 48073
(248) 672-7368
colson@olsonpllc.mygbiz.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
December 20, 2019
Detroit, Michigan
14

 Case 2:19-cv-13724-PDB-MJH ECF No. 3 filed 12/20/19

PageID.36

Page 15 of 15

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
demands trial by jury in this action of all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
Olson PLLC
/s/Christopher S. Olson_______
Christopher S. Olson (P58780)
32121 Woodward Avenue
Suite 300
Royal Oak, Michigan 48073
(248) 672-7368
colson@olsonpllc.mygbiz.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
December 20, 2019
Detroit, Michigan

15

 Case 2:19? - - -
cv 13724 PDB MJH ECF No. PageID.37 Page 1 of 1

 

 

DETROIT DEPARTMENT

Err-w" DESTRUCTIGM 3F ANIMAL AND ITS ATTEMPT REPORT I a, I
ma b5 mmnieted bar a nun-involved Supervisor} Pagan Page

I 5 Ha THERECIHCT
cn Inc' :11 District 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Darn cf Time of Occurrence
4 AHG
In: 5 
WWt?rr-J' mm Aural-mm lur?munch ?mum-.1: infirm ?rm chn?m
I ?red?? arm-mag rum-ad: In in E?h
ta ?cc-radar rur m.
?m?ma?numr??
I 311 ?Him I Hawaiian 

cdmmu Emmah'Frra a cumnd rural-rm: coma-Ica- ?rm: came term 
?mar. Idi- ?rccl'r nitric round: In In print EDA Eur
I I I I Iargct p?rmr'gr ?century li'r'u 
. magician? magmas-:1

'c a [Na er :1 ETBULL mm corrmol. 
Did {macaw-rial Any an? Idu?lccr My Marisa-? Hawaiian: mum] Fur-?lithium Tm bf N?n?l? mam?! 
ma arc-ma? Properly in [th II In mad-I? {Lhrt :Hin San-cm: drama-d? drum-ed cf? (Fitch:
cm? W: drumbnm: ?curled? Hct'rl'lcd??
I: UHF: HOW 
Eu cm: 1 -
Chin-cf ?rm-Ira Harm: known} Hum! add-cc: a ?m -
.
man: 
[User shun d? cams-nary}
GH I l-13-Il- ukT 4.10 PM CREW CUBE. 41132 ARRIVED AT 5mm}: CREW
Awmmcan rum run-nan WAMWER mom mm mac a. ma?a amt?
TD mm: mm Wmum mar-4m [:ch mama Wm: CREW Pammcn 11cc 
scum vacuums TU cur: Ir DHE HUME muse EARL rm manic CREW THAT THE our: turn BEEN
upon my cc. cams-Gamma TD 1115 srrc'rcurr Dru? macaw cm'H
smmurr arr Law READY cr HALLWM of THE 1;ch mwmr} 114 11c: um P?-vam a.
HEW m1)

m.


JILL 1W5. EFFECT mm. THE DUE CHEESE-S WERE WWL FDR 13131305th
ANIMAL BEAT DH SHE-TEEN SHELLS. ALL RCIUNDS WERE
FDR. WAS PRWERTT AND N0 EDIE WM INJURED. ?ll! mm WAS

ALL CHEW 
11-15 RAID UAR DRIVEN THE. UFHCERS 15 MIT EQUIFFED WHE- ELGWEVEE 
A. 

   


mam ALL WHERE FEE-H THE SEEKE- WEAHGN AND
DRGAHIEED CRIME.

mm. - SGT. BREW. 551'. ENTEL, 

AFTEREDHBLICEHG an mama ms eardrum, 111:5 mm acumen. mac cc.?
?5mm
THAT Is Hm AH cc mm an): warm arugm?usm 

 

 

   
    

 

 

 
  

marl:
Dill
rr? #3 5r?

Dam



Dil?.

I
T?yxcrurar macaw-ranch . .. - 3 
HJN?rDccuty multLashFir?? Earn?. Dita

mm: 441""? 

km Err: I

Saturn?13hr:


 

 

 

Case ECF No. 3-2 filed 12/20/19 PagelD.38 7 Page 1 of 3

 

 

gum Data
police DFFICE MEMORANDUM February 11? sets
To: Citizen Complaint Subcommittee, Board of Police Commissioners {Through Channeis}

Subject: DF MR. MONEY STACKHDUSE. GER T111419, BPC 13-950

1. CUMPLAINT 

Date of Com pieint: November 14. 2013
Date DUI received: November 15. 2613

?ats Assigned: November 16. Elite
Due Date: February 12. 
Complainant: i'vlr. lvlonev Staci-mouse, DOE-Address Unknown.

City Unknown, State St ll(lode Unknown.

Demit-

Assigned to: Police lCommission investigator Tiffany Stewed assigned to the
Etf?ce of the Chief Investigator

 

  

Coeompiainant: Ms. Kira l-iorne. D08:
Michigan 43234

H. AREAS DF CONCERN
Mr.

   

PROCEDURE The com lainant.

 

Mons Steclthouse. alleged that
Badgeh and Crew, assigned to
the Gang Intel Surveillance Transit Team. conducted a
narcotics raid at the location of on November
13. 2018, at 31m] em. The complainant alieged
that the of?cers turned off their Bodv-wom cameras.

FDRCE The complainant alleged that he was forced into a room.
where the officers questioned him about narcotics. and began
spitting on him and hitting him when he said he did not know
where the drugs were.

PRDCEDURE The too?complainant, Ms. Kira Horne. alleged that two of
her dogs were shot during the execution of the search warrant.

FRDCEDURE The co~compiainant. Ms. Horne. alleged that the of?cers
caused damage to the walls in her home by putting holes in
them.

PROCEDURE The co-comoiainent Ms. Horne. alleged that the of?cers

pieced insulation around the water heater in the basement of
her home.

EXHIBIT 2

Case ECF No. 3-2 filed 12/20/19 PageID.39 Page 2 of 3

Citizen Complaint Stboommittee
COR 70419. BPC 18-%0
Page 22

PROCEDURE

Detroit Police Department Manual Directive 102.3 6.9
Conduct, Unprofessional (1) states in relevant part.
?Conduct unbecoming an of?cer. Members shall not engage
in any conduct on duty that re?ects discredit on the members
of this department, tend to bring this department into
dlsrepute. or impairs this department's ef?cient and effective
operation.?

Detroit Police Department Manual Directive 304.2 4.1
Authorization and Limitations, Less Lethal Force (3) states
in relevant part. ?Use of force restraints and/or weapons shall
never be used as punishment or retaliation.

The complainant was uncooperative during the course of the
investigation.

  
 

and his crew denied ever hitting or spitting on
the complainant.

The preliminary investigation revealed that there was not any
BWC video footage or audio recordings to con?rm or refute
the alleged incident.

There were not any witnesses identi?ed to con?rm or refute
the alleged incident.

There were insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged
misconduct occurred.

Badae- Ganq lntel

 

 

SUSTAINED

The complainant. Ms. Kira Home. alleged that two (2) of her
dogs were shot during the execution of the search warrant

Detroit Police Department Manual Directive 304.2 - 
Dangerous Animals states in part. (1) ?The use of physical
force against any animal will be used only to the extent that
such force is necessary to prevent harm or injury to another
person(s) or animal(s). An of?cer shall not discharge a ?rearm
at a dog or other animal, except to protect a member or
person from imminent physical injury and there is no
opportunity to retreat or other reasonable means to eliminate
the threat.

EXHIBIT 2

Case ECF No. 3-2 filed 12/20/19 Page 3 of 3

Citizen Complaint 

CCR 70419. 8P0 18-960
Page 23

 

PROCEDURE

(2) ?Before using deadly force, every attempt will be made to
use other reasonable means to contain the threat of a
dangerous animal.?

?acknowledged shooting two (2) dogs inside of

the home. According to the of?cer the do 3 were causing a
threat and he needed to neutralize them. hstated

that the complainant, Mr. Stackhouse. was given the
opportunity to secure the dogs.

?acknowiedied that he was not inside of the

location when shot the dogs, but stated that

deemed the dogs a threat and neutralized them
for the safety of himself and the other officers entering the
home.

The preliminary investigation revealed a copy of the Detroit
Police Department Destruction of Animal Re ort Form DOA
completed on November 13. 2018. by

documented in the narrative of the report that
dog(s) were charging. showing teeth and attempted to bite the
crew. However. video footage and audio recordings captured
did not show the dogs acting in an aggressive manner.

 

The video footage and audio recordings also revealed that the
Mr. Stackhouse. who was the owner of the dogs was seated in
the view of the dogs. It appeared that dog (1) was coming
toward Mr. Stackhouse. ,At no,time did any of the dogs chatge
attheoflicers, 

TheacttonsoftheoMrwereunjumed.

A preponderance of the evidence showed that the alleged
conduct occur, and that the actions of the officer violated
DPD policy, procedure or training.

Ganq Intel
Gana lntel
Ganq Intel
Gana lntel
Gana Intel
Ganq Intel

 

 

 

INCONCLUSIVE

EXHIBIT 2