Police Let Their K-9 Maul on the Wrong Guy. They Arrested Him Anyway.
The city says the man's injuries were "caused solely as a result of his own acts or omissions."

Last year, a police officer sicced his K-9 on Sean Davis as he slept in a wooded area in Covington, Kentucky, mauling his arm and causing severe injuries. Officers had mistaken Davis for a different individual who had allegedly violated a protection order and detained him even after he provided police with his ID. Last month, Davis filed a lawsuit against the officer responsible for Davis' mauling, claiming that he was subject to unreasonable force, negligence, and battery.
According to the Covington police incident report, on June 8, 2022, police received a call from a woman who said she believed that her violent ex-boyfriend, whom she had a protection order against, was sleeping in a wooded area near a campsite at which she was staying. When police arrived, they found Sean Davis—not the woman's ex-boyfriend—sleeping in a hammock in the woods. Without warning, a police officer released a K-9 on Davis, which bit his arm and brought him to the ground. While the dog continued to maul Davis' arm, police got on top of Davis.
According to WCPO, a local news station, body camera footage of the incident shows that officers handcuffed Davis and demanded he identify himself. In the footage, Davis repeatedly gives officers his name, social security number, as well as his photo ID, proving that he was not the person in the protection order. Nonetheless, police kept Davis handcuffed for 37 minutes.
"Try to scoot your butt straight over so you don't get blood all over the car," one officer told Davis as he directed him to get inside the police vehicle. "Try to keep that arm off the seat."
Eventually, police took Davis to a local hospital where he was treated and released. Notably, according to WCPO, Covington's police report of the incident did not mention that Davis was attacked by a K-9 or that he was handcuffed.
"Had it not been for the body-worn camera footage, we would not have any idea of the atrocity that occurred there," Anita Washington, Davis' attorney, told WCPO.
The lawsuit says that Davis "was diagnosed with injury of biceps brachii muscle and injury of triceps due to dog bite on his left arm. He was given an opioid for pain relief before undergoing multiple laceration suture repairs. The wounds have not completely healed, and it appears as though the injuries and scarring" are permanent. The suit also says that Davis was "diagnosed with acute stress/PTSD due to nightmares, avoidance of going outside or near dogs, and intrusive thoughts of being attacked."
Davis argues that his mauling was clearly unjustified and that the officer responsible for the K-9 acted with an intent to harm him, or "a conscious disregard to" Davis' rights or safety.
However, in a response to the complaint, the city denied Davis' claims that he was unjustly attacked, arguing, "If the Plaintiff was injured and/or damaged as alleged… his injuries and/or damages were caused solely as a result of his own acts or omissions," and insisting that police actions were justified.
While Davis' ordeal is disturbing, it's unclear whether he will be able to succeed in his lawsuit, as police officers are protected by wide-ranging qualified immunity protections that make it extremely difficult to sue them over civil rights violations—no matter how obvious.
"I think they believed Mr. Davis was expendable and what happened was just a mistake," Washington told WCPO.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Easily start receiving more than $600 every single day from home in your part time. i made $18781 from this job in my spare time afte my college. easy to do job and its regular income are awesome. no skills needed to do this job all you need to know is how to copy and paste stuff online. join this today by follow details on this page.
.
.
Now Here—————————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I've started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)>>> https://www.Salarybiz.com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
I’m making a decent compensation from home $60k/week , which was astonishing under a year prior I was jobless in a horrendous economy. I was honored with these guidelines and presently it’s my obligation to show sv02 kindness and share it with Everyone
.
.
Detail Are Here——————————>>> http://Www.Pay.Hiring9.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
"'If the Plaintiff was injured and/or damaged as alleged… his injuries and/or damages were caused solely as a result of his own acts or omissions..."'
Well, obviously. After all, he was armed with a deadly "assault hammock."
The Best opportunities To Earn $62,000/Month. We all spend a lot of time on social media every day – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and the list goes on. If you’re used to getting a lot of likes or comments, or if you’re great at motivating others through your posts, you might want to consider turning this into a profession. It appears unbelievable but you won't forgive yourself if you do not check it...
http://Cash.Salary49.com
Looked at the city’s response, to a layman it looks like their argument is:
1. He wasn’t injured.
2. His injuries are his fault.
3. We were perfectly justified in injuring him.
4. We have immunity for the unjustified injury we inflicted.
5. He’s not even claiming an injury!
Yeah, I realize the lawyers operate under rules that allow them to make these kinds of apparently self-contradictory arguments, by prefacing each one with “alternatively”, and that “injury” is a legal term of art such that torn muscles might not be one. But this is why we laymen scoff are cynical about the claim that layers aren't allowed to lie in court – in real life anyone would instantly recognize this set of arguments as bullshit.
Layers, lawyers, same thing....
The proper pronunciation of "lawyer" has always been "lieyer", which is why they prefer "attorney".
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Well, 8(d)(3) in the FRCP does state that “A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.”
But they’re claiming so much more than that. They’re claiming *every* affirmative defense in rule 8(c). Including ones that quite obviously do not apply. So add to your list:
6. We’ve already settled with him. 7. We went to arbitration. 8. Another court already decided this. 9. We’ve already paid him. 10. He waived his right to sue us. 11. He signed a release. 12. The statute of limitations has expired. 13. Estoppel applies here. 14. Laches applies here. 15. He assumed the risk of this happening when he slept in the woods. 16. He was negligent. 17. He defrauded us. 18. He was doing something illegal. 19. He worked for us. 20. We were under duress. 21. We had a license to do this. 22. We didn’t have a written contract, and that matters somehow. 23. Failure of consideration applies here, somehow.
This shouldn’t be allowed. It’s a violation of 11(b)(2), requiring that “to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances”, “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law”. The time to respond is limited so there’s a limit on how much investigating can be done, but many of those are patently ridiculous. And if you can simply argue everything via boilerplate it makes the requirement that they be *affirmative* defenses almost meaningless; it doesn’t put the other side on notice of what it is you’re actually claiming. This seems sanctionable.
Also, it’s ridiculous to admit that “Plaintiff was taken to St. Elizabeth Medical Center for treatment of a dog bite injury” but deny that “Plaintiff incurred medical expenses for incident related medical treatment.” There are only two ways this can be reconciled: Either St. Elizabeth Medical Center didn’t charge him, or he was taken there for a *totally unrelated* dog bite injury. This is treading close to perjury territory.
If he was indigent, he may not have actually been charged by the hospital, but I'm not sure "That person is so poor they can't afford medical care, therefore when I beat them it doesn't count as a legal injury" is really a standard we want to set either...
At some point "injury" has to relate to the original term as well.
In a hammock at a campground. That doesn't sound like "indigent" to me. But in fairness, the snippets above don't make it entirely clear.
Is the city’s attorney Rodney Ruxin?
And asleep. How dare he sleep and disrespect their authoritay!
Obviously the K-9's arm-chewing was merely an appropriate attempt to disarm the villainous assault hammocker.
“Obviously the K-9’s arm-chewing was merely an appropriate attempt to disarm the villainous assault hammocker.”
And even worse, from what I can gather, the hammock wasn’t even properly registered with the City’s “Bureau of Camping Equipment.” Total disregard for the law!
"Qualified immunity" is just another term for "close enough for government work."
Yes, the mauling seems to be an unreasonable use of force, assuming the body of the article didn't omit some pertinent facts, which it may well have done.
Other than that, the headline is bogus clickbait. The yellow press writes more accurate headlines than Reason these days.
They didn't identify anybody before letting the dog loose. What if it was a child in that hammock ? Even after they nabbed the guy, why didn't they get the dog off of him ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWWg9GaZOUY
"get the dog off of him" is not always simple. The police have little control over these dogs once they let them go for someone. That's why dogs trained to attack should not be used by police at all. Once they're off the chain they're a wild card.
As if I'd believe someone who uses the term "maul on." Where you get youse English?
I came here to say that. The dog mauled the wrong guy. It didn't maul on the wrong guy.
What kind of chicken shit people, law enforcement or not, lets loose an attack dog on someone asleep in a hammock. He was not threatening anyone, he was not running, he was asleep in a hammock. Did they not think to just quietly walk up and subdue him while he slept.
Every officer involved in this incident should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY and Federal Civil Rights charges brought against them, for which State provided qualified immunity is not applicable.
Ah. According to a news article, the guy he was mistaken for had just gotten out of prison for... assaulting an officer. That explains everything.
He was in the right place, but it must have been the wrong time…
Dr John
I'd have said the right thing,
but must have used the wrong line
Let's be honest, the whole point of police dogs is to maul people. (Well, that and to serve as targets instead of the cop)
Even if it had been the right guy, did he deserve to get bitten by a dog? No
Bite first. Ask questions later.
For sound economic perspective please go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Did I miss the identification of the victim's race?