Missouri Town Will Pay $500K To Settle Lawsuit Over Deputy Shooting Blind and Deaf Dog
The Animal Legal Defense Fund says it's one of the largest settlements for the police killing of a dog.
A small Missouri town will pay $500,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a man whose 13-pound blind and deaf shih tzu dog was shot and killed by a police officer. It is one of the largest settlements of its kind, an animal rights group says.
Nicholas Hunter filed a lawsuit last year against the City of Sturgeon, Missouri, and former Sturgeon police officer Myron Woodson, alleging his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Woodson killed his dog Teddy shortly after finding it wandering in a neighbor's yard on May 19, 2024.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), an animal rights advocacy group, provided a grant to help cover costs for the lawsuit and announced the settlement last Friday in a press release.
"Mr. Hunter is relieved this matter is concluded but nothing can ever bring his Teddy back," Hunter's attorneys, Daniel J. Kolde and Eric C. Crinnian, said in the release. "Teddy was a good dog who did not deserve this. We hope that other departments will learn from this and train their officers better in the future so events like this don't happen again. We also are grateful to the ALDF for their support and efforts to bring light to tragedies like Teddy and encourage better training and more responsible police behavior towards beloved family pets."
Teddy's shooting was a particularly egregious example of a common phenomena: police needlessly shooting family dogs. (There have been so many cases over the years that we have a "puppycide" tag for stories on the Reason website.) No one knows exactly how many dogs police shoot around the country, but every year, there are more cases of wanton killings that, besides terrorizing owners, generate huge lawsuits, viral outrage, and sometimes result in officers being fired or facing trial, such as in the case of a New Orleans officer who shot and killed a puppy.
The trouble in Sturgeon started on May 19, 2024, when Teddy escaped from Hunter's backyard while Hunter was out at dinner. Hunter's neighbor called a county dispatch center to report that the dog had wandered into their yard. According to Hunter's lawsuit, the caller responded, "No, not at all," when asked if the dog was aggressive.
The town of Sturgeon's official Facebook page posted an alert on May 19 about the missing dog, along with photos of Teddy: "Do you know this doggie? Joint communications has been notified. The doggie seems in need of medical attention."
Hunter had been called about the Facebook post and was on his way to pick up Teddy. Instead, Woodson beat him to the scene, and a few minutes later, the officer shot the dog twice, killing it.
The city of Sturgeon posted on Facebook about the incident the next day, defending Woodson's decision: "Based on the behavior exhibited by the dog, believing the dog to be severely injured or infected with rabies, and as the officer feared being bitten and being infected with rabies, the SPD [Sturgeon Police Department] officer felt that his only option was to put the animal down," the city wrote. "It was later learned that the animal's behavior was because the animal was blind. Unfortunately, the animal's lack of a collar or tags influenced the SPD Officer's decision to put the animal down due to his belief that the animal was injured, sick and abandoned."
But when the local news outlet ABC 17 obtained Woodson's body camera footage, it showed that Teddy was never aggressive and didn't bark or growl. Woodson tried to lasso Teddy with a catch pole—a common tool used in animal control—but the dog simply shook its head free of the rope and trotted away. After fumbling the catch pole several times, Woodson drew his gun and killed Teddy. ABC 17 reported that Woodson's entire encounter with Teddy, from exiting his car to putting two bullets in the animal, lasted three minutes and six seconds.
Yet after body camera footage was released, Sturgeon doubled down: "The City believes that the officer acted within his authority based on the information available to him at the time to protect against possible injury to citizens from what appeared to be an injured, sick, and abandoned dog," Sturgeon posted in a follow-up Facebook post.
Hunter filed a federal lawsuit within a week of the shooting.
In a deposition, Woodson testified that he destroyed the animal because "I believed the dog was seriously injured and suffering."
Sturgeon city officials suspended Woodson and promised to conduct an investigation, but according to Hunter's lawsuit, that investigation never occurred. The city allegedly instead paid Woodson a $16,000 settlement regarding his suspension.
Woodson no longer works for the SPD and is apparently a process server. ABC 17 reported last week that Woodson was charged with trespassing for allegedly refusing police officers' orders to leave a retirement home where he was attempting to serve papers.
Chris Green, executive director of the ALDF, said in a statement that the settlement is "one of the largest of its kind for the police shooting of a beloved family dog."
The typical size of these settlements has grown substantially since a court ruling in the early 2000s established that the Fourth Amendment protects pets from unreasonable "seizures"—that is, killings. In 2018, a Maryland jury awarded $1.26 million to a family whose dog was shot and killed by police. As Reason reported that year, these settlements and the intense public backlash has caught police departments' attention; they've started to incorporate training for officers to recognize dog behaviors and respond with non-lethal methods first. It's a step that animal rights groups say is long overdue.
"These horrendous tragedies are completely unnecessary and preventable with simple, adequate training," Green continued. "I hope this half-million-dollar amount sends a message to other police departments that if your officers needlessly harm an animal, you will pay."
The City of Sturgeon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
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
Excessive compensation. Lawyer happy and maybe ALDF’s account too.
At worst, the dogcatcher should have retrieved the dog and the owner pay a fine when they pick them up.
Had an acquaintance that did work that put him at risk to dog attacks (think UPS but it wasn’t). He did get attacked and the dog tore his knee up.
If the dog had been a person peacefully protesting the cleanest election ever while on public property, sarc would be masturbating to this outcome.
Unfortunately, the animal's lack of a collar or tags influenced the SPD Officer's decision to put the animal down due to his belief that the animal was injured, sick and abandoned.
I see no fault here and no contesting of the facts as asserted.
Above and beyond for trying multiple times to snare the dog. Lord knows if he was going to hand a "rabid" dog off to some poor vet or animal shelter but he didn't go looking for the problem, the problem called out to and found him.
Don't want your dog shot like a wild animal? Don't let it roam around without a collar like a wild animal.
Police shoot dogs for one and only one reason, and that is to be cruel to the owners.
Lies. They also like the act of shooting dogs.
Missouri Town Will Pay $500K To Settle Lawsuit Over Deputy Shooting Blind and Deaf Dog The Animal Legal Defense Fund says it's one of the largest settlements for the police killing of a dog.
Too bad we can't sue the individual officer who makes thirty two five a year and is three months behind on his child support payments.
"thirty two five a year"?
It's pretty much standard for cops to double their salaries with overtime. See those cops sleeping in their cars while men work on roads or powerlines? They're all getting time and a half at least. Some get double. There's all kinds of ways for cops to milk the clock while sleeping, and even more while they're awake. Show me a cop who only makes their base salary and I'll show you a fucking moron.
So sixty five a year and 9 months behind on his child support payments who's indemnified by the county?
If he's behind on child support then he's a scumbag. But we already knew that because he's a cop.
Let me guess, you think cops are scumbags because they beat you with a phone book when you opened your shit slinging lips and didn't heed the warming when they told you to shut the fuck up?
Let me guess, you love cops despite the fact that not a single officer has ever given you a reach-around when dominated you with their dick up your asshole?
Seriously, how life threatening is a shih tzu ?
Teddy was a good dog who did not deserve this.
Blind and deaf, deserve's got nothing to do with it. Lucky it wasn't a raccoon or coyote or car that found him first.
Blind dog wanders about aimlessly. 70 IQ cop tries to lasso him, "stop resisting, stop resisting!". PD "the dog didn't have the required paperwork!". Fuck these assholes.
Compensation is just - except it wasn't taxpayers who murdered a defenseless pet. Chicken-shineola, trigger-happy, deatbeat cop should have his pension seized and awarded to the dog's owner. It's the only way to send the message and have it heard: do not shoot non-aggressive, defenseless pets. Otherwise, you'll lose your retirement, dumbass!
Half a mil? That's b.s. Maybe a few thousand . I've owned Labs most of my life, if one of my dogs got that bad I'd have put him down.
If we use the Alex Jones scale - should have been an even Billion.
This all could have been avoided if the neighbor didn't call the police? FFS, what a dick?
The neighbor not wanting to approach the dog and calling the police raised the idea that the dog was threatening?
Silly the officer shot the dog to begin with yes but it seems the neighbor is the reason for the dog being dead.
Tax payers on the hook for ridiculous settlement. I'd be pissed.
Maybe it was intentional? In which case this is brilliant. Swatted the neighbors dog and didn't even get in trouble.
Every time they kill a dog, the Dept. should have to surrender a fully trained K9 as recompense. That'll put them out $12,000 - $50,000 for every act of "destruction."
It'll stop pretty quick.