“Puppycide” is a new term used to describe the situation in which a police officer shoots a family pet. Critics who have begun to collect statistics on the shooting of pets by police indicate that this is becoming more commonplace in many parts of the country. Because such shootings are done by police officers, many may assume there is no legal recourse. However, pet owners may have viable legal cases that can be brought in either federal or state court. Such cases are fact-specific and often hinge on whether the police officer was acting reasonably given the circumstances.
These cases often allege violations of the pet owner’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, but can also include claims based on theories of state and local laws. Since pets are considered personal property in all fifty states, they can be protected from unreasonable seizures and unlawful takings by government officials. When these cases are brought, courts must also consider whether the police officer and police department are protected by qualified immunity, a legal defense that protects police officers from liability for their actions while working in their official capacities.
Although a quick internet search may show many cases of “puppycide” across the country, some cities and states are making efforts to make these cases the exception and not the rule. Better training of police officers and communication with communities are key to ending “puppycide.” Even technology promises to change the trend, as body and dashcams are becoming instrumental in holding officers accountable for unreasonable actions. Courts and legislatures across the country are moving in this direction – some faster than others. In the meanwhile, pet owners may are still left with some legal remedies in the courtroom.