Kim Brown v. Muhlenberg Township

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a state may not “consistent with the Fourth Amendment, destroy a pet when it poses no immediate danger and the owner is looking on, obviously desirous of retaining custody”
• holding that an officer would not be entitled to qualified immunity if the officer killed “a pet who posed no imminent danger and whose owners were known, available, and desirous of assuming custody”
• finding that it is not enough to allege “that the constitutionally cognizable injury would not have occurred if the superior had done more than he or she did.”
• providing that “the state’s interest in protecting life and property may be implicated when there is reason to believe the pet poses an imminent danger,” which “may even justify . . . the destruction of the pet in the owner’s presence”
• stating the government may not “destroy a pet when it poses no immediate danger and the owner is looking on, obviously desirous of retaining custody.”
• analyzing whether an unreasonable seizure occurred when officer shot dog before turning to qualified immunity defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).