Eighth Circuit
LeMay v. Mays, 18 F.4th 283, 288 (8th Cir. 2021) (“It is clearly established that an officer cannot shoot a dog in the absence of an objectively legitimate and imminent threat to him or others.”).
Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 19-2492, 2021 WL 28091, at *5 (8th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021) (“Regardless of whether the Place exception applies to personal effects such as cell phones and cameras, the duration of the seizure – twelve days – was unreasonable.”).
JENNIFER L.M. LEMAY, personally and as the guardian of C.L.E. and V.E., minors, and COURTNEY J. LIVINGSTON Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL B. MAYS, and the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Defendants., CV 19-2463 (JRT/KMM), 2020 WL 3642367, at *3 n.2 (D. Minn. July 6, 2020) (“The City argues that Bailey creates a rule of law that if a dog merely advances toward an officer, the officer is entitled to use deadly force. This is absurd. . . . Accordingly, the Court declines the City’s invitation to approve a declaration of open season on dogs who merely walk towards police.”).
Brown v. City of Bloomington, CV 15-11(DSD/DTS), 2018 WL 3614125, at *9 (D. Minn. July 27, 2018) (“It is clearly established that the warrantless seizure of property is a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment, and no objectively reasonable officer in George’s position would have believed that there was a legal basis for the seizure of Melonie’s cell phone.”).
Andrews v. City of W. Branch, Iowa, 454 F.3d 914, 919 (8th Cir. 2006) (“If the facts asserted by the Andrewses are found to be true, and if Knight had violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure, Knight could not have concluded ‘that he could lawfully destroy a pet who posed no imminent danger and whose owners were known, available, and desirous of assuming custody.’”).
Dixon v. Lowery, 302 F.3d 857, 864 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Whether Dixon had a protected property interest is a material fact that is still in dispute and therefore is not an appropriate issue for summary judgment. . . . Under the Fourth Amendment, seizure of property without a warrant, in circumstances such as those present in this case, is unreasonable.”).