Alexander Baxter v. Brad Bracey

Summary

The Sixth Circuit held that officers were entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive-force claim arising from a canine apprehension, because the use of a well-trained police dog to bite and arrest a burglary suspect who had fled, ignored multiple warnings, and remained hidden did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law—even if the suspect raised his hands in surrender just before the dog was released. The court declined to decide the underlying constitutional question, finding the law not clearly established given the suspect's flight, the serious crime, the dog's training, and the lack of communication. The failure-to-intervene claim against the second officer also failed because no clearly established excessive force occurred.

Holdings

1. No, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the use of the canine did not violate clearly established law.
2. Yes, because there is no clearly established underlying excessive force, Bracey cannot have observed or had reason to know of excessive force.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Officer Harris's use of a canine to apprehend Baxter violated clearly established law under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether Officer Bracey can be held liable for failure to intervene in the absence of a clearly established excessive force violation.

Disposition

reversed