EPHRATA – In a case that should command the attention of all Grant County dog owners, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed a dog shooting claim against the Grant County Sheriff’s Office and one of its deputies on April 9.

In a summary judgment, the court dismissed a claim by plaintiff Nicholas Criscuolo of Moses Lake, who claimed that Deputy Sheriff Beau Lamens and the sheriff’s office violated his Fourth Amendment rights when Lamens shot and killed Criscuolo’s dog, Slyder, at Neppel Landing Park in Moses Lake on Jan. 24, 2010.

The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that Criscuolo can pursue a lawsuit in Grant County Superior Court. But it wasn't strong enough to win in front of Federal Judge Lonny R. Suko.

The case qualified as a Fourth Amendment (seizure of private property) matter, Suko said. However, there was no dispute in the facts of the case, and the “balance” in the scales of justice was in favor of Lamens and Grant County.

The purpose of a summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the court.

Lamens and his narcotics detection K-9 dog, Maddox, were at the park assisting another deputy with a drug investigation when Slyder attacked Maddox. Lamens tried to kick Slyder away, but Slyder continued the attack, and Lamens shot Slyder while protecting Maddox.

In his claim, Criscuolo alleged that by shooting and killing Slyder, Lamens unconstitutionally seized Slyder in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Criscuolo also alleged Grant County is liable in its own right for a constitutional violation because of “a policy and/or custom and/or defective training”.

The destruction of property, including the killing of a dog, qualifies as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, Suko said. However, to succeed on a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful seizure,  Criscuolo needed to show not only that a seizure occurred, but that the seizure was unreasonable.

“A court must consider the totality of the circumstances and balance the nature of the quality and quantity of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake to determine whether the force used to effect a particular seizure was reasonably necessary,” Suko said.

“The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation,” he added.

Suko said: “The private Fourth Amendment possessory interests are obviously stronger when, although the dog is unleashed, the owner is nearby and attempting to assert over control of the dog.”

He noted Lamens's testimony included the statement that Criscuolo's dog “jetted” past Criscuolo and did not respond to any of Criscuolo's calls.