SPOKANE - A federal judge ruled the shooting of a dog by a Grant County sheriff's deputy was reasonable.

US District Court Judge Lonny Suko dismissed Nicholas Criscuolo's federal lawsuit against Grant County. Criscuolo claimed Deputy Beau Lamens violated his Fourth Amendment rights when he shot Criscuolo's dog, Slyder, in Neppel Landing Park in January 2010.

While Suko dismissed the federal lawsuit, he didn't make a decision on claims Lamens violated state laws, according to the decision. The decision allows Criscuolo to file a lawsuit in the state courts.

Criscuolo's attorney, Adam Karp, stated his client is considering his options.

"Respectfully, while appreciative of the court's labors, I believe it erred in several respects that only the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can cure," he stated.

Criscuolo was at the park with Slyder and another dog, when Lamens and a drug detection dog, Maddox, arrived to assist in arresting a man for possession of methamphetamine, according to the decision.

After Lamens took Maddox out of the car, Slyder raced up to the dog and an altercation began, according to the judgement. Suko noted Maddox weighed 60 pounds while Slyder weighed 110 pounds.

The two dogs began fighting. After kicking Slyder in an attempt to separate the dogs, the deputy shot Slyder, according to court records.

"Lamens testified he kicked Slyder three times," Suko wrote. "Other witness accounts vary as to the number of kicks but all witnesses acknowledge that Lamens kicked the plaintiff's dog while trying to separate him from the police canine."

To determine whether Criscuolo's Fourth Amendment rights were violated, the judge needed to balance the "nature of the quality and quantity of the intrusion" against the government's interests, according to the decision.

Witness stories varied on some details, but Suko stated everyone agreed on certain key points. Slyder was unleashed, uncontrolled and the two dogs were fighting to one degree or another.

"Everything happened very quickly, within a matter of seconds, requiring Lamens to make a split-second decision about what action he was going to take," Suko wrote. "When Lamens decided to shoot, Maddox was off his leash and Lamens was not sure of Maddox's whereabouts; of course, Slyder also remained off-leash at that point and so Lamens could not discount the possibility that Slyder would go after Maddox again."

Karp argued Lamens had other options to stop Maddox, such as pepper spray or a Taser, according to the decision. He relied on testimony from "non-law enforcement witnesses, including (the) plaintiff, and from an expert."

"This testimony, however, amounts to no more than speculation about what Lamens might have done differently if he had time to think about things and the benefit of 20/20 hindsight," Suko wrote.

Suko disagreed with Karp's contention that Lamens knew Slyder wasn't leashed and could have put Maddox back in the patrol car, according to the decision. The judge pointed out Criscuolo was legally obligated to have his dogs leashed and Lamens had every reason to expect it was.

"(The) plaintiff contends Lamens should have 'scanned the area to see if dogs were present at the open public park,'" Suko wrote. "Lamens, however, was entitled to reasonably believe people would have their dogs leashed up as required by city ordinance."

Karp argued another deputy didn't make Criscuolo leash the dogs, according to the decision. Criscuolo reported the officer said, 'Why should I care?" when he asked if he could take the dogs to the lake. The judge rejected the argument.

"(Criscuolo) was not entitled to assume the officer was consenting to (Criscuolo) running his dogs without a leash," according to the decision. "Furthermore, Lamens was not part of this conversation, and the conversation is denied by the defendants."

Suko stated allegations Maddox wasn't well-trained and bit Slyder first were irrelevant, according to the decision.

"Slyder may have been 'well-mannered, well-known in the community, and nonreactive even to those in uniform,' as asserted by (the) plaintiff, but Lamens was not familiar with Slyder, dogs are inherently unpredictable in their behavior," Suko wrote.

A dog might interact well with humans, but not other dogs. Suko stated it's unreasonable to suggest other officers could have pulled Slyder away while Lamens put Maddox back in the car.

Suko found arguments about whether Lamens failed to secure Maddox correctly irrelevant as well, according to the decision.

"What is relevant is that Maddox did slip free during the interaction with Slyder and under those circumstances, Lamens was legitimately concerned about the safety of Maddox," Suko stated.

The judge disagreed with Criscuolo's assertion that he was trying to get Slyder under control when the dog was shot, according to the decision.

"Slyder was not under control and it is debatable whether he intended to respond to (the) plaintiff's commands when he had not responded to them previously when running past the plaintiff to Maddox," according to the decision. "The court must conclude the governmental interest (protecting Maddox) constitutes the prevailing interest in this case."