By Joe Kieser, Sun Newspapers (Minneapolis, Minn.)
An Eagan, Minn. man who was bitten by a Minnetonka police dog nearly five years ago after fleeing police officers is free to bring a claim against the city of Minnetonka in federal court.
The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed part of a ruling that came down from a federal district court judge, which had dismissed the case against the city. The man bringing the case, Jeffrey Kuha, had claimed his civil rights were violated after the Minnetonka K-9 dog bit him.
Kuha brought an excessive force claim against the city and police officers. Although the circuit court agreed with the district court that the “individual officers are shielded from suit” it was decided that Kuha’s allegation that police officers failed to give a verbal warning before the dog bit him was sufficient for him to file a Fourth Amendment claim against the city.
According to court documents, Kuha was stopped by Minnetonka police on a routine traffic stop during the early morning hours of Sept. 23, 1999. He stated that he had been drinking that night and was pulled over by a Minnetonka officer. Kuha got out of his car and fled police to a swampy area after being stopped because he was afraid he would be arrested for drunken driving. After the officer called for backup and a K-9 unit, the search for Kuha commenced.
Kuha stated that he jumped into the swamp and climbed out onto a grassy field area where the police dog found him and bit him. Kuha was wearing only underwear at the time. He stated that he took off his clothes because his clothes were wet and cold.
The dog tracked down Kuha ahead of officers who were leading it and was trained to bite and hold the first body part it reached, according to court documents. The dog bit Kuha in the leg, which severed an artery.
Kuha contended that officers should have let him known that the dog was trained to bite first rather than bark.
The Circuit Court agreed that the claim should come before a jury: “We hold that Kuha’s allegation that the police officers failed to give a verbal warning prior to using a police dog trained to bite and hold is sufficient to state a claim.”
Jon Iverson, an attorney representing the city, said that all the Circuit Court’s decision means is that a jury will decide the outcome of the case.
“All it means is that Kuha will get his opportunity to bring his case to a jury,” Iverson said.
Iverson said it was Kuha’s actions that put him in the situation. Officers didn’t know Kuha’s location when the dog bit him, so, Iverson asked, how they could have given him a warning?
“The guy was hiding in the bushes. He had the chance to stop when the police stopped his car. What good would having a warning done at that point?” Iverson said. Officers “didn’t know where [Kuha] was.”
Iverson said the police department does issue warnings before a police dog tries to restrain a suspect, but only when “feasible.”
Kay Nord Hunt, an attorney representing Kuha in the Circuit Court appeal, said that she wasn’t so sure that the police department had a policy about warning suspects of police dog restrains.
“It’s my understanding that the police don’t have a policy of warning,” she said.
Hunt said the whole case revolves around the failure of the police to warn her client about the dog before it bit him.
“We are confident the jury will decide in the favor of our client,” she said.
The case will be tried in federal district court, but no dates have been set.