Watkins v. City of Oakland

Incident Summary & Facts

On November 20, 1993, Oakland Police Officer Craig Chew and his police dog “Nero,” a 72-pound German Shepherd, responded with four other officers to a silent alarm at a commercial auto body warehouse. The officers set up a perimeter after seeing a person running inside. There was no evidence as to whether the person was armed. Chew twice announced that the suspect should give up or the dog would be released and “is going to bite you.” Nathaniel Watkins did not surrender and said he did not hear the warning. Nero ran out of the handler’s sight, found Watkins hiding in a car, and bit him.

When Chew arrived, he did not call the dog off. He ordered Watkins to show his hands; Watkins, recoiling from the bite, did not comply. Chew pulled Watkins out of the car onto the ground, and Nero kept biting until Watkins showed his hands. Officers testified that ten to fifteen seconds passed between the order and compliance (Chew later told Internal Affairs about thirty seconds), with the dog biting throughout. Chew said he delayed because Watkins had not shown his hands to prove he was unarmed. Watkins said he was obviously helpless and surrounded by officers with guns drawn. His foot suffered deep lacerations, exposed tendons, and fractured metatarsals, and later needed two skin grafts. Oakland used a “bite and hold” canine policy, and Chief Joseph Samuels signed an internal affairs report dismissing Watkins’ complaint.

Watkins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied summary judgment and qualified immunity to Chew and Samuels and denied the City’s summary judgment motion. The defendants brought an interlocutory appeal.

Core Legal Issue

Whether Officer Chew and Chief Samuels were entitled to qualified immunity, that is, whether clearly established Fourth Amendment law in 1993 prohibited (a) a “bite and hold” canine policy and (b) letting a police dog keep biting a suspect after officers reached him; and whether the court had pendent jurisdiction over the City’s appeal.

The Holding

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Officer Chew and Chief Samuels, holding it was clearly established that “excessive duration of the bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force.” It dismissed the City of Oakland’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court’s Analysis:

• Because the district court found genuine factual disputes about reasonableness, interlocutory review was limited to the legal question of whether clearly established law existed that Chew’s conduct could have violated (Johnson v. Jones).
• Following Chew v. Gates, the “bite and hold” policy itself did not violate clearly established law at the time, given the “widespread acceptance” of police dogs to make arrests. A Third Circuit district court decision was not enough notice.
• Watkins’ claim was different: it challenged the duration and extent of force after officers caught up with the dog. Under Mendoza v. Block, officers need no particularized case law to know a police dog “weapon” can become unlawful. One example the court gave is setting a dog on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered.
• A supervisor can be individually liable for ratifying excessive force (Larez). Samuels signed an IA report dismissing the complaint despite evidence of excessive force and Chew’s other bite incidents, and did not add police dogs to the nonlethal-force policy. Qualified immunity was denied on that theory, though Samuels was immune as to adopting the policy itself.
• The City’s Monell liability was not “inextricably intertwined” with the officers’ immunity, so the court declined pendent jurisdiction.