Lassie Did Not Come Home… Because the Cop Shot Him
A tragic encounter between police officers and two family dogs has become a defining moment in Fourth Amendment law. The 9th Circuit’s decision in Jones v. City of North Las Vegas forces a difficult question: when does “hot pursuit” end — and when does a backyard become a constitutionally protected home front?
10/15/20252 min read
On an ordinary afternoon in North Las Vegas, what began as a search for a domestic violence suspect turned into a constitutional controversy — and two dogs never made it home. The case of Jones v. City of North Las Vegas (#24-3374) from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals captures the split-second decisions and legal uncertainties that define modern policing.
Police officers responding to a domestic battery call set up a perimeter to capture a suspect seen fleeing the scene. Nearly twenty minutes later, Lieutenant Scott Salkoff and his K9 partner, Storm, searched nearby yards for the suspect. When Storm alerted toward a fenced backyard posted with a “Beware of Dog” sign, Salkoff climbed over the six-foot wall — without a warrant and without consent. Moments later, two family dogs charged to defend their home. Within seconds, both were shot and killed.
The suspect was never found.
The homeowners sued, arguing that the officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights through a warrantless entry and unreasonable seizure — in this case, the killing of their dogs. The Ninth Circuit agreed in part, holding that the 18-minute gap between losing sight of the suspect and the entry into the backyard broke the immediacy required for the “hot pursuit” exception. In simple terms, the chase had gone cold, and the Constitution required a warrant.
On the question of use of force, however, the court took a more nuanced stance. It recognized that the dogs’ attack on the police K9 created a volatile situation and concluded that material factual disputes prevented a clear determination of excessive force. While the court denied qualified immunity on the entry claim, it upheld immunity for the shooting — a reminder of the narrow line between legal justification and moral tragedy.
The opinion underscores a broader message for officers: facts matter. The exact timing, perception, and immediacy of a threat determine not only tactical outcomes but constitutional ones. Hot pursuit ends when the urgency cools. Qualified immunity ends when clearly established precedent says, “You should have known better.”
For police officers, this case is more than a sad story — it’s a teaching tool. It highlights the need to evaluate both the immediacy of pursuit and the scope of lawful entry before stepping into private spaces. It also reminds us that, while dogs may be considered property under law, their loss carries real emotional weight and constitutional consequence.
The lesson from Jones v. City of North Las Vegas is clear: the Fourth Amendment still has teeth, and courts will continue to bite down on warrantless shortcuts, even in the name of good intentions.
Until next time, stay informed, stay tactically sound, and stay safe.
📌 More case breakdowns and tactical law updates at tacticsandtrials.com
