Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Judge Rules Against Woman Mauled by Police Dog Because She Wasn’t the Intended Target

Reason – by Zuri Davis

On a Thursday night in July 2015, an Indianapolis police dog named Scooter was chasing a suspect on foot. After the suspect ran into Mara Mancini’s yard, she heard her own dogs barking and stepped onto her back porch to investigate. That’s when Scooter attacked Mancini, who was seven months pregnant at the time. He bit her repeatedly, tearing pieces of flesh out of her arms and thighs. She underwent several surgeries as a result of the attack.  

Last week a federal judge rejected a lawsuit in which Mancini claimed the dog attack violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. “Mancini and her son K.C. suffered horrendous injuries and a grievous lack of discretion by the officers,” wrote Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. But Pratt concluded that the attack was not a constitutional violation because Mancini was not the intended target of the chase.

Under Indiana Code 15-20-1-3, the owner of a dog that bites a person without provocation is liable for all damages. But the statute makes an exception for dogs owned by and performing duties on behalf of law enforcement agencies.

Jon Little, Mancini’s attorney, said she may appeal Pratt’s ruling. A state lawsuit related to he incident is still pending. Until then, Mancini will have to deal with irreparable nerve damage to her arm and medical bills that may force her into bankruptcy.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/04/indiana-k9-juddge-pregnant-mom

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
881

5 Responses to Judge Rules Against Woman Mauled by Police Dog Because She Wasn’t the Intended Target

  1. mary in TX says:

    ‘…claimed the dog attack violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.’….
    you are in an admiralty court they don’t care about your ‘amendments’

    ‘But Pratt concluded that the attack was not a constitutional violation because Mancini was not the intended target of the chase.’……….oh so is he admitting that American Nationals that ARE the intended target get due process?

    ‘Under Indiana Code 15-20-1-3, the owner of a dog that bites a person without provocation is liable for all damages. But the statute makes an exception for dogs owned by and performing duties on behalf of law enforcement agencies.’………uh huh …of course

    ‘Mancini will have to deal with irreparable nerve damage to her arm and medical bills that may force her into bankruptcy’……………hope it’s not her shooting arm…..she just may wake up someday and mete out her own justice

  2. Sunfire says:

    Talk about a blatant, in your face case of injustice. These gestapo thug bastards have no regard for human life (or canine life except the ones they train to maul people). There is a special place in hell for them and the judges that “justify” their horrific atrocities.

  3. H D says:

    Let me are you do what they done an see what happens. There’s rules an laws for us piss on people but none for them

  4. galen says:

    I hope karma is real.

    .

Leave a Reply