A federal court last week awarded immunity to one of the Louisville officers sued for his involvement in an arrest that left a suspect wounded and a puppy dead.

According to the complaint from Nicholas and John Moses, the two were in their truck in a Louisville shopping center’s parking lot on June 7, 2018 when police received a report that the men were using drugs. Corporal Joseph Lamb and Officer Ben Himes responded, and Lamb pointed his gun at the truck while ordering Nicholas Moses to exit.

Moses reportedly complied and walked backwards toward Lamb. However, when Moses heard that he would be arrested, he ran toward the truck and attempted to escape. Himes used his taser, but it largely missed Moses, and Moses subsequently tried to drive away. However, he alternately hit one of the patrol vehicles, then a tree.

After several seconds, Lamb fired at the truck with his gun, hitting Moses in the arm and killing Dozer, the men’s puppy who was inside the vehicle.

Reportedly, John Moses, the father of Nicholas, cooperated in exiting the vehicle, but told the officer he had severe arthritis in his shoulders. Nevertheless, the officers allegedly “wrenched” John Moses’s arms painfully while putting him in handcuffs.

Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty deemed the shooting justified, as Lamb was acting in self-defense. The Daily Camera reported that witnesses recalled the Moseses’ truck was not driving toward the officers at the time of the shooting.

Nicholas Moses later pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, driving while ability impaired and resisting arrest, all of which were misdemeanors.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging the officers deprived them of their rights. The two officers countered that they were entitled to qualified immunity, a judicial doctrine that shields government employees from liability unless they violate clearly-established constitutional or statutory rights.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty granted qualified immunity to Himes for the handcuffing of John Moses, noting the plaintiffs did not claim an injury to Moses or adequately point to other cases where a “wrenched” arm constituted a deprivation of rights. 

Lamb, in his court filing, also asserted qualified immunity for his actions, and argued he used reasonable physical force to effectuate an arrest and defend himself. The Moseses, by contrast, said the puppy “posed no threat to Defendant or anyone else,” and the killing of Dozer constituted an unlawful seizure of their property.

The magistrate judge did not decide whether Lamb was to receive qualified immunity in his Nov. 4 order relating to Himes.

Although the parties disputed whether Hegarty could view the officers’ body-worn camera footage in deciding whether to let the lawsuit proceed, the magistrate judge opted against it, believing he could render a decision based on the allegations. Hegarty also left the door open for the Moseses to modify their claims to show “something more than significant, transitory pain.”

The case is Moses v. Lamb.