A federal judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss a lawsuit against two Douglas County sheriff’s deputies whose dog bit the sleeping resident of a Highlands Ranch home as the result of an alleged misunderstanding about a burglary.

Tyler Luethje sued Deputies Travis Kyle and Scott Kelly for excessive force, wrongful arrest and unlawful entry after they responded to a report that someone had broken into Luethje’s house. The deputies, according to Luethje’s lawsuit, quickly sent their dog inside the home, where it bit Luethje in his bedroom and caused lasting nerve damage.

In a June 5 order, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney rejected the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case, finding the allegations suggested there was no immediate danger that would have justified the warrantless entry into Luethje’s house.

“Defendants failed to exercise any restraint prior to releasing the dog and entering the home; they made no attempt to knock on the door or ring the doorbell before releasing the police canine,” she wrote. “Instead, they released the canine into a private residence at approximately 7:00 p.m. where it could have bitten (and, in fact, did bite) a resident of the home.”

In Luethje’s narrative, the deputies arrived at his home one evening in February 2022 in response to a 911 caller’s report that someone had broken a window on a house. Kyle allegedly broke the rest of the glass when he arrived so the police dog could enter through the window. The dog located Luethje, who was alone in the house, and bit down on him.

“I live here!” Luethje allegedly screamed repeatedly. The deputies found Luethje, who disclosed he was the one who broke the window. The deputies then handcuffed him and escorted him to their patrol vehicle, where Luethje was in “extreme pain.” As Luethje went to the hospital for his injuries, the deputies searched his home without a warrant.

In moving to dismiss Luethje’s claims, the defendants attached a recording of the 911 call and asked Sweeney to consider it. The caller was a passerby walking his dog, who told the dispatcher:

• The intruder “maybe just was breaking into his house because he lost his keys or something.”

• “He was breaking a window. He stopped.”

• “I’m not gonna go back and check” the address. “I’m so sorry. It’s really cold and snowing like crazy.”

• “It might be his house and he lost his keys. I don’t know.”

In response, the dispatcher told officers the caller “couldn’t give a description” and “he said the male party took off running.”

In the final seconds of the recording, an unidentified deputy standing outside the home said he was “going to start making announcements and see if we can get him to come out” and, seconds later, “sending in the dog now.”

The deputies’ motion to dismiss argued the 911 call illustrated they had a reasonable belief a burglary was in progress and a victim “may be in imminent danger.”

“When the Deputies arrived, they personally observed evidence of the broken entry,” wrote the Douglas County Attorney’s Office. “The idea that the homeowner would break his own front window after dark on a ‘freezing cold’ February evening, and then run away from his own home leaving the pipes to burst, is beyond logical explanation.”

Sweeney, however, saw things differently.

Once they contacted Luethje, “Defendants did not ask him why he broke the window or whether he owned the home. They simply arrested him,” she wrote. “Had they asked, the answer may have been simple: that he had lost his keys and he broke the window because it was frigid outside. Indeed, in considering the 911 audio Defendants asked the Court to consider, the 911 caller acknowledged that the person who broke the window may have just lost his keys.”

Sweeney concluded the allegations, if proven, showed the deputies acted unreasonably in entering the home and using force on Luethje. She allowed the claims to proceed.

The case is Luethje v. Kyle et al.