The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that when a police officer fires at a dog during a domestic violence call and accidentally hits the dog's owner with a stray bullet, this does not constitute a constitutional 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment. The decision in *Tina Hight v. Brian Williams* (8th Cir. 2026) clarifies the legal boundaries of police liability in unintended shooting incidents.
The case arose from a domestic violence call at Tina Hight's home, where Deputy Brian Williams and his partner responded to investigate. The incident escalated when Williams remained in the yard while his partner approached the front door. When Hight opened the door, two dogs ran out toward Williams, causing him to become startled and shout threats at the animals.
Williams fired a warning shot that successfully caused the initial dogs to retreat. However, as Hight attempted to get the animals inside, another dog—a 9-pound Pomeranian mix—ran out the door and raced toward the deputy. After shouting commands for the dog to get back, Williams fired again, this time aiming at the small dog.
The bullet missed its intended target but ricocheted, with a fragment striking Hight in the leg. The plaintiff screamed 'He shot me!' as she realized she had been hit by the stray bullet, which left a fragment lodged in her leg.
Hight subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Williams used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case centered on whether the accidental shooting constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted qualified immunity to Williams at the summary judgment stage. Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about.
Hight appealed the district court's decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on Sept. 18, 2025. The three-judge panel, consisting of Chief Judge Steven Colloton and Circuit Judges David Stras and Jane Kelly, issued its opinion on Jan. 13, 2026.
Writing for the court, Circuit Judge David Stras addressed the central legal question: 'When an officer fires at a dog, is there a seizure of the dog's owner when the stray bullet hits her instead?' The court concluded that the answer is no.
The ruling turns on the legal definition of 'seizure' under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. For a seizure to occur, law enforcement must intentionally acquire physical control over a person through means intended to restrain their freedom of movement. The Supreme Court has established that accidental contact during police activities generally does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The Eighth Circuit's analysis likely focused on the officer's intent and the circumstances surrounding the shooting. Williams was responding to what he perceived as a threat from an aggressive dog, not attempting to seize or control Hight. The fact that a bullet fragment struck Hight was an unintended consequence of the officer's attempt to neutralize what he viewed as an animal threat.
This decision aligns with established precedent that distinguishes between intentional police actions designed to control suspects and unintended consequences of legitimate law enforcement activities. The court's ruling suggests that officers cannot be held liable under § 1983 for accidental injuries that occur during otherwise reasonable police responses to perceived threats.
The case highlights the complex intersection of Fourth Amendment protections and qualified immunity doctrine in cases involving police use of force. While the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable seizures, qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability when their actions do not violate clearly established law.
For law enforcement, the ruling provides guidance on liability exposure during animal control situations. Officers responding to calls where aggressive animals are present can take reasonable defensive measures without fear of civil rights violations if civilians are accidentally injured in the process.
The decision may impact how courts analyze similar cases involving unintended police contact with civilians during legitimate law enforcement activities. It reinforces the principle that constitutional violations require intentional government action rather than accidental consequences of reasonable police conduct.
Hight's legal team has not announced whether they plan to seek review by the Supreme Court. The high court rarely grants certiorari in qualified immunity cases unless there are significant circuit splits or novel constitutional questions that require resolution.
The case also raises questions about police training and protocols for handling domestic violence calls where animals may be present. While the court found no constitutional violation, the incident underscores the importance of tactical awareness in residential settings where pets may pose unexpected complications during police responses.