CHICAGO (LN) — A federal judge on Wednesday let a Fourth Amendment lawsuit survive against a Maywood, Illinois police officer who fired three or four shots and killed a couple's dog, ruling that body-camera footage submitted by the defense did not "utterly discredit" Warren Jackson's and Dionne Williams's account of the July 8, 2024 incident.
U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah dismissed the Maywood Police Department, the Maywood Animal Control Department, and dog catcher DeLorean Johnson from the case, but ruled that Officer Jose Orozco must face the claim that he unreasonably seized the dog in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
According to the complaint, the shooting unfolded at 2015 S. 3rd Avenue in Maywood. Dog catcher Johnson had followed the dog into a neighboring yard and closed the fence; the dog ran around the yard and, according to the complaint, "c[ame] out of the gate" — at which point Orozco opened fire.
Orozco's lawyers argued the footage was "indisputable" proof that his actions were reasonable and that he was entitled to qualified immunity, in part because a witness had told him the dog previously mauled a neighbor. Shah was unpersuaded. The judge noted that Orozco's own questions on the recording — asking when the mauling happened, who got hurt, their name, and whether anyone saw it happen — suggested he may not yet have credited the account. "Whether Orozco knew about the dog's history could change the determination of whether a reasonable officer felt they were in immediate danger and that the use of force was unavoidable," Shah wrote.
On the video evidence question, Shah distinguished the defense's cited authority. The Seventh Circuit's Esco decision permits courts to consider video at the pleading stage only when the footage is attached to the complaint or referenced in the pleading and central to the claim. In Esco, the plaintiff had relied on the body-worn camera footage for the allegations in his complaint. Jackson and Williams never referenced the body-camera recording. Shah declined to consider it — and added that even viewing the footage in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, it did not resolve questions about reasonable alternatives, risk to nearby bystanders, or other information Orozco may have known before pulling the trigger.
The qualified immunity defense fared no better. Shah cited the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2008), for the proposition that deadly force against a household pet is "reasonable only if the pet poses an immediate danger and the use of force is unavoidable" — law he ruled was clearly established enough to survive the motion.
The municipal defendants were dismissed on different grounds. Shah ruled that the complaint contained no allegations that the Village of Maywood maintained a policy, custom, or practice of Fourth Amendment violations in dog-shooting incidents, which is required to hold a municipality liable. Johnson was dismissed because the complaint alleged no unconstitutional act on his part — he did not shoot the dog and there was no allegation he knew Orozco would.
Shah also flagged a wrinkle involving plaintiff Williams, who did not sign the original complaint. He granted leave to amend and ordered both plaintiffs to file a signed amended complaint by May 20, 2026, noting they could use the opportunity to try again to state claims against Johnson and the Village.
The amended complaint deadline also leaves open a question Shah flagged for the road ahead: the original complaint refers to "my" dog, leaving unclear whether the animal belonged to Jackson, Williams, or both — a distinction that will matter when each plaintiff must prove how Orozco's conduct harmed them individually.