San Bernardino, California
Today, San Diego civil rights firm McKenzie Scott PC filed a federal civil rights lawsuit [case number 5:26-cv-05407] against the County of San Bernardino on behalf of the Serna family, whose beloved Rottweiler, Daisy, was shot and killed by a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputy who entered their fenced backyard without a warrant on May 4, 2026. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, follows the County’s rejection of the family’s government claim on August 7. It names the County and the deputy who shot Daisy – identified only as “Doe 1,” because more than four months after the shooting, the County still refuses to say who he is.
Home security footage shows the deputy entered the family’s fenced backyard – without a warrant – at approximately 11:55 a.m., while looking into a stolen vehicle parked nearby that had nothing to do with the home.
Daisy did not die immediately, according to the Complaint and video footage it cites. Rather than render aid, the deputy summoned additional personnel, who entered the property in a second warrantless intrusion and spent roughly twenty minutes searching for the expended shell casing while Daisy bled to death at the side of the yard. One deputy can be heard on video remarking, “I think he’s [Daisy] dead now,” while poking her body with a baton; another is heard joking about “kill[ing] the f***ing dog.” Deputies then took Daisy’s body without the family’s permission and allowed it to be destroyed before the family could retrieve her, and let the family’s surviving dog, Raven, out into the street, where she was impounded.
“The County has had the video since the day it happened. It has had more than four months to tell this family the name of the deputy who shot their dog in their own backyard, and it has refused,” said San Diego civil rights attorney Tim Scott, lead counsel for the Serna family. “A department that will not even say who pulled the trigger is not going to hold itself accountable. So we are asking a federal jury to do it.”
The complaint alleges that Daisy’s killing is the latest in a decade-long pattern of SBSD deputies entering private property and shooting dogs they knew or should have expected to find there – and of the County, each time, defending the conduct, disciplining no one, and changing nothing.
The lawsuit also points to the County’s own written policy. SBSD Manual section 3.174.20, “Firearm Discharge – Animal,” authorizes a deputy to kill an animal “when necessary to prevent injury to the member or another person” – any injury, however minor – but says nothing about when a deputy may enter a fenced yard, about planning for a dog he knows is there, or about non-lethal alternatives.
“Twenty years ago, the Ninth Circuit told every law enforcement agency in the West that an officer who knows a dog is present has to have a plan that is not a bullet,” Scott added. “San Bernardino County’s policy does not require one. The County logs every animal its deputies shoot and then does nothing with the list. Daisy died in her own backyard because the County decided that was an acceptable outcome, and this family intends to make the County explain that decision to a jury.”
The complaint asserts nine causes of action under federal and California law, including Fourth Amendment claims for the warrantless entries and the killing of Daisy, a Monell claim against the County for its pattern and practice and its failure to train and discipline, and claims under California’s Bane Act. All four members of the household – Jesus Serna, Vanessa Gonzalez, and their two minor children – are plaintiffs. The family seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages against the individual deputies, injunctive relief, and a jury trial.
Federal courts have long held that shooting a family pet is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and that a fenced backyard is protected to the same extent as the home itself. In San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose (2005), the Ninth Circuit held that officers who know dogs are present and arrive with no non-lethal plan – leaving themselves “without any option but to kill the dogs” – act unreasonably, and recognized that “the emotional attachment to a family’s dog” is not comparable to a mere possessory interest in property. California law separately allows emotional-distress damages when a pet is killed by an intentional or grossly negligent act, or its remains are misappropriated.
Video of the incident is available at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qBgp4EVGakM. The complaint is available upon request.
About McKenzie Scott PC
McKenzie Scott is a San Diego civil rights law firm dedicated to protecting individual liberties and holding government entities accountable. The firm specializes in civil rights violation cases, including police misconduct, First Amendment rights, in-custody jail deaths, civil liberties, and public interest litigation. McKenzie Scott’s attorneys have successfully represented numerous families in excessive force and wrongful death cases against law enforcement agencies, including securing the then-largest excessive-force verdict in American history ($85 million in K.J.P. v. San Diego) and the largest wrongful death settlement paid by the County in San Diego County’s history ($16 million in the Hayden Schuck case).
For more information, please visit www.mckenziescott.com.
Media Contact Details
Jason Kitchen
McKenzie Scott San Diego Civil Rights & Criminal Defense Lawyers
Email: Send Email
Phone: 5179744724
Website: mckenziescott.com
Leave a Reply