Interpretation of Body-worn Camera Video

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Steven Kailin v. Village of Gurnee

Case No.: 22-1239

Officials: Rovner, Hamilton, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Interpretation of Body-worn Camera Video

The Kailins contacted the Gurnee Police Department to report a possible criminal incident involving their daughter. Officer Greer responded by arriving at their residence around 8 p.m. to follow up on the situation. Seconds after the Kailins opened their door, Greer shot the Kailins’ dog named Timber, who was on their neighbor’s lawn at the time. Subsequently, the Kailins brought a lawsuit, asserting claims of illegal seizure under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Officer Greer, a “Monell” claim involving municipal liability, and a claim for indemnification against the Village. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, basing its decision on the Kailins’ assertions and the video evidence from Greer’s body-worn camera, which was considered to resolve any factual disputes.

The crucial aspect in determining the reasonableness of Officer Greer’s actions and thereby evaluating liability on all claims, hinges on understanding Timber’s behavior and actions. Unlike cases where videos definitively present the events, this situation does not provide clear-cut evidence. The video, lasting a mere six seconds, does not possess audio to indicate whether Timber was indeed growling or barking as Greer claimed. Additionally, there remains contention over whether the video actually captures the dog’s presence before she was shot.

Reversed and remanded

Decided 08/08/23

Full Text