The killing of a 16-week-old rescue puppy in New Orleans exposes a troubling question about American law: what happens when a police officer violates someone’s constitutional rights but is protected from personal civil liability?
On 10 April 2021, a 16-week-old rescue puppy named Apollo was shot three times by a New Orleans police officer. He died in his family’s arms.
Five years later, the case has become about something much larger than the killing of one puppy. It has exposed an uncomfortable distinction within the American legal system: a police officer can be found to have violated someone’s constitutional rights and still be protected from personal liability for that violation.
That protection is called qualified immunity.
For Apollo’s family, Derek Brown and Julia Barecki-Brown, it has become a central obstacle in their pursuit of accountability. In June 2025, a federal jury found that Officer Derrick Burmaster had acted in an objectively unreasonable manner when he shot Apollo. Yet the same jury concluded that he was entitled to qualified immunity.
On 14 July 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld that outcome.
The question is not just why Apollo was shot. It is why a finding of unconstitutional conduct did not result in personal civil liability for the officer who killed him.
What happened to Apollo?
Police had attended the family’s New Orleans home following a neighbour’s report of an argument. Officer Burmaster and another officer entered the property’s courtyard.
According to the factual account considered in earlier court proceedings, Burmaster had made kissing noises while approaching the property, apparently attempting to establish whether dogs were present. When a dog barked, he drew his firearm before seeing either animal.
His fellow officer indicated that they should leave the courtyard and retreated through the gate. Burmaster remained.
Two dogs subsequently came down the stairs. One moved away. Apollo, the smaller dog, ran towards Burmaster with his tail wagging.
The court record describes a puppy who did not growl, jump, bare his teeth or lunge. Apollo weighed approximately 22 pounds, or 10 kilograms.
Burmaster fired three shots. Apollo died in his owners’ arms.
The officer maintained that he feared being bitten and disputed the characterisation of Apollo as non-threatening. But the earlier appellate proceedings identified significant factual questions about the puppy’s behaviour, the officer’s opportunity to withdraw and the availability of alternatives to shooting.
Those questions eventually reached a jury.
What is qualified immunity?
Qualified immunity is a doctrine developed through American court decisions. It protects government officials, including police officers, from personal liability for damages in certain civil-rights lawsuits.
It does not mean that an officer has acted correctly. Nor does it mean that an officer’s actions were lawful. In broad terms, someone seeking damages must establish not only that an official violated a constitutional right, but also that the right was sufficiently clearly established at the time.
This second requirement can become a formidable obstacle.
Courts examine whether existing law would have made it clear to a reasonable officer that the conduct was unlawful. Previous judgments involving comparable circumstances can be particularly important, although the law does not invariably require an earlier case with identical facts.
The distinction creates a situation that many people would find difficult to reconcile with ordinary expectations of justice. An officer’s conduct can violate the Constitution, yet the officer may still avoid personal liability under federal civil-rights law.
The precedent that makes this case particularly interesting
There is an important complication in Apollo’s case that deserves attention.
In 2024, the Fifth Circuit decided another case, Ramirez v. Killian, involving a police officer who shot a family’s dog after the animal approached without displaying aggression.
In that judgment, the court recognised that, by June 2016, it was clearly established that an officer could not constitutionally kill a companion dog without reasonably believing that the animal posed a threat and that an attack was imminent.
Apollo was killed in April 2021, the timing is significant.
When Burmaster initially sought qualified immunity before trial, the district court refused to grant judgment in his favour because material facts remained disputed. In January 2025, the Fifth Circuit dismissed his appeal against that refusal.
The earlier appellate opinion went further in explaining that, viewed in the light most favourable to Apollo’s owners, the evidence could support a finding that Burmaster violated clearly established law.
The court referred to Apollo’s size, his wagging tail, the absence of lunging or jumping, the officer’s opportunity to leave and the availability of other means of responding. Yet this did not settle the question of immunity.
The case proceeded to trial, where the jury was required to assess the evidence and apply the legal standards provided by the judge. The jury found that Burmaster had acted unreasonably but was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity.
There is an important legal distinction here. The earlier appellate decision considered the evidence under rules requiring disputed facts to be viewed favourably to the family. It was not a final determination of what happened. The later jury reached its verdict after trial.
Even allowing for that distinction, the sequence raises a serious question about how the legal protection operates in practice. If courts had already recognised constitutional protection against the unjustified killing of non-threatening companion dogs, why did that protection not result in personal liability in Apollo’s case?
The July 2026 appellate judgment upheld the procedure used to submit the immunity question to the jury. It did not provide a new factual account explaining exactly how the jury reconciled its two findings.
For those examining police accountability, that distinction deserves far greater public attention.