Judge issues ruling in federal lawsuit in Crawford County dog decapitation case

A man who says he was forced to cut off his dead dog’s head by Crawford County sheriff’s deputies may proceed with his allegation that his rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated by his arrest, a federal judge has ruled.

However, other prongs of a lawsuit filed by Joe Nate Goodwin and his wife, Natasha Dakon, have been dismissed, according to a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Tripp Self filed Friday.

The ruling also dismisses Crawford County Sheriff Lewis and the Crawford County government as defendants in the lawsuit.

The Crawford County couple filed the lawsuit seeking more than a half-million dollars in damages after the Dec. 1, 2017, incident at their home in which their dog, Big Boy, was shot and killed by deputy Andrew Neesmith when the pit-bull mix charged him.

The deputy had gone to the couple’s home in response to a call about a person being bitten by a possibly rabid dog. Dakon was at home and called Goodwin, who then came home. Sheriff’s investigator James Hollis next arrived.

Goodwin said he was coerced under the threat of jail to cut off his dog’s head. He decapitated the dog with a pocket knife and another knife and placed it in a bag to be tested for rabies.

“The facts do not support Goodwin’s straight-forward proclamation that the officers explicitly threatened to arrest him if he did not personally remove his dog’s head right then and there,” Self wrote in the 35-page ruling.

“To be sure, a citizen could potentially recover if a law enforcement officer directly used force or explicitly threatened to immediately arrest him if he did not personally remove his pet’s head. But the record shows that is not what happened here,” Self said.

While the deputies may not have acted as they should to deescalate the tense situation, they were attempting to calm Goodwin down and to follow health department protocol, according to the ruling.

The judge found that the deputies were not acting with malice.

“The court agrees that Goodwin was right to be mad and upset when faced with the indignity of removing his pet’s head — clearly a disgusting, humiliating and revolting choice that no one should have to endure,“ Self said in the ruling.

“The court finds nothing in the record to suggest Hollis acted with a sadistic motive toward Goodwin or that he acted to intentionally hurt him when he gave Goodwin the option to remove his dog’s head or take it to the vet to be removed,” he said.

In the lawsuit, Goodwin’s said his Fourth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated by his alleged false arrest for disorderly conduct during the incident.

In his ruling, Self said court proceedings may continue on this part of the lawsuit against Hollis and Neesmith.

“Under Goodwin’s version of the facts, as well as the video evidence, which the court must accept at this stage, the court finds that Hollis arrested him with neither actual nor arguable probable cause for any crime, much less disorderly conduct,” Self said in the ruling.

The judge said Hollis was not immune to be sued.

“A genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the facts surrounding Goodwin’s arrest, including the statements that he made and the way he conducted himself,” Self said in the ruling. “A jury could reasonably conclude that Hollis arrested Goodwin — in response to learning he would have to remove his pet’s head — for using profane language and requesting the officers leave his property.”

The judge also found Neesmith “sufficiently participated in the arrest,” according to the ruling.

Dakon referred comment Saturday to the couple’s Macon attorney, Reza Sedghi.

“We’re very pleased that the wrongful arrest, Fourth Amendment claim is going to be presented to a jury,” Sedghi said late Saturday afternoon. “We’ve waited a long time for this to happen, and we’re excited that a jury is going to hear the case.”

This story was originally published February 22, 2020 at 4:09 PM.