Police dog attack didn't violate woman's rights, judge rules

FILE: Mara Mancini, holds her son, Kyson Clark, in the law offices of Saeed and Little LLP in Indianapolis, Ind.

An Indianapolis woman who was seven months pregnant when a police dog attacked her in July 2015, did not have her constitutional rights violated because she wasn’t the dog’s intended target, a federal judge ruled last week.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled that Mara Mancini was an “unintended bystander” when a police dog, pursuing a male suspect in her neighborhood mauled her, tearing chunks of flesh from her arm and thigh, The Indianapolis Star reported.

The “horrendous injuries,” mentioned by Pratt, left Mancini with irreparable nerve damage in her arm, her attorney, Jon Little said.

In 2016, Mancini sued the city of Indianapolis and its police department, alleging the attack violated her constitutional right to be secure against search and seizure, and challenged Indiana law and legal precedent which grants immunity to police dogs under Indiana's dog bite liability statute.

But Pratt ruled Sept. 28 that the officers’ release of the dog “intending to seize the fleeing suspect does not mean that the officers intended to seize any other person.”

According to her lawsuit, Mancini underwent multiple surgeries for her injuries and took painkillers that caused her son to be born with a narcotics addiction that he had to be weaned off over several weeks in neonatal intensive care.

Little said Mancini will likely have to declare bankruptcy to pay her medical bills without the police department or the city being held responsible.

Jon Little, Mancini's attorney, said he and Mancini are weighing whether to appeal Pratt's ruling, while a state-level lawsuit is still pending in the case.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.