Matthew “Mathew” Grashorn is a Loveland, Colorado, police officer who shot a 14-month-old dog named Herkimer during a June 2019 trespassing call. Herkimer was seriously injured and euthanized four days later. The dog’s owners, Wendy Love and Jay Hamm, sued Grashorn and the City of Loveland, alleging that the shooting violated their Fourth Amendment rights. After years of litigation, a federal appeals court rejected Grashorn’s qualified-immunity defense, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that ruling, and Loveland agreed in 2026 to pay $675,000 to settle the case and change police training for encounters with dogs.
Matthew Grashorn Shoots Herkimer
Grashorn Shot Herkimer On June 29, 2019. Grashorn responded to a call from a business owner concerning a truck parked in a commercial lot after business hours. Wendy Love and Jay Hamm had stopped there with their dogs while working their firewood-delivery business. [Colorado Sun] [Washington Post]
Two Dogs Ran Toward Grashorn As He Got Out Of His Patrol Vehicle. Body-camera footage showed one dog, Bubba, running toward Grashorn before turning back toward his owners after being called. Herkimer then ran toward the officer. [Colorado Sun] [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
Grashorn Fired Two Shots At Herkimer. The 14-month-old Staffordshire terrier-boxer mix was only a few feet away when Grashorn shot him twice. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
Herkimer Dies From His Injuries
The Shooting Left Herkimer Severely Injured. News reports and court records said the gunshots caused serious spinal injuries. [Washington Post] [CBS Colorado]
Love Asked To Take Her Dog To A Veterinarian. Body-camera footage showed Love pleading to get Herkimer medical treatment after the shooting. Grashorn told her she needed to wait for his supervisor to arrive. [Washington Post] [Colorado Sun]
Herkimer Was Euthanized Four Days Later. Veterinarians concluded that he faced extensive surgery and a poor quality of life because of the injuries caused by the shooting. [Colorado Sun] [Washington Post]
Dangerous Dog Charge Against Herkimer’s Owners
Police Accused Herkimer Of Being A Dangerous Dog After The Shooting. Love and Hamm’s lawsuit alleged that police characterized Herkimer as having attacked Grashorn. [Colorado Sun]
Hamm Was Cited For Having A Dangerous Dog. The citation was later dismissed by the district attorney’s office. [Washington Post] [Reason]
Wendy Love And Jay Hamm Sue Grashorn
Love And Hamm Filed A Civil Rights Lawsuit. The couple sued Grashorn, Loveland and other police officials, alleging that Herkimer’s killing constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [Federal Court Docket]
The Lawsuit Accused Grashorn Of Using Unnecessary Deadly Force Against The Dog. Love and Hamm argued that Herkimer was friendly, was not attacking Grashorn and could have been handled using non-lethal alternatives. [CBS Colorado] [Colorado Sun]
Loveland Police Initially Defended The Shooting. The department’s internal review concluded that Grashorn’s actions were reasonable and consistent with department policy. [Colorado Sun]
Grashorn Claims Qualified Immunity
Grashorn Asked A Federal Judge To Dismiss The Case On Qualified-Immunity Grounds. He argued that the dog posed an imminent danger and that he could not be held personally liable for the shooting. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
The District Court Rejected Grashorn’s Qualified-Immunity Argument. The judge concluded that a jury could reasonably find that Herkimer did not pose an immediate danger and that Grashorn had time to consider non-lethal alternatives. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Grashorn
The Tenth Circuit Upheld The Denial Of Qualified Immunity On April 22, 2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision and allowed the civil-rights claim against Grashorn to continue. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
The Court Said A Jury Could Find That Herkimer Posed No Immediate Danger. The appeals court was required to accept the district court’s view of the facts at that stage, including that Love and Hamm may have been able to regain control of the dog, Grashorn had time to consider alternatives and Herkimer may not have presented an imminent threat. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
The Court Said Shooting A Dog Without An Immediate Threat Can Violate Clearly Established Fourth Amendment Rights. The ruling concluded that, under the facts a jury could reasonably find, Grashorn was not entitled to qualified immunity. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
Grashorn Appeals To The Supreme Court
Grashorn Asked The U.S. Supreme Court To Review The Case. He filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in August 2025 challenging the Tenth Circuit’s qualified-immunity ruling. [U.S. Supreme Court]
Police And Law-Enforcement Organizations Supported Grashorn’s Petition. Several groups filed amicus briefs arguing that the Supreme Court should review the decision. [U.S. Supreme Court]
The Supreme Court Declined To Hear The Case. On January 12, 2026, the Court denied Grashorn’s petition, leaving the Tenth Circuit ruling in place. [U.S. Supreme Court]
Loveland Pays $675,000 Settlement
Loveland Agreed To Settle The Lawsuit In May 2026. The city announced that it had reached an agreement resolving the litigation rather than taking the case to trial. [City Of Loveland]
The Settlement Was Worth $675,000. Loveland agreed to pay Love and Hamm $675,000 to end the federal civil-rights lawsuit. [City Of Loveland] [CBS Colorado]
The Couple’s Attorney Called It Colorado’s Largest Police Dog-Shooting Settlement. Attorney Sarah Schielke said the payment was the largest known settlement in Colorado involving a police officer shooting a domestic pet. [CBS Colorado]
Loveland Changes Police Dog-Encounter Policy
The Settlement Required Changes To Police Training. Loveland agreed to revise its dog-encounter policies and training practices as part of the resolution. [City Of Loveland]
Officers Will Receive Recurring Dog-Interaction Training. Reporting on the settlement said Loveland officers will undergo specialized dog-interaction training every three years. [Police1]
The City Did Not Admit Liability. Loveland’s public statement described the settlement as a resolution of the litigation and continued to characterize Herkimer as having charged Grashorn. [City Of Loveland]
Herkimer Case Changes Federal Law
The Tenth Circuit Decision Created Binding Precedent In Its Jurisdiction. Because the appellate ruling was published, it established precedent governing qualified-immunity claims involving police shootings of dogs in states covered by the Tenth Circuit. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
The Ruling Established That Officers Cannot Rely On Qualified Immunity When A Jury Could Find There Was No Immediate Threat. The court emphasized that killing a pet constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that shooting a dog in the absence of imminent danger can violate clearly established constitutional rights. [Tenth Circuit Opinion]
Case Status
The Civil Case Has Been Resolved. The $675,000 settlement ended Love and Hamm’s lawsuit against Loveland and the related defendants. [City Of Loveland]
The Supreme Court Appeal Is Also Over. The Supreme Court’s January 2026 denial left the Tenth Circuit’s April 2025 ruling intact. [U.S. Supreme Court]
The Case Ultimately Produced Both A Financial Settlement And Police Policy Changes. Loveland paid $675,000 and agreed to additional dog-encounter training and policy revisions after nearly seven years of litigation over Herkimer’s shooting. [City Of Loveland] [CBS Colorado]
One of the first political bloggers in the world, Oliver Willis has operated OliverWillis.com since 2000. Contributor at Media Matters for America and The American Independent. Follow on Twitter at @owillis. Full bio.