Full opinion text
ORDER J.P. STADTMUELLER, District Judge. 1. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, Jane Flint (“Flint”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a .complaint in this matter on March 25, 2014, alleging the defendants violated her civil rights. (Docket # 1). On October 24, 2014, the Court granted, inter alia, Flint’s motion to amend the complaint to add Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”) Sergeant Ju-tiki Jackson as a defendant (Docket #39), and thus the first amended complaint (Docket # 41) became the operative complaint in this matter. Flint’s amended complaint alleges two overarching causes of action, both rooted in the Fourth Amendment: (1) an unlawful seizure of two of her dogs — they were shot and killed during the execution of a search warrant at her residence — against Sgt. Jackson, Detective Phillip C. Simmert, Lieutenant Paul Felician, Officer Kenneth Daugherty, Officer Andrew Mourty, Officer Jamie Hewitt, and Officer Gregory Colker (collectively “the City defendants”), id. at 16-17; and (2) unlawful detention against the City defendants, id. at 17, and Milwaukee County Deputy Sheriff David Jonas, id. at 18. Flint also alleges a failure to intervene claim against all of the City defendants. Id. at 17. . The City of Milwaukee (“the City”) and Milwaukee County (“the County”) are defendants in this action because Flint alleges that both municipalities “are liable to defend this action against the [defendants, and to satisfy any judgment entered against them, by virtue of Wis. Stat. § 895.46.” Id. On November 14, 2014, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed; specifically: (1) the County and Deputy Jonas filed a motion for summary judgment on the only claim against them — unlawful detention (Docket # 48); (2) the City and the City ^defendants filed a'motion for summary judgment on both claims against them (Docket # 53); and (3) Flint filed a motion for partial summary judgment, requesting resolution of the liability aspect of both causes of action in her favor, but reserving the question of damages for a jury. (Docket # 49). Both the City defendants and Deputy Jonas have asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Flint’s claims. On January 13, 2015, the Court, in light of the .Supreme Court’s December 15, 2014 decision in Heien v. North Carolina, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014), requested'that the parties file supplemental briefs “explaining what effect, if any, the Heien decision ha[d] on their respective arguments in support of and in opposition to summary judgment.” (Docket # 84). The parties did so, (see Docket # 85, # 86, # 87), and thus on January 27, 2015, all three motions for summary judgment were fully briefed and ready for adjudication. Accordingly, the Court now turns to those motions and will deny Flint’s motion in its entirety, grant in part and deny in part the City defendants’ motion, and grant Deputy Jonas’s motion for the reasons outlined below. 2. LEGAL STANDARDS 2.1 Summary Judgment When a party files a motion for summary judgment, it is their “contention that the material facts are undisputed and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v. Nat. Ret. Fund, 778 F.3d 593, 601 (7th Cir.2015) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). “Material facts” are those facts which “might affect the outcome of the suit,” and “summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, to have a genuine dispute about a material fact, a party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); namely, the party in opposition “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). “Where ... the movant is seeking summary judgment on a claim as to which it bears the burden of proof, it must lay out the elements of the claim, cite the facts it believes satisfies these elements, and demonstrate why the record is so one-sided as to rule out the prospect of a finding in favor of the non-movant on the claims.” Hotel 71 Mezz, 778 F.3d at 601. When analyzing whether summary judgment should be granted, a court must draw all reasonable inferences from the materials before it in favor of the non-moving party. See Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F,2d 136, 138 (7th Cir.1989). When a court denies a motion for summary judgment it “reflects the court’s judgment that one or more material facts are disputed or that the facts relied on by the motion do not entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law.” Hotel 71 Mezz, 778 F.3d at 602. 2.2 Qualified Immunity As noted above, the City defendants and Deputy Jonas have both argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity. As such, the Court will briefly sketch out the legal standard for qualified immunity before more fully analyzing it in relation to each of Flint’s claims and the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment. Qualified immunity is available when a defendant’s conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); see Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d 500, 508 (7th Cir.2015). Qualified immunity is not a defense, it is an immunity from suit, i.e., an entitlement not to stand trial. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Consequently, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of resolving qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage in litigation. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232, 129 S.Ct. 808. A court must answer two questions to determine if qualified immunity applies: first, whether a constitutional right “would have been violated,” Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707, 710 (7th Cir.2008) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)); and second, “whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time and under the circumstances presented.” Beaman, 776 F.3d at 508; Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567, 580 (7th Cir.2012). To answer the first question, “a court must decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has ... shown make out a violation of a constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232, 129 S.Ct. 808 (citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151). Flint can provide the answer to the second question — whether a right was “clearly established” at the time and under the circumstances presented — “in at least two ways: (1) he can point to a clearly analogous case establishing the right to be free from the conduct at issue; or (2) he can show the conduct was ‘so egregious that no reasonable person could have believed that it would not violate established rights.’ ” Beaman, 776 F.3d at 508 (quoting Smith v. City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737, 742 (7th Cir.2001)); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (“This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.”); Viilo, 547 F.3d at 710-11. Thus, novel factual circumstances are no bar to showing a clearly established right, “so long as the state of the law at the time gave the defendants fair warning that their conduct was unconstitutional.” Beaman, 776 F.3d at 509 (citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002)); see also Estate of Escobedo v. Martin, 702 F.3d 388, 404 (7th Cir.2012) (“A constitutional right is clearly established when ‘it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.’ ”) (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151). 3. DISCUSSION 3.1 Fourth Amendment Seizure Claim for Killing of the Dogs Flint alleges that the City defendants violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they shot and killed two of her dogs while executing a search warrant at her residence. (Docket # 41 at 16-17). The Court will begin by summarizing the undisputed facts and the parties’ various arguments in support of and against summary judgment; afterwards, the Court will determine whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and whether qualified immunity applies. 3.1.1 Undisputed Facts On or around May 6, 2010, Illinois authorities took a complaint from a woman who alleged that Terry Cullen (“Cullen”)— Flint’s employer, (Docket # 75, ¶ 21) — was in possession of four “Tibetan Wolves” and also possibly illegal animals and reptiles at a residence in Milwaukee. Id. at ¶ 9. During a conversation with Detective Simmert and Officer Hewitt on May 7, 2010, the woman alleged that Cullen sexually assaulted her at his house; she further stated that Cullen had taken her to Flint’s house before the assault. Id. at ¶ 13. The woman informed the officers that there was a crocodile living in the bathtub at Flint’s residence, and she believed that it was illegal to be in possession of that type of crocodile. Id. at ¶ 15. That same day, Detective Simmert drove the woman past Flint’s and Cullen’s residences and she confirmed those were the places she had been; in addition, she said Flint’s residence. was the location where the wolves were. Id. at ¶ 17. Detective Simmert later learned, via an internet search, that the “Tibetan Wolves” were actually Tibetan Mastiffs, a domesticated breed of dog. Id. at ¶ 19. And, Detective Simmert spoke with Flint on May 10, 2010, and, among other things, discussed Flint’s dogs. (Sim-mert Dep. at 39:19^40:13). Based on the belief that there may be a critically endangered alligator living in the bathtub at Flint’s residence (after consulting with the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”)), on May 12, 2010, at 8:53 a.m., Detective Simmert applied for and received a search warrant to search Flint’s residence. (Docket # 75, ¶¶ 25, 28); (Docket # 82, ¶ 101); (Docket # 69, ¶ 30). The search warrant for Flint’s residence was for the purpose of investigating a violation of Wis. Stat. § 29.604, which, inter alia, criminalizes certain conduct related to endangered and threatened species. (Docket # 75, ¶ 28). The search warrant did not authorize a no-knock entry. Id. at ¶ 31; (Docket # 69, ¶ 49). Detective Sim-mert requested DNR Warden Nick Blank-enheim assist during the execution of the search warrant because of the alleged presence of alligators and anacondas. (Docket #75, ¶ 26); (Docket #69, ¶31). Detective Simmert and Lt. Felician were responsible for overseeing the planning and execution of the search warrant. (Docket # 82, ¶ 121); (Docket # 75, ¶ 32). Sgt. Jackson, via telephone, assigned Tactical Enforcement Unit (“TEU”) Officers Daugherty and Mourty to execute the search warrant at Flint’s house; the search warrant was classified as “low risk.” (Docket # 69, ¶ 39). Officers Daugherty and Mourty were assigned to breach the door, which normally requires two people. (Daugherty Dep. at 14:8-15:1). Fifteen minutes prior to executing the search warrant, Detective Simmert held a short — -fifteen minutes or less — briefing outside the police administration building to go over the search warrant. (Docket # 75, ¶ 44); (Docket # 69, ¶ 40). All of the City defendants were present at the briefing, except Sgt. Jackson and Officer Colker. (See, e.g., Docket # 75, ¶ 72). During the briefing, the officers discussed that the search warrant was being executed in connection with a sexual assault investigation, there was supposedly an endangered alligator or crocodile in the house, and there would be big dogs and anacondas. (Docket # 75, ¶¶ 45, 46, 50); (Docket # 69, ¶ 39). With respect to the dogs, Detective Sim-mert informed everyone that four Tibetan Mastiffs were at the residence; however, there was no tactical discussion regarding how to handle the dogs. (Docket # 75, ¶ 50). At some point the officers did discuss contacting the Milwaukee Area Domestic Animal Control Council (“MA-DACC”) to help assist with executing the warrant. (Docket # 75, ¶¶ 26, 79). Yet MADACC was not called until, at the very earliest, after MPD had entered Flint’s residence. (Docket # 52, Ex. 3 at 7). Before execution of the search warrant, Officers Daugherty and Mourty were both concerned about what they heard at the briefing regarding, inter alia, the presence of dogs; accordingly, Officer Daugherty called Sgt. Jackson to inform him of what they learned at the briefing and to ask for more tactical officers. (Docket # 69, ¶ 41). Sgt. Jackson denied this request and told the officers to proceed. Id. at ¶ 42. On his way over to Flint’s house, Detective Simmert contacted Flint and let her know that MPD was going to be executing a search warrant on her house. (Docket # 76, ¶ 59); (Docket # 69, ¶ 46). Detective Simmert’s intention in making this call was to give Flint an opportunity to control her dogs, thereby avoiding any number of bad outcomes that could occur. (Docket #75, ¶59); (Simmert Dep. at 145:1-147:10). Flint informed Detective Sim-mert that she was at work but could be home in twenty minutes and would be glad to control the dogs. (Docket # 75, ¶ 60); (see also Docket # 69, ¶ 46). When Detective Simmert arrived on scene, he decided not to wait for Flint to arrive before executing the search warrant. (Docket. # 75, ¶ 63); (Docket # 69, ¶ 46). Lt. Felician appears to have concurred in this decision and directed the officers to proceed. (Docket # 69, ¶ 47). The reasons Detective Simmert gave for proceeding with the search warrant without waiting for Flint were: (1) a concern for officer safety; (2) the lack of the element of surprise; and (3) the welfare of the animals inside. (Docket # 69, ¶ 46); (Docket # 75, ¶ 64). Thus, at 1:34 p.m. on May 12, 2010, Detective Simmert executed the search warrant at Flint’s residence. (Docket #75, ¶ 71); (Docket #69, ¶ 48). On scene, in addition to the City defendants noted above, was DNR Warden Blanken-heim. Officers Daugherty and Mourty approached the door and Officer Mourty became concerned because he could hear what sounded like numerous large dogs. (Mourty Dep. at 25:14-26:10); (see also Docket # 82, ¶ 150). The officers knocked loudly, announced “police,” and then breached the door. (Docket # 69, ¶¶ 49, 51, 52); (Docket # 75, ¶ 75). Upon entering the house, Officer Daugherty immediately observed the dogs. (Docket # 69, ¶ 54). Officers Daugherty and Mourty entered into the kitchen area and the dogs were located off to the right, in the living room. (See Docket # 52, Ex. O(DVD)); (Docket # 69, ¶ 57). After the kitchen and immediate areas had been cleared, Officer Hewitt, Lt. Felician, and others entered the premises. (Docket # 75, ¶ 75). Officer Hewitt took video of the premises, although the camera is turned off repeatedly. (See Docket # 52, Ex. O(DVD)); (Docket # 75, ¶ 84). At this point, the evidence becomes very conflicting. For the sake of brevity and clarity, the Court will summarize the events with limited citation to the record. According to Officers Daugherty and Mourty, they placed a garbage can between the kitchen and the living room to prevent the dogs from approaching them. And, the video does appear to show a garbage can between the kitchen and the living room prior to the shooting of the dogs. (See Docket # 52, Ex. O(DVD)). The video also shows the dogs behind a baby gate as well. Id. Therefore, it appears there were two barriers between the officers and the dogs. Officer Daugherty stated that he kept the dogs at bay by aiming his M4 carbine rifle at them and flashing the light on his gun. This made the dogs scurry back. Officer Daugherty also stated that at this point in time, it would have been reasonable to attempt to use a dog snare to catch the dogs, and believes MADACC could have done so. While Officer Daugherty was keeping the dogs at bay, Officer Mourty continued to search the areas adjacent to the kitchen. The video shows officers walking around the kitchen and areas adjacent to it; the officers do not appear to fear for their safety, as laughter is heard. (See Docket # 52, Ex. O(DVD)). The video shows many animals in cages and boxes, and what appears to be a crocodile or alligator in a large tub. Id. The dogs can also be heard barking in the background during the entirety of the pre-shooting video. At some point, Officer Mourty stated that he told the other officers that there was too much going on — due to the sheer number and type of animals — and that everyone should back out of the house. However, other testimony, specifically that of Officer Hewitt, indicates that while Officer Hewitt was told to back out, a decision was made that Officers Daugherty and Mourty should clear the rest of the house. To do so, the officers would first need to go through the living room, where the dogs were located. Regardless, it is around this point in time that two of the dogs were shot. Officer Daugherty stated that while the dogs had responded to the flashes of light from his M4 carbine rifle before, one dog continued to advance in spite of the light, got down in what he interpreted as an attack posture, and bared its teeth. At this time Officer Daugherty was still in a position behind the garbage can. Officer Daugherty believes he said “stand by” and then when the dog charged, he shot it three times. Then, according to Officer Daugherty, another of the dogs came charging, growling and barking, and leapt at him over the dog he had just killed. Thus, he shot at that dog as well, this time discharging his gun nine times. Officer Daugherty stated that the second dog landed mere inches away from him. The only officer that witnessed the actual shooting of the dogs, according to the City defendants, was Officer Daugherty. Officer Hewitt and Detective Simmert were outside when it occurred, and Lt. Felician was in a warehouse portion of the residence. (See Docket # 69, ¶ 71). According to Officer Hewitt, from outside the residence she heard the tactical officers inside yelling “back up, back up” before hearing gun shots. It is also disputed whether MADACC was called just prior to, at the same time, or after the dogs were shot. Nevertheless, MADACC did not arrive on scene until many minutes after the dogs were killed. At some later point in time, Officer Hewitt returned to the kitchen area and shot additional video. (See Docket # 52, Ex. O(DVD)). According to MPD, the two dead dogs are shown on the video in the same position they ended up after Officer Daugherty shot them. (Docket # 69, ¶ 83). Just after the video resumes, someone steps around the dogs’ bodies and can be heard stating “this is beyond our scope; that’s all I keep thinking, this is way beyond our scope.” (See Docket # 52, Ex. O(DVD)). One dog is positioned just behind the baby gate and the other is farther back, towards the living room. Id. Flint arrived after her dogs had been shot, but before their bodies had been removed by MADACC. (Docket # 75, ¶ 91). Flint was understandably upset when she arrived on scene and was informed that two of her dogs had been killed. (Docket # 75, ¶ 92). 3.1.2 Unreasonably Killing Dogs Violates the Fourth Amendment The Court begins by determining whether the City defendants’ conduct would have violated the Fourth Amendment. Viilo, 547 F.3d at 709-10. The Seventh Circuit has made answering this question eminently easy. Namely, “[e]very circuit that has considered the issue has held that the killing of a companion dog constitutes a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 710; see also Carroll v. Cty. of Monroe, 712 F.3d 649, 651 (2d Cir.2013) (“As a number of our sister circuits have already concluded, the unreasonable killing of a companion animal constitutes an unconstitutional ‘seizure’ of personal property under the Fourth Amendment.”). And the Seventh Circuit elaborated that “[b]oth common sense, and indeed Wisconsin law, counsel that the use of deadly force against a household pet is reasonable only if the pet poses an immediate danger and the use of force is unavoidable.” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). This makes sense, given that “[t]he emotional attachment to a family’s dog is not comparable to a possessory interest in furniture.” San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962, 975 (9th Cir.2005). Dogs, for many people, are akin to children; they are, quite often, treated with the same care, kindness, and respect as any other member of the family. And, the loss of a dog is often devastating to those who have cared for him or her, see id., reflecting the high esteem and sacred place they hold in people’s hearts. See Carroll, 712 F.3d at 651 (stating that the shooting of a dog is “a severe intrusion given the emotional attachment between a dog and an owner”). Dogs are referred to as “man’s best friend” for a reason. Thus, to show that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated, Flint must show that the killing of her dogs was unreasonable. She alleges unreasonableness on multiple fronts: (1) that the City defendants acted unreasonably by failing to have any articulable plan to deal with the dogs, other than shooting them; (2) that the on-scene officers acted unreasonably by creating the very situation that compelled shooting the dogs; and (3) that Officer Daugherty acted unreasonably when he shot the dogs because they were not a threat to him or others. The Court will address each of Flint’s grounds in turn. 3.1.2.1 Failure to Plan Flint alleges that “[tjhere were no instructions given, nor plans created, in regards to how to deal with the dogs, other than shooting them if they posed a threat.” (Docket # 50 at 13). And, this was unreasonable given that “the [City] [defendants knew for at least five days prior to May 12th that they would be conducting a search at Ms. Flint’s residence, where the dogs were.” .Id. at 12. Flint suggests that MPD could have: (1) discussed the dogs with DNR when consulting with them about the alleged alligators at Flint’s residence; (2) learned the names of the dogs so that they could communicate with them in a friendly manner; (3) brought treats or other distractions to contain the dogs in a non-violent manner; (4) planned to use pepper spray instead of shooting the dogs; (5) brought a dog snare to attempt to catch the dogs; and (6) called MADACC prior to executing the search warrant instead of minutes before or after the dogs were shot. (Docket # 68 at 5-6). The City defendants argue that Flint has failed to identify any statements by the City defendants that “the officers explicitly discussed, stated or even decided individually that they would deal with the dogs simply by shooting them.” (Docket #81 at 2). Strangely, the City defendants’ argument appears to be that there was no plan to shoot the dogs because there was little or no planning at all. See id. (stating that “the uncontroverted facts establish that luithout explicit planning, but, perhaps, only with “common sense” or training and experience, the tactical officers effectively kept the dogs at bay ... ”) (emphasis added); id. (“The facts [Flint] actually adduces amount to nothing more than evidence that none of the supervising or tactical officers explicitly planned certain actions to capture or contain the dogs in a certain manner.'”) (emphasis added). The only plan that the City defendants can articulate is the plan to get MADACC on scene to help deal with the dogs. (Docket #81 at 6); (Docket #73 at 5). But, it is undisputed that MADACC was called during the execution of the search warrant, shortly before or after the dogs were shot. The City defendants counter this by stating that “[e]ven assuming that the call came after the shooting, there is no dispute that the officers intended to call MADACC to catch the animals, and just may have waited too long to place the call,” which “amounts to nothing more ■than mere negligence.” (Docket # 81 at 6); (Docket # 54 at 18) (“Flint might argue that the animal control officers could have been brought in sooner but such a claim amounts to nothing more than the argument that the officers were negligent in the way they dealt with the dogs.”). Finally, as to the various ways the City defendants could have planned for the execution of the search warrant offered by Flint, the City defendants assert that Flint cannot prove that any of those methods would have been successful. Id. at 3-8. Thus, the City defendants argue that, at bottom, their failure to use any of these methods amounts to mere negligence and “[n]egligence is insufficient to support a Fourth Amendment claim” under § 1983. Id. at 4. 3.1.2.2 On-Scene Actions Flint alleges that the on-scene actions of MPD were unreasonable in two distinct ways. First, she alleges that by proceeding with the search warrant instead of waiting for Flint to come home and assist with controlling her dogs, the City defendants acted unreasonably. {See, e.g., Docket # 50 at 14-16). Specifically, Flint contends that the City defendants’ purported reasons for executing the search warrant instead of waiting for Flint— namely, concerns about officer safety, the welfare of the animals, and losing the element of surprise — are specious. Id. at 15; (Docket # 68 at 3) (stating that “the [City] [defendants executed the search warrant without waiting for Ms. Flint, despite having no articulable reason for refusing to wait 20 minutes”). The City defendants aver that the reasons for proceeding with the search warrant do not show the officers acted unreasonably. Rather, “[t]he lieutenant and detective were concerned about jeopardizing officer safety by waiting — there were surveillance cameras, and there may have been someone in the premises who could harm the officers, especially with additional time to plan.” (Docket # 54 at 16-17); (Docket #73 at 7) (observing that the existence of surveillance cameras meant the officers could have been observed without themselves seeing someone inside). And, “while the officers did not expect someone to be in the house and Flint had represented in a telephone call that she was away at work, the officers did not know that no one was in the premises.” (Docket # 73 at 7). ■ And, with regard to safety in general, the City defendants aver that “[t]he supervisors and officers could not ... simply focus their attention on the dogs, and allow unarmed civilians such as MADACC personnel into the premises without first searching it for the presence of people who might harm a person.” Id. Finally, the City defendants assert that “the officers knew that there would be dogs in the home and they too could have been used to attack someone coming to the house.” Id. Second, Flint contends that, even if the search warrant was executed properly at the outset, the City defendants nevertheless placed themselves in a situation to shoot the dogs by choosing to enter the area where the dogs were located (and safely contained), instead of backing out and waiting for MADACC or Flint to control the dogs. (Docket # 50 at 16-17). To wit, Officer Hewitt testified that the tactical officers had personnel back out so that they could proceed to clear the residential area; this decision, according to Flint, would force the officers to confront the dogs to do so. And, proceeding in that manner would be unreasonable, given that Flint was on her way home and the officers could have also waited for MADACC to arrive (assuming they had already been called). The City defendants counter this second point by stating that Officer Hewitt did indeed state that, but she did not observe exactly what happened since she had backed out, which does not actually call into question the testimony of Officers Daugherty and Mourty. Namely,' it is still possible that the dogs charged at them as they themselves were backing out or holding in place. . 3.1.2.3 Officer Daugherty’s Killing of the Dogs Finally, Flint contends that even if the dogs came towards Officer Daugherty as the City defendants suggest, the DVD evidence does not support the testimony of Officer Daugherty as to how the events actually occurred. (Docket # 68 at 7-12). Specifically, Officer Daugherty stated that the first dog charged and was shot, and then the second dog charged, jumped over the first, and was shot inches before reaching Officer Daugherty. The City defendants appear to concede that the video does not exactly corroborate Officer Daugherty’s recounting of the events. Namely, “the police video and testimony corroborates rather than undermines Officer Daugherty, at least with respect to the second dog.” (Docket # 54 at 15) (“Consistent with [Officer] Daugherty’s testimony that the second dog leap[t] over the first shot dog and came very close to [Officer] Daugherty’s position at the doorway between the kitchen and family room, the video shows a dog lying very close to the doorway with its head facing towards the kitchen.”). Of course, this begs the question: why was the first dog so far away from where Officer Daugherty represented he was? The City defendants appear to offer no answer to this question. Id. at 15 (“The other dog appears to be lying perpendicular to the doorway, some distance away. The position of the body does not, however, indicate whether the dog dropped instantly ... or whether it began to turn away after the first shot ... There would, therefore, be nothing but speculation that the dogs were retreating from [Officer] Daugherty.”). Flint also argues that the video does not corroborate Officers Daugherty and Mourty with respect to where the dogs were and what they were doing — barking or growling. The video shows the dogs quite a distance back from the kitchen when they are first recorded — which was during the time officers are doing their initial search of the kitchen and adjacent areas. And, while Officers Daugherty and Mourty stated that the dogs were growling the entire time officers were there, the video at no time records the dogs growling or doing anything other than barking. The City defendants attempt to rebut this argument by pointing out that the video camera that Officer Hewitt used was turned off repeatedly during the time before the dogs were shot. Thus, according to the City defendants, “the video recording of the dogs before the shooting is only fleeting and the audio recording, though longer, appears to capture sounds from other areas and is often obscured by officers’ voices.” (Docket # 81 at 8). Thus, “[i]t is mere speculation, therefore, that one or more of the dogs were not growling given the poor recording.” Id. At bottom, Flint argues that Officer Daugherty was not in immediate danger and his shooting of the dogs was avoidable. 3.1.3 Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Preclude Granting Summary Judgment for Either Party The Court need not belabor the analysis much on the killing of the dogs. This case epitomizes: (1) contested facts; (2) credibility contests; and (3) swirling unknowns. A reasonable jury, considering the contested issues, against the backdrop of the DVD evidence, could find for either party, on all three points of unreasonableness asserted by Flint. There is certainly evidence to support Flint’s theory of the case: namely, that the police entered her residence without a plan, see Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 993 (7th Cir.1988) (“In constitutional-tort cases as in other cases, ‘a man is responsible for the natural consequences of his actions.’ ”) (quoting Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961)), created the situation that necessitated the use of force, and then further acted unreasonably by forging ahead instead of waiting for Flint or MADACC. See Brown v. Blanchard, 31 F.Supp.3d 1003, 1010 (E.D.Wis.2014) (noting that “an officer who shoots a suspect in an effort to protect himself cannot escape liability if the danger he faced was created by his own unreasonable conduct”) (citing Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230, 234 (7th Cir.1993)). A jury, finding that the officers acted reasonably at one step, would also be free to find that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the City defendants’ conduct, overall, was unreasonable. See Deering v. Reich, 183 F.3d 645, 649, 652 (7th Cir.1999) (noting that the totality of the circumstances is not “limited to the precise moment when [the officer] discharged his weapon,” but includes “all of the events that occurred around the time of the shooting”); Hells Angels, 402 F.3d at 975 (“We look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if the destruction of property was reasonably necessary to effectuate the performance of the law enforcement officer’s duties.”); Carroll, 712 F.3d at 651 (“To determine whether a seizure is unreasonable, a court must ‘balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interest alleged to justify the intrusion’ and determine whether ‘the totality of the circumstances justified [the] particular sort of ... seizure.’ ”) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8-9, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). Unreasonable, that is, because the shooting of the dogs was clearly avoidable, see Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir.2003) (“A seizure becomes unlawful when it is ‘more intrusive than necessary.’ ”) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 504, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)), and there was no immediate danger, but that which was caused by the City defendants’ own actions. See Viilo, 547 F.3d at 710. A reasonable jury could also find, based on the foregoing evidence, that the City defendants, despite having an admittedly questionable plan, did nothing wrong up and through the shooting. Specifically, the jury could find that after executing the search warrant, the officers attempted to retreat and wait for assistance, and during that time, the dogs attempted to attack and Officer Daugherty had no choice but to shoot. See, e.g., Hells Angels, 402 F.3d at 978 (“The Fourth Amendment allows officers to use a certain amount of force because they are ‘often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving...’”) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that wading any further into this morass would usurp the role of the jury, whose province is fact-finding, credibility assessments, and weighing contested facts in light of the circumstances. The only question that remains then, is whether the City defendants are nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established right. 3.1.4 The City Defendants Are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity On the Unlawful Seizure Claim The City defendants assert, almost half-heartedly, that qualified immunity nonetheless bars Flint’s claim for killing her dogs because Flint cannot show they violated a clearly established right. Conceding that the Seventh Circuit has found that unreasonably killing dogs is a Fourth Amendment seizure, the City defendants nonetheless argue that “Flint cannot show that ‘various courts have agreed that ... conduct [comparable to that of these officers] is a constitutional violation under facts not distinguishable in a fair way from the facts presented in the case at hand....’” (Docket # 54 at 19) (quoting Campbell v. Peters III, 256 F.3d 695, 701 (7th Cir.2001)); (Docket # 73 at 9) (reiterating that “Flint has not cited to any decision by the [SJeventh [C]ircuit or by a number of other courts indicating a consensus that what the officers actually did here was a violation of the dogs’ owner’s rights.”). The City defendants’ argument is all but disingenuous. First, the Seventh Circuit stated in Viilo (in 2008), in the context of qualified immunity for shooting dogs, that analogous cases were unnecessary given its prior holding in Siebert which “held that domestic animals are ‘effects’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” 547 F.3d at 711 (citing Siebert v. Severino, 256 F.3d 648, 656 (7th Cir.2001)). Thus, the court held that “[t]he Siebert decision is enough to give police officers reasonable notice that unnecessarily killing a person’s pet offends the Fourth Amendment.” Id. So, the City defendants have been on notice since 2001 that unnecessarily killing a person’s dog violates a constitutional right. But, even supposing that analogous cases are necessary here, as the Ninth Circuit pointed out in Hells Angels, “the Supreme Court recognized [in Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) ] that previous cases do not have to be fundamentally similar’ and that officials can still be on notice even in novel factual circumstances.” 402 F.3d at 977 (quoting Hope, 536 U.S. at 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508) (emphasis added). Nor does a plaintiff necessarily need myriad courts to have agreed on the issue, so long as Flint can “point to a clearly analogous case establishing the right to be free from the conduct at issue.” Beaman, 776 F.3d at 508. Second, the City defendants’ argument that various courts have not agreed that conduct comparable to that which occurred here is a constitutional violation obtusely ignores the decisions of the Ninth Circuit in Hells Angels and the Second Circuit in Carroll; both decisions discuss the failure of officers to have a plan for dealing with dogs (other than shooting them) resulting in their death, see Carroll, 712 F.3d at 652-54; Hells Angels, 402 F.3d at 976-78 — which is a conclusion a reasonable jury could reach here. In Hells Angels, the Ninth Circuit found that shooting dogs during the execution of a search warrant was unreasonable when, despite having “a week to plan the execution of [the search warrant],” and “advance knowledge of the presence of two guard dogs,” the “full extent of the plan to protect the entry team from the dogs was to either ‘isolate’ or shoot the dogs.” 402 F.3d at 976. The Ninth Circuit also found that the “little plan” of one of the officers, which was “pokfing] [the dogs] through the fence with his shotgun 'to try and scare them,” and if that was unsuccessful, to “ ‘engage’ the dogs to ensure the safety of [the officers],” was no plan at all; namely, “despite a week to plan for the entry, the officers developed no realistic plan other than shooting the dogs while serving the search warrants.” Id. Additionally, the Hells Angels court was unconvinced by the officers’ purported reasons for the intrusion; specifically: (1) the need to execute the search warrant to seek evidence for a murder; (2) the need for stealth and speed; and (3) the safety of the officers. Id. First, the court was not convinced of the need to execute the search warrant as it was, given that “none of the plaintiffs were potential suspects” in the murder. Id. Second, the court found that the officers need for stealth and speed was torpedoed by their own conduct; to wit, breaking down the door with a ram and shooting at the dogs. Id. Third, and most importantly, the Hells Angels court found that, “[w]hile the governmental interest of safety might have provided a sound justification for the intrusion had the officers been surprised by the presence of the dogs, the same reasoning is less convincing given the undisputed fact that the officers knew about the dogs [for a week].” Id. at 977. In particular, this gave the officers “substantial time to develop strategies for immobilizing the dogs.” Id. What happened, instead, was that “the officers created an entry plan designed to bring them in close proximity of the dogs without providing themselves with any non-lethal means for controlling the dogs,” leaving themselves no choice “but to kill the dogs in the event they— quite predictably — attempted to guard the home from invasion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit concluded by stating that the shooting of dogs is impermissible when “less intrusive, or less destructive, alternatives exist,” especially when officers are not “reacting to a sudden unexpected situation” where exigent circumstances might excuse the conduct. Id. at 978. Therefore, “the failure to develop any realistic non-lethal plan for dealing with the dogs is simply not the type of reasonable mistake in judgment” entitling officers to qualified immunity. Id. In Carroll, the Second Circuit concurred with the Ninth Circuit, noting that “the failure to plan adequately for the presence of dogs during a search could contribute to a Fourth Amendment violation under certain circumstances.” 712 F.3d at 652. This was especially so, according to the court, where “officers ha[ve] ample time to utilize non-lethal means without compromising their safety or the search,” and particularly where officers are “not executing no-knock warrants.” Id. But,' even failing to plan during no-knock warrants might be impermissible. Id. at 653 (“There may well be circumstances under which a plaintiff could prove that lack of an adequate plan rendered the shooting of his or her dog unreasonable even during execution of a no-knock warrant, and we urge the defendants to consider whether more comprehensive training and planning would better serve the public, as well as officers, in the future.”). The City defendants’ attempt to evade Hells Angels on two fronts, ■ neither of which is convincing. First, the City defendants argue that Hells Angels is readily distinguishable because: (1) Hells Angels involved the killing of dogs in a backyard and here, “the dogs were all inside the very confined space of the very cluttered premises,” (Docket # 73 at 4); and (2) here, “no officer shot either dog upon sight and without any effort to use non-lethal means” — ie. the light on the M4 Carbine, the large trash can that was placed between the officers and the dogs, and the attempts of Officer Daugherty to use verbal commands to keep the dogs back— whereas in Hells Angels, there was no indication that such measures were used. As such, the City defendants argue that “[g]iven all the factual distinctions between this case and the searches considered in Hells Angels, this Court should not be persuaded to follow that decision here.” Id. at 6. Second, the City defendants argue that the Ninth Circuit “either did not have evidence before it or the benefit of argument that training, experience, and just ‘common sense’ can be a legally sufficient substitute for dealing with guard dogs in the course of executing a search warrant.” Id. In support of this proposition the City defendants cite to the fact that Officer Mourty had prior training on dealing with dogs, and Officers Daugherty and Mourty had “substantial experience in executing searches.” Id. The City defendants then double down on the “common sense” argument, stating that “there is the apparent and partially successful role of ‘common sense’- and improvisation in dynamic and unknown circumstances; [Officer] Daugherty backed up the dogs and kept them at bay by using a light on his weapon and a large garbage can apparently found in the home.” Id. Finally, the City defendants argue that the requirement in Hells Angels to have a plan is a decision that “should not be followed because if applied in this context could result in an unreasonable sacrifice of officer safety.” (Docket # 81 at 1). However, the City defendants do not support this final proposition with any facts or arguments. However much the City defendants would like to escape the Hells Angels (and Carroll) they cannot do so. In the Court’s view, Hells Angels is on all fours with the facts in this case. While it is true that the defendants in Hells Angels shot the dogs in a backyard and Flint’s dogs were shot inside her home, this is a distinction without a difference. The focus is not on the events immediately preceding the shooting, but whether there were appreciable efforts to develop a plan to avoid a shooting altogether. And, as stated above, a reasonably jury could find that the City defendants made no such plan. This case is also similar to Hells Angels, in that both search warrants were executed with little or no planning and were not of the type that needed to be executed imminently. Moreover, to the extent that the City defendants argue that “common sense” and improvisation can supplant the need for a plan altogether, they misunderstand what “planning” actually entails. “Planning” is to engage in “the act or process of making a plan to achieve or do something.” Planning Definition, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/planning (last visited March 3, 2015). A person cannot be said to have a plan if the details of the plan are merely a reaction to events transpiring in front of him or her. Stated another way, using common sense and training in a dynamic situation might prepare a person for certain events that might transpire, but that knowledge does not magically transform into an articulable plan. Nor is that the type of plan that the courts in Hells Angels or Carroll could possibly have intended. Nascent or non-existent plans are insufficient; to state it colloquially, you can’t just “wing it.” Finally, in making this argument, the City defendants also ignore that Officer Daugherty — the person who actually shot the dogs — stated that he could not recall having any formal training on how to deal with dogs. Finally, while the City defendants argue that requiring officers to have non-lethal methods to deal with dogs could jeopardize officer safety, they fail to support that argument. Nor, in the Court’s view, could they. In particular, having a plan to deal with dogs in such a manner might actually enhance officer safety. Here, for example, having MADACC on scene after the kitchen had been cleared would have been highly advantageous. The dogs could have been appropriately restrained, avoiding the need to guard them while the search was ongoing, thus permitting the officers to focus on whether other individuals were in the non-searched areas of the house. And, outside the facts of this case, having non-lethal means to address dogs that officers might encounter prevents the risks that accompany firing a weapon at them. Shooting at anything always carries the risk of injuring others nearby (including officers), whether it be by ricochet, friendly fire, or an errant shot. Accordingly, the Court finds, in light of Viilo, Hells Angels, and Carroll, that the City defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Flint’s Fourth Amendment seizure claim. Consequently, both Flint’s and the City defendants’ motions for summary judgment will be denied on this claim, except as noted below. 3.1.5 The Unlawful Seizure Claim Against Officers Hewitt and Colker Cannot Proceed The City defendants, in their motion for summary judgment, argue that Officers Hewitt and Colker were not personally involved in the seizure of Flint’s dogs. (Docket # 54 at 10). Indeed, “[i]n-dividual liability under § 1983 requires ‘personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation.’ ” Minix v. Canarecci 597 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir.2010) (quoting Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir.2003)). While Flint’s complaint alleges this claim against Officers Hewitt and Colker (see Docket # 41, ¶ 502), Flint did not respond to the City defendants’ argument in their brief in opposition (see Docket # 68), nor did Flint allege Officers Hewitt and Colker were personally involved in the shooting of her dogs in her own motion for summary judgment. (See Docket #50). Alas, buried in a footnote Flint states that she is not proceeding on the unlawful seizure claim against Officers Hewitt and Colker. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to grant summary judgment in favor of Officers Hewitt and Colker on this claim. 3.1.6 Flint’s Failure to Intervene Claim Relating to the Shooting of the Dogs Will Also Proceed to a Jury In their motion for summary judgment, the City defendants also argue that Flint cannot maintain a failure to intervene claim against any of the City defendants relating to her unlawful seizure claim. Flint did not move for summary judgment on this claim, and merely opposes the City defendants’ motion. “Omissions as well as actions may violate civil rights. Generally, however, the Constitution creates only negative duties for state actors.” Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir.1994). However, even as a bystander, an officer can be held liable under § 1983 if Flint can show the officer: “(1) had reason to know that a fellow officer was using excessive force or committing a constitutional violation, and (2) had a realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the act from occurring.” Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 472 (7th Cir.2009); see Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 557 (2d Cir.1994). “A realistic opportunity to intervene may exist whenever an officer could have called for a backup, called for help, or at least cautioned the violating officer to stop.” Miller v. City of Harvey, No. 13-CV-9257, 2014 WL 3509760, at *2 (N.D.Ill. July 15, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Liability applies to supervisory and nonsupervisory officers alike. Lanigan v. Vill. of E. Hazel Crest, Ill., 110 F.3d 467, 478 (7th Cir.1997). The Court will permit Flint’s failure to intervene claim — except against Officers Hewitt and Colker — to proceed to a jury for the same reasons noted earlier. This makes sense, given that “[w]hether an officer had sufficient time to intervene or was capable of preventing the harm caused by the other officer is generally an issue for the trier of fact unless, considering all the evidence, a reasonable jury could not possibly conclude otherwise.” Id. 3.2 Unlawful Detention Claim Against the City Defendants and Deputy Jonas Flint also brings a claim for unlawful detention against the City defendants and Deputy Jonas. Flint alleges that she was detained for an unreasonable amount of time because the City defendants erroneously charged her with felonies. She also alleges that Deputy Jonas continued this unreasonable detention by not correcting the City defendants’ error when she arrived at the County jail The Court will begin by outlining the undisputed facts applicable to both the City defendants and Deputy Jonas before turning to the claim as it pertains to each, individually. 3.2.1 Undisputed Facts After the shooting of the dogs, the City defendants continued the search of Flint’s house until 3:40 p.m. (Docket # 26, Ex. 1 at 3). During that time — and also during the time before the dogs were shot — officers observed a litany of animals within the house, including alligators, crocodiles, turtles, large snakes, rats, mice, and spiders. (E.g., Docket # 52, Ex. O(DVD)); (Docket # 52, Ex. G at 1); (Docket # 26, Ex.l at 2-3). During the search, DNR Warden Blank-enheim positively identified an ornate box turtle in the house, which is an endangered species and illegal to possess without a special permit; he relayed this information to Detective Simmert. (Docket # 69, ¶ 87); (Docket # 75, ¶ 98). DNR Warden Blankenheim also informed the officers that possession of the turtle was a felony, under Wis. Stat. § 29.604. (Docket # 75, ¶ 97). Lt. Felician had no independent knowledge of that statute, so he relied solely on DNR Warden Blankenheim’s statement that it was a felony. (Felician Dep. at 67:7-68:18). Detective Simmert also believed a violation of that statute was a felony. (Simmert Dep. at 92:1-13). Both Lt. Felician and Detective Simmert were mistaken, and the City defendants admit as much. (See Docket # 54 at 21) (noting that Wis. Stat. § 29.604 “does only provide for a misdemeanor penalty under state law for the intentional possession of a wild animal on the state’s endangered species list and so was mistakenly described by Detective Simmert as a felony”). During the search, the officers observed conditions for the animals that were quite disconcerting. (See, e.g., Simmert Dep. at 110:20-22) (referring to the conditions as “deplorable”); (Felician Dep. at 69:18-20, 69:25-70:22) (stating that the conditions were “abysmal” and that “the place was absolutely filthy,” with “the top floor, where these animals were being housed[,] was rotting”). In addition, the officers observed animal “carcasses” in the house, including that of an alligator or a crocodile, mice and rats, and perhaps a snake. (See Hewitt Dep. at 89:1-91:5) (observing dead alligator or crocodile and a dead snake); (Simmert Dep. at 89:7-90:22) (observing dead rats and mice which were feeder animals for the carnivores and a dead alligator in a sealed off bin). In light of the foregoing conditions, Lt. Felician and Detective Simmert made the decision to arrest Flint. (Docket # 69, ¶ 88); (Docket # 75, ¶ 96). Detective Sim-mert directed Officer Hewitt to place Flint in custody at 3:09 p.m.; however, Officer Hewitt had no part in the decision to arrest Flint other than following the instructions given to her. (Docket # 69, ¶ 91) Detective Simmert instructed Officer Hewitt to arrest Flint on two felony charges: (1) Wis. Stat. § 29.604; and (2) Wis. Stat. § 951.02, which criminalizes cruelty to animals. (Simmert Dep. at 124:16-125:6). On what is called a “blue card,” which listed the violations Flint was arrested on, both crimes were denoted as felonies. (See Docket # 69, ¶ 90). However, Lt. Felician testified at his deposition that he was aware that the animal cruelty charge as it pertained to Flint was merely a misdemeanor. (Felician Dep. 69:4-6). While Flint was arrested on a felony charge of Wis. Stat. § 951.02 — which has a range of penalties, from a fine all the way up to imprisonment if it is a felony— Detective Simmert stated in his deposition that he was arresting Flint only for not having the animals properly fed, sheltered, or watered. (Simmert Dep. at 111:25-112:10). Those offenses, however, could only rise to the level of a misdemeanor and are normally charged under a different statute altogether. See Wis. ' Stat. §§ 951.13, 951.14. Additionally, when speaking with Flint during her arrest, Detective Simmert told her she was being arrested because “the conditions inside of [the house] were deplorable, and that clearly she wasn’t caring for the animals.” (Simmert Dep. at 110:18-111:1). He also testified at his deposition that he may have had further dialogue with Flint and said something to the effect of “ T don’t think you’re an evil person. I think you just got in over your head.’ ” Id. The search of the house was eventually ceased at 3:40 p.m. when it was determined that the house was a hazard; the house was sealed and placarded until the officers could return with proper safety equipment and personnel. (See Docket # 75, ¶ 104); (Docket # 26, Ex. 1 at 3). Shortly thereafter, some of the officers traveled to Cullen’s residence and executed the other search warrant Detective Simmert had obtained. Officer Colker arrived at Flint’s residence at 3:27 p.m., just before the search was called off; he did not enter the premises and merely transported Flint to MPD’s District 2 police station for booking on the charges noted above. (See Docket # 69, ¶ 97). Flint’s Arrest and Detention Report indicates that the arresting officers were Officers Hewitt and Colker and the charges against Flint were “Viol/En-dang/Threat S” under Wis. Stat. § 29.604 and “Intentionally Mistreat” under Wis. Stat. § 951.02. (Docket # 38, Ex. 3 at 2). Both crimes are listed as “F,” indicating they were charged as felonies. Detective -Simmert drafted a probable cause statement that evening, which was notarized and signed by Lt. Felician at 10:37 p.m. (See Docket # 52, Ex. G at 1); (Simmert Dep. at 125:7-23). The probable cause statement lists the same offenses against Flint,. except that the Wis. Stat. § 951.02 charge, which was previously denoted as “Intentionally Mistreat” on the Arrest and Detention Report, is now listed as “Mistreating animals.” (Docket # 52, Ex. G at 1). The statement begins by stating, that the search warrant MPD executed was obtained “specifically” for the purpose of locating endangered species “kept by [ ] Jane E. Flint,” and describes the basis for her arrest as follows: Upon making entry, I observed animals numbering in the 100’s, including alligators, crocodiles, turtles, and spiders. Warden Nick Blankenheim ... and members from [MADACC] were present. These trained professionals did positively identify one recovered species as being a Chinese Alligator which is classified as critically endangered and illegal to possess. Due to public health concerns, the Department of Neighborhood Services declared the residence unfit for human or animal habitation. There was an overpowering stench of ammonia consistent with urine and feces throughout the residence. Dead animal carcasses were in close proximity to live animals, and animal waste was observed throughout the residence. In the basement area alone, mice and rats numbering in the 100’s formed a carpet on the basement floor. The conditions of the animals were as follows: mold and fungus growing on a vast majority of the animals; alligators, crocodiles, and turtles were.kept in containers which did not allow them to turn around in their containers and were filled with animal waste.... Further endangered animals are in the residence, but specific species and genus could not be established based on the public health hazard. Id. Detective Simmert, after submitting the probable cause statement (a copy of which goes to the City Jail), placed a hold on Flint so that he could speak with her sometime later. (Simmert Dep. at 125:24— 128:2). The hold would prevent her from being released until Detective Simmert directed otherwise. Id. The search of Flint’s residence continued on May 13, 2010. (Docket # 69, ¶ 98). Sometime late that day, Detective Sim-mert went to speak with Flint and obtain a statement from her. (Simmert Dep. at 127:4-128:2). Detective Simmert stated that the delay in speaking with Flint was due to the continuing search at Flint’s residence and also a search the previous day at Cullen’s residence. (Simmert Dep. at 153:9-154:6) (noting that it took “16 hours worth of work on the 13th” at Flint’s residence). Flint told Detective Simmert that she did not want to make a statement without an attorney present. Id. So, Flint was released back to her jail cell and then Detective Simmert filled out an “Order to Release” which served to transfer Flint to the Milwaukee County Jail. Id.; (Docket # 75, ¶ 114). She was transferred to Milwaukee County Jail, according to Detective Simmert, because “we were asking the courts to hold her on ... felony charges.... You go to the county jail because that’s where the court system is, where a commissioner would find probable cause, and that’s where the bail reviews and all that stuff goes on.” (Simmert Dep. at 134:19-135:3). If a person is not charged with a felony, that person automatically has bail set pursuant to a state statute and a bail schedule. (Docket # 69, ¶ 99); (Docket # 71, ¶ 28). Flint was transported to the Milwaukee County Jail around 11:30 p.m. on May 13, 2010, and transferred into the custody of the County. (Docket # 67, ¶ 117). Deputy Jonas was the intake officer at the County Jail and reviewed Flint’s Arrest and Detention Report and the probable cause statement. (Docket