didn't violate woman's rights, judge rules This appears to be complete BS. A LEO (by the police's claim) dog can trash an “unintended bystander” on their own front porch, and no one is accountable?!? The unstable animal should be beheaded and tested for rabies. She is owed funds from Indianapolis. Does NC have a law that ensures the state, handler and dog are not accountable for crap like this? Video and more: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2018/10/02/district-court-judge-rules-against-pregnant-woman-mauled-impd-k-9-2015/1499200002/ A U.S. district court judge has ruled in favor of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department in a lawsuit filed by a pregnant woman attacked by a K-9 in 2015, saying although the attack was "horrendous," it did not violate the woman's constitutional rights. Mara Mancini was standing on her front porch when she was "mauled" by IMPD K-9, Scooter, as he pursued a man who had fled police on foot through her west-side neighborhood. The attack left Mancini, who was seven months pregnant at the time, with severe wounds to her arm and leg. She underwent multiple surgeries and took painkillers, causing her son to be born with a narcotics addiction, according to the lawsuit. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt wrote in a Sept. 28 judgment that the department did not violate Mancini's constitutional rights because the dog's release and subsequent attack were intended for the suspect, not Mancini. "Mancini and her son K.C., suffered horrendous injuries and a grievous lack of discretion by the officers; however, a grievous lack of discretion does not suffice to state a constitutional cause of action under binding Seventh Circuit precedent," Pratt wrote. Jon Little, Mancini's attorney, said surgeons have told her the nerve damage to her arm, which has severely impaired the function, is irreparable. She'll likely have to declare bankruptcy to pay her medical bills without IMPD or the city being held responsible for the incident or the damages incurred. "The city should be ashamed of themselves," he said. IndyStar has reached out to IMPD and the city for comment. The attack happened July 16, 2015, when Scooter and his IMPD handler were in pursuit of a suspect who had begun hopping fences in the 300 block of North Addison Street. Mancini told IndyStar in 2016 that she heard a commotion as the dog approached her yard and stepped onto the porch to see what was going on. This photo of Mara Mancini was taken less than a week after she was attacked by an IMPD K-9. (Photo: Provided by Saeed and Little LLP) The dog attacked as soon as she stepped outside, she told IndyStar, and tore chunks of flesh from her arm and thigh. She began having premature contractions, which doctors were able to stop as they treated her at IU Health Methodist Hospital. But weeks later, Mancini underwent emergency surgery to remove a golf ball-sized infection in her leg, according to the lawsuit. She went into labor and delivered her son three days after the surgery. The infant spent several weeks in neonatal intensive care as he was "weaned off of narcotics," according to the lawsuit. Mancini's attorneys argued the premature labor was a result of the "extreme stress" she experienced during the attack and subsequent infection. Mancini sued the city and the department in 2016, claiming the attack violated her Constitutional liberties and challenging Indiana law and legal precedent that grants immunity to police dogs under the state's dog bite liability statute. Little said that leaves little room for redress. "Indiana says, pretty clearly, you're out of luck when a police dog violates you," Little said. The lawsuit argued that the attack was a violation of Mancini's Fourth Amendment right to be secure against search and seizure — a method of asserting control over Mancini. Mancini was an "unintended bystander," Pratt wrote, and no force was intentionally directed at her, so there was no violation of Mancini's Fourth Amendment rights. "The undisputed evidence is that Mancini was not the intended object of the officers’ efforts to seize the fleeing suspect," Pratt wrote. "[The officer's] release of Scooter, intending to seize the fleeing suspect does not mean that the officers intended to seize any other person." A state-level case is still pending, Little said, and they're weighing whether to appeal Pratt's ruling. But Mancini will be dealing with the effects of the incident long after any litigation is put to rest. "This has really been a traumatic event in her life — financially, obviously, with all the medical bills — but emotionally, as well," he said.