Federal Lawsuit Challenges Heavily Redacted Police Videos After Dog Killed by St. Clair County Law Enforcement

A new federal civil-rights lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan challenges the use of heavy and selective redactions of official police videos as a means of shaping the public narrative during an active public controversy, raising important First Amendment concerns.

The case, Wilhelm-Bruzek v. County of St. Clair, arises from a December 13, 2025 incident at the St. Clair County Animal Control facility in Port Huron. That evening, a family found a dog wandering outdoors in near-freezing conditions. Seeking shelter and reunification with the dog’s owner, the family transported the animal to the Animal Control building.

According to public reports, the dog - wearing a harness and confined in the rear of the family’s vehicle - came into contact with deputies after a vehicle hatch was opened. Additional deputies and supervisors responded. Officers attempted to restrain the dog using catch poles. The encounter ended with deputies shooting and killing the animal behind the Animal Control facility.

The Sheriff’s Office later cited concerns for officer safety and the dog’s aggression as justification for the use of lethal force.

This shooting follows a similar one from two years ago. The most-recent encounter was captured on body-worn police cameras. 

As public concern mounted, the Sheriff’s Office released portions of that footage but only in heavily redacted form. Key moments were obscured, including significant portions of the interaction leading up to the shooting.

The heavily-redacted footage quickly became the focal point of intense public debate. Community members and news outlets questioned whether the redactions concealed critical context about how the situation escalated and whether alternative outcomes were possible.

According to the complaint, this release of redacted videos was not transparency but instead curation.

“This case is about something more dangerous than silence,” said attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC. “It is about the government shaping public understanding by releasing videos that supports a particular version of the story. The half truth is a whole lie." 

The lawsuit alleges that this conduct constitutes unconstitutional interference with the public’s right to receive and disseminate information of public concern, particularly where body-camera footage is the primary source of objective evidence and public discussion is already underway.

“This is not a routine FOIA dispute,” Ellison said. “FOIA governs access. This case addresses both access and distortion. When the government releases selectively altered video evidence while simultaneously defending its conduct, it warps the public narrative.”

The complaint also alleges multiple violations of Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, including the failure to issue a lawful written denial, failure to identify exemptions, and failure to advise the requester of appeal rights.

“Body cameras were introduced as a promise of transparency,” Ellison said. “They were not meant to become tools of narrative management. The Constitution does not allow the government to speak loudly on their version while quietly erasing the full set of facts.”

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties under Michigan law, damages for constitutional violations, and attorney fees.

The case has been assigned to the Hon. Susan K. DeClercq whose court sits in Detroit.