A federal lawsuit filed in July 2026 challenges a Border Patrol agent's shooting of a 7-year-old Rottweiler named Chop during a September 2025 search of an El Paso-area home. The dog's owner had consented to the search, secured Chop in a bathroom, and warned agents about the dog—yet it was shot and killed during the operation. The dispute centers on how the dog was released and whether the shooting was justified. According to DHS, the dog "aggressively charged" at the agent. The lawsuit alleges the agent opened the bathroom door without warning, allowing the dog to exit before shooting it.
Official resource:
- Learn how the Federal Tort Claims Act works — DOJ Civil Division page explains FTCA procedures, administrative claim requirements, and how tort claims against the U.S. are evaluated.
Table of Contents
- The Search and Owner's Precautions
- Two Versions of the Shooting
- The Federal Lawsuit and Claims
- Why the Administrative Process Failed First
The Search and Owner's Precautions
On September 9, 2025, Border Patrol agents entered a residence in the El Paso area searching for undocumented immigrants. Homeowner Seth Daw consented to the search.
Before agents entered, Daw placed Chop in the bathroom and explicitly told the officers about the dog's location, asking to be notified before opening that door. No undocumented immigrants were found in the home. However, Chop was shot and killed during the operation, setting off a dispute over what led to the shooting.
Two Versions of the Shooting
The incident hinges on conflicting accounts. DHS states the dog "aggressively charged [at] the agent" and the officer, "fearing for his safety," fired in self-defense. The lawsuit presents a sharply different sequence: the agent opened the bathroom door without warning, the dog exited into the living area, and the agent shot the dog approximately 18 feet from the bathroom.
Under this account, the agent's action—releasing a secured dog without notice, contrary to the owner's explicit request—created the confrontation. The legal significance is substantial. If the dog was released without warning, it supports claims of negligence or recklessness rather than justified self-defense.
The Federal Lawsuit and Claims
In July 2026, the Singleton Schreiber law firm filed a federal lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, naming the United States as defendant. The lawsuit alleges assault, battery, conversion (loss of property), trespass, and negligence. The owner seeks compensatory damages for the loss of his dog and for physical and emotional injuries, along with attorney costs and other relief permitted under federal and Texas law.
Why the Administrative Process Failed First
Daw initially pursued compensation through the standard federal process. In October 2025, he filed an SF-95 claim—a formal request for damages from the federal government for injury or loss caused by federal officials. U.S.
Representative Veronica Escobar separately sought answers from CBP officials in November 2025. Border Patrol denied Daw's SF-95 claim "in its entirety" in May 2026, offering no corrective action or explanation. With administrative relief exhausted, Daw filed a federal lawsuit in July 2026.