A federal lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. government after a Border Patrol agent allegedly shot and killed Chop, a 7-year-old Rottweiler, during a home search in El Paso, Texas. The incident occurred on September 9, 2025, when Border Patrol agents entered the Upper Valley home of Seth Daw based on a tip about migrants. Daw had secured Chop in a bathroom before the search began and explicitly informed agents of the dog’s location, asking to be notified before the door was opened so he could move the dog to safety. Despite those precautions, the dog was shot and killed during the search.
The lawsuit, filed in July 2026 by the Singleton Schreiber law firm, alleges that U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jorge Muñoz discharged his weapon at the dog without legal justification, raising questions about accountability and the use of force during federal law enforcement operations in residential spaces. The case underscores a troubling gap in federal oversight: while homeowners have limited legal recourse when federal agents cause harm during searches, this lawsuit represents one family’s effort to hold the government accountable through the Federal Tort Claims Act. The incident drew attention from El Paso Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, who demanded updates from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, signaling growing concern about the incident among elected officials.
Table of Contents
- What Led to the Border Patrol Search at the Daw Family Home?
- How Did the Dog End Up Being Shot During the Search?
- What Legal Claims Are Included in the Lawsuit?
- What Rights Do Homeowners Have During Border Patrol Searches?
- How Does the Federal Tort Claims Act Protect Citizens Against Government Action?
- What Was Border Patrol’s Official Response to the Incident?
- Why Did Congresswoman Escobar Intervene in the Case?
What Led to the Border Patrol Search at the Daw Family Home?
Border Patrol agents received a tip about potential undocumented immigrants in the Upper Valley area of El Paso and used that information to justify entering the Daw family’s residence on September 9, 2025. The agents did not need a warrant for the search because the tip about migrants—even though it proved to be false—provided probable cause under the Border Patrol’s operational authority near the U.S.-Mexico border. Seth Daw cooperated with the agents when they arrived and took proactive measures to manage his family’s pet, securing Chop in an entryway bathroom and providing clear instructions to the agents about the dog’s location.
However, the tip that prompted the search turned out to be baseless. No undocumented immigrants were found in the home. The search that disrupted the Daw family’s home and resulted in the death of their pet yielded no evidence of the alleged violation that justified the intrusion. This is significant because it demonstrates how intelligence errors or false reports can trigger armed federal operations in residential homes without meaningful consequences, even when no actual crime or violation is discovered.
How Did the Dog End Up Being Shot During the Search?
The circumstances of the shooting remain contested, but forensic evidence suggests that the dog was not contained in the bathroom where Daw had placed him. Blood evidence was discovered approximately 18 feet away from the bathroom, in the living area and kitchen of the home. This placement of evidence indicates that Chop had walked out of the bathroom before being shot by Agent Jorge Muñoz. The physical distance between the bathroom and where the blood was found is the critical detail: it suggests that either the door to the bathroom was opened without proper warning to Daw, or the dog somehow escaped and was then pursued and shot in a different part of the home.
This detail is particularly troubling given Daw’s explicit instructions and requests. He had not just confined the dog to prevent conflict but had specifically asked agents to notify him before opening the bathroom door so he could move the dog to an even safer location or directly control the animal. The failure to follow that instruction—if that is indeed what happened—forms part of the legal basis for the lawsuit. It also highlights a practical danger: when armed federal agents are conducting searches in homes, pets can become victims of force used in moments of perceived threat, regardless of the actual risk level.
What Legal Claims Are Included in the Lawsuit?
The federal lawsuit filed by Singleton Schreiber names multiple legal violations against the U.S. government and Agent Muñoz. The claims include assault, battery, conversion (the legal term for wrongfully taking another person’s property), trespass to property, and negligence. Conversion is the unusual claim here—it treats the shooting death of the dog as the wrongful taking of personal property, which is one legal avenue available when a federal agent kills or destroys a pet.
The suit was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows private citizens to sue the federal government for damages caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Assault and battery claims against a federal agent are more difficult to establish than against a private individual because government employees often have qualified immunity protecting them from civil liability. However, the conversion and negligence claims provide alternative theories of liability that do not depend on proving intentional or reckless misconduct in the traditional sense. Instead, they focus on the wrongful harm and the failure to exercise reasonable care—in this case, the failure to honor Daw’s explicit instructions about the dog’s location and the failure to follow safe procedures before discharging a firearm.
What Rights Do Homeowners Have During Border Patrol Searches?
Homeowners in border regions have significantly fewer protections during immigration enforcement searches than they might expect. Within 100 miles of the U.S. border, Border Patrol agents can conduct vehicle searches without a warrant, and home searches can be conducted if agents claim reasonable suspicion of immigration violations. The Daw case illustrates how a single tip—even a false one—can override the normal expectation of privacy and security in your own home. Once agents enter a property, homeowners have limited ability to dictate the terms of the search, including how the agents interact with family members and pets.
The lack of accountability mechanisms creates a dangerous dynamic. If agents damage property, injure family members, or kill pets during a search, homeowners must pursue legal action themselves—there is no automatic investigation or disciplinary process. Border Patrol denied the Daw family’s initial claim in May 2026, forcing the family to file a federal lawsuit. This burden falls entirely on the property owner, making it difficult for ordinary families to obtain justice when harm occurs. Homeowners in border regions should document everything that happens during a search, including photos, video, and written notes, and should consult with an attorney immediately if harm occurs.
How Does the Federal Tort Claims Act Protect Citizens Against Government Action?
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is the primary mechanism by which private citizens can sue the federal government for damages caused by federal employees. Before filing a federal lawsuit, the claimant must first submit an administrative claim to the relevant federal agency. In the Daw case, the Border Patrol received and denied the claim in its entirety in May 2026, which then allowed the family to proceed to federal court. The FTCA caps certain types of damages and requires that the suit be brought against the United States, not against individual federal employees—although individual agents can sometimes be sued separately under other legal theories.
However, the FTCA has significant limitations. Certain types of claims, such as those based on the intentional torts of assault and battery by federal agents, face higher legal hurdles because of qualified immunity doctrine. Additionally, the FTCA process is slow and expensive, requiring families to exhaust administrative remedies and then litigate in federal court. The burden of proof rests with the claimant, meaning the Daw family must demonstrate that Agent Muñoz acted negligently or wrongfully—Border Patrol does not have to prove that the shooting was justified. This explains why the lawsuit names conversion and negligence as primary claims, as they may be easier to prove than intentional misconduct.
What Was Border Patrol’s Official Response to the Incident?
In May 2026, Border Patrol officially denied the Daw family’s administrative claim in its entirety, providing no public explanation for the shooting or acknowledgment of wrongdoing. This denial appears to have been a blanket rejection rather than a reasoned response to the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The agency’s silence on the incident contrasts sharply with the family’s account of what happened: that they cooperated fully, secured their pet, and explicitly instructed agents on the dog’s location.
Border Patrol’s denial effectively shifted the burden to the family to pursue justice through the courts. No investigation findings have been publicly released, no disciplinary action against Agent Muñoz has been announced, and no policy changes have been implemented in response to the incident. This lack of transparency is common in federal law enforcement cases involving harm to civilians or their property.
Why Did Congresswoman Escobar Intervene in the Case?
El Paso Congresswoman Veronica Escobar wrote a letter demanding that U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner and Border Patrol Chief provide updates regarding the incident. Her intervention signals that the case has drawn attention from elected officials and that constituents in the border region view this incident as emblematic of broader accountability problems in federal law enforcement.
Escobar’s demand for updates suggests that Border Patrol’s initial denial was insufficient and that additional scrutiny is warranted. The involvement of a sitting congresswoman indicates that this case represents more than a dispute between a family and a federal agency—it reflects concerns about the conduct of federal agents during searches in residential homes and the lack of consequences when harm occurs. The shooting of a confined pet during a search that yielded no evidence of criminal activity raises questions about the judgment and training of Border Patrol personnel, particularly regarding the use of force in domestic settings.