“Just lets himself in”: Officer enters home without a warrant, shoots the dog, then calls more police instead of the owners

CBS 17’s Greg Funderburg opened his report with the voice of grief, not politics. Paige Briggs told the station her family has been “sad,” and that there are “constant memories” of their dog all through the house.

Funderburg’s story centered on one fact that hit the family like a second loss: the Wake County deputy involved in the shooting is returning to work after the sheriff’s office finished its internal review.

Paige Briggs told CBS 17 she was devastated by the decision, saying the family felt “disappointed” and “outraged” that the deputy would come back with what she described as no real consequences beyond administrative leave.

The case revolves around Zelda, the Briggs family’s 8-year-old Belgian Malinois, and what the family and their attorney say happened inside their home on April 8.

What Greg Funderburg Says Happened On April 8

Funderburg reported that Paige Briggs was out of town for work when the incident happened. Her husband and their children had left home like normal, and hours later, the family says their world changed.

According to the Briggs family’s attorney, as summarized by Funderburg, a sheriff’s deputy came to the house to serve a civil summons. That detail matters, because a civil summons is paperwork, not a criminal warrant.

Funderburg said the family’s security video shows the deputy stepping onto the porch and calling out, “Hey, anybody home? Sheriff’s office.” In the background, Paige Briggs said you can hear Zelda barking from inside.

Paige Briggs told CBS 17 that Zelda was confined to the kitchen. Moments later, the video captures the sound that ended it: gunshots from inside the home.

Funderburg reported that the family believes the deputy entered the home without a warrant, and then shot Zelda. The family’s anger isn’t just about the shooting – it’s also about what they say happened after.

Paige Briggs told CBS 17 she wanted consequences. She said the family only wanted to see justice served, and she questioned why the deputy would return to work after more than 60 days on administrative leave.

A Second Retelling Adds A New Charge: “He Called More Cops”

The Civil Rights Lawyer channel host John Bryan, an attorney, retold the same event with sharper language and a bigger constitutional focus. Bryan framed the incident as a Fourth Amendment problem first, and a tragedy second – though he clearly sees it as both.

In Bryan’s telling, the deputy knocked, got no response, and then “just lets himself in” to look around. Bryan emphasizes that nobody in the family called for help, and no one asked police to come inside.

Bryan’s description of the aftermath is what pushes the headline into “family outraged” territory. He says that after the shots, the deputy walked back outside and did not call the family.

Instead, Bryan says the deputy called for more police, leading to what he described as “an army” of officers arriving and “circling the wagons.” Bryan claims officers then went through the home, garage, and backyard for around 40 minutes without notifying the owners, without permission, and without a warrant.

That’s the core accusation in Bryan’s presentation: even if the deputy believed something was wrong, Bryan argues the response turned into a long, uncontrolled search of a private home while the homeowners were absent and unaware.

It’s important to note how Bryan presents this: he says the family provided him evidence, and he walks viewers through audio and surveillance clips while offering his interpretation of what those clips prove.

The “Door Was Open” Explanation And The Dispute Over What The Cameras Show

Bryan identifies the deputy as Deputy Daryus and says he was serving civil process – paperwork tied to a civil court matter. Bryan stresses that civil service does not give an officer the right to step over the threshold.

Bryan says the deputy’s report claims the inner wood door was open 30 to 45 degrees, lights were on, and the interior was visible. Bryan argues that this “open door” detail is being used as the main justification for entry, along with a claim that the deputy suspected a burglary.

But Bryan pushes back hard on that reasoning. He says the available video does not conclusively prove the inner door position, and he points out that the deputy was not wearing a body camera, which would have clarified the situation immediately.

In Bryan’s breakdown, the most damaging conflict is about the dog’s barking. Bryan plays audio from the home that he says clearly contains barking from the moment the deputy enters.

Bryan also highlights a moment caught on the family’s surveillance where a supervisor asks the deputy if he heard the dog bark. Paige Briggs told CBS 17 the supervisor asked that question, and she said the deputy replied that he didn’t hear barking and was “not clear” on policy.

Bryan goes further, calling it a lie. He says the audio shows barking “pretty much the entire time” while the deputy moves through the home, up until the shots.

Bryan also describes what happens next as strange: after gunfire, he says there’s a stretch of silence, and then the deputy begins announcing “Sheriff’s office” again, after firing inside the home.

From there, Bryan says the deputy holsters and then resumes searching – moving outside, checking the backyard and garage at gunpoint – while more officers converge.

Why The Deputy Was Reinstated, And Why The Family Says That’s Not Enough

Greg Funderburg reported that Wake County’s sheriff’s office released a statement after completing its review. In the statement read in the CBS 17 report, the agency said that after a “thorough review of the surrounding circumstances,” the deputy involved would “remain employed,” and the office would move forward “responsibly” in service to the community.

That’s a clean, controlled answer, and it’s also the kind that leaves families feeling like they’re talking to a wall. It doesn’t address the questions the public tends to ask in cases like this: why enter, why shoot, and what exactly did the review conclude?

Paige Briggs’ reaction, as described by Funderburg, was blunt. She said she was disgusted, devastated, and outraged, and she questioned how the deputy could return to the same job with what she viewed as no consequences.

Funderburg also reported that the family’s attorney is exploring “all options” to seek justice and answers. He said CBS 17 also reached out to the sheriff’s office to request policies and procedures for serving summons when no one is home.

Bryan’s summary of the reinstatement is far less restrained. He says this is what happens when “the government investigates itself,” and he describes the outcome – keeping the deputy employed – as unacceptable.

The truth is that both can be right in their own lane. A department can conclude an internal review and reinstate an officer, and a family can still reasonably believe the decision is morally wrong, dangerously permissive, or built on a flawed view of what happened.

A Dog Shooting Case That Turns Into A Trust Test

It’s easy for people to argue these incidents as if they’re just about animals, or just about officers, or just about “what would you do if a large dog came at you.” But the bigger issue is trust, and it’s fragile.

Even if someone believes the deputy felt fear in that moment, a fair question still hangs in the air: why go inside at all over civil paperwork, when the risk of an inside confrontation is obvious? A knock, a note, and a return visit may not feel dramatic, but they also don’t create the danger that follows an entry.

Bryan’s constitutional argument isn’t just lawyer talk, either. The public understands the basics: a home is supposed to be the line. If that line gets crossed too easily – because a door is cracked, or lights are on – then a lot of people will feel like the rule is turning into a loophole.

And the detail that hits hardest, if Bryan’s retelling is accurate, is the human one: the idea that a deputy could call more police, search for nearly an hour, and still not call the family whose name and address he already had because he came there to serve them.

That’s the part that makes people feel less safe, not more safe. It’s not just the gunshot. It’s the sense that once the system starts moving, it moves around you, not with you – until you’re told after the fact that the outcome is final.

In the end, Greg Funderburg’s reporting shows a family still grieving and still looking for accountability. John Bryan’s video shows how quickly a single decision at a front door can escalate into a legal fight about privacy, policy, and whether “thorough review” is the same thing as justice.