I often see posts on DU in which a person upset about something will rant that the malefactors will certainly be sued and lose -- and quite often, although the act is upsetting and unfortunate, my educated guess, as a lawyer, is that there's no legal cause of action. Not every wrong can be righted in court.
This one is different. The mere existence of this video, taken by an uninvolved person who will presumably testify to its accuracy, will greatly restrict the cops' ability to lie. It's hard to see how they could possibly have probable cause to arrest the man for anything. Because the killing of the dog was ancillary to the false arrest, it should be included in the damages for which the city and the individual cops are liable. (The individuals' liability would be predicated on Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code, imposing civil liability for a deprivation of civil rights by a person acting under color of law.)
I don't know what the law would be if the arrest were legitimate. Suppose someone wanted on an outstanding warrant for some felony is out walking his dog when the police spot him. They swoop in and make a proper arrest. His dog, sensing that they're hostile to his beloved master, starts barking and snarling at them and perhaps gives signs of attacking. In that situation, could the police reasonably use force, including deadly force, to protect themselves from the dog? They would at least have some colorable argument. In the actual case, however, the defendants will probably be looking to settle the claim instead of going before a jury.
= new reply since forum marked as read
