Anda di halaman 1dari 15

IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center

Law Enforcement Canines


Concepts and Issues Paper
Originally Published: May 1992
Revised: September 2001

I. INTRODUCTION detecting trace elements of accelerants used in arson. One partic-


ular program of this type developed by the canine division of the
A. Purpose of the Document Connecticut State Police allows arson investigators to save time
and expense in the investigation of suspicious fires. Law enforce -
This paper is designed to accompany the Model Policy on Law
ment canines are now also used to discover human bodies —a
Enforcement Canines published by the IACP National Law
unique specialty that is highly useful in the aftermath of natural
Enforcement Policy Center. This paper provides essential back -
or manmade disasters and in homicide investigations. Their suc-
ground material and supporting documentation to provide
cess has been widely documented in situations involving
greater understanding of the developmental philosophy and
deceased victims in the wilderness, earthquake victims, even
implementation requirements for the model policy. This material drowning victims who are still submerged under water. One
will be of value to law enforcement executives in their efforts to canine trained to find human bodies was even successful in locat-
tailor the model to the requirements and circumstances of their ing human remains that were estimated to be 175 years old.
communities and their law enforcement agencies. Other uses for law enforcement canines continue to be
This revision of the concepts and issues paper provides addi- explored that capitalize on their acute sense of smell and hearing
tional information on the issues of deployment, canines as a use and their unique enthusiasm for working with their handlers.
of force, the legality of canine sniffs when employed in various
contexts, and additional information not provided in the original
paper. II. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
B. Background A. Canine Deployment
Most law enforcement historians agree that the first official use This revision of the Model Policy on Law Enforcement Canines
of canines for police service took place in Ghent, Belgium, in the provides additional guidance on the deployment of canines to
1890s. In the United States, the New York Police Department apprehend suspects that was not available in the original policy
began an experimental police canine program in 1907, with dogs on this subject. To begin with, the policy states that "the deploy -
imported from Belgium. Used primarily in affluent neighbor - ment of a police canine for the location and apprehension of a
hoods, the dogs were very effective in reducing burglaries and suspect is a use of force that must be consistent with this agency's
related crimes. However, as one might expect, the experimental principles of escalation and deescalation of force."
program employed some rather unusual training methods and To understand this position and those that follow from it, it is
techniques compared to modern day police canine use and train - important to clarify a question that has been widely debated by
ing. One observer noted for example that during the first few both the courts and police agencies for a number of years: Is the
weeks of training, the dogs were taught that any person in uni - deployment of a police canine a use of deadly force? To a large
form was friendly and that all others were potential enemies. degree this question was answered in 1998 by a decision from the
More interestingly, the dogs were taught to wrap their legs Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Vera Cruz v.
around one of the suspect's legs and to hold tightly in order to City of Escondido [139 F.3d, 659, 663 (9th Cir. 1998)]. The court said
throw the person to the ground. Thereupon the dog was instruct- in their holding that
ed to pounce on the suspect and bark until police officers arrived.1 as we read Garner [i.e., Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1
Since that time, the training of police canines has improved (1985)] deadly force is that force which is reasonably likely to
dramatically, and the role of these animals has also expanded to cause death. . . . Vera Cruz presented no evidence that properly
include their use in searching for and apprehending suspects, trained police dogs are reasonably capable of causing death. . . In
providing support for patrol officers, and detecting drugs and fact, Vera Cruz presented no evidence at trial that police dogs
explosives. Law enforcement canines are now also being trained can kill under any circumstances. . . . Nevertheless, we will
to assist in the investigation of fires of suspicious origin by assume that a properly trained police dog could kill a suspect

A publication of the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center


515 N. Washington St., Alexandria, VA 22314-2357
This document is the result of work performed by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. The views and opinions expressed in this document are sanctioned by the
center’s advisory board and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
under highly unusual circumstances. The prospect of such an This is an objective standard that is not concerned with the
aberration doesn't convert otherwise non-deadly force into dead- underlying motivation or intent of the officer(s) involved. It
ly force. applies equally to the deployment of police canines and to other
As the Vera Cruz opinion pointed out, there is at least one uses of force. If an officer is not permitted to employ force under
known case in which a police canine did kill a suspect. This was Connor, the deployment of the officer's canine in the same situa -
documented in Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (6th Circuit, 1988). tion is also impermissible. The Ninth Federal Circuit Court of
The Robinette court held that the use of the dog did not amount Appeals seemed to embrace this notion, espoused under Graham
to deadly force because the outcome was "an extreme aberration." v. Connor3 in the first post- Graham canine/excessive force case,
The Vera Cruz case provides law enforcement with a strong Mendoza v. Block. In that decision, the court stated, "This [objec -
precedent in any future civil litigation in which a suspect alleges tively reasonable] analysis applies to any arrest situation where
that the use of a police canine constituted "deadly force." This force is used, whether it involves physical restraint, use of a
may affect the drafting of a department's policy concerning the baton, use of a gun, or use of a dog" (emphasis added). 4
use of canines, especially in jurisdictions within the Ninth In light of the foregoing information, 5 the model policy pro-
Circuit. Notwithstanding the significance of Vera Cruz to law vides a number of recommendations designed to give some spe -
enforcement canine operations, a word of caution is in order. The cific operational guidance to officers in making decisions on the
findings of this case should not be regarded as a license to appropriate deployment of canines:
employ canines indiscriminately or a guarantee that the use of The deployment of a police canine for the location and apprehen -
canines will never be held to constitute the use of deadly force. sion of a suspect is a use of force that must be consistent with this
The case merely holds that the plaintiff in this particular litigation agency's principles of escalation and de-escalation of force.
failed to introduce sufficient evidence to convince the court that Force used by police officers should not exceed what is objec-
the use of a canine in this instance "posed more than a remote tively reasonable to bring a situation under control, whether that
possibility of death" to the plaintiff. Should a plaintiff in any sub - is the use of pepper aerosol spray, Taser®, stun gun, baton,
sequent litigation be able to present such evidence, a contrary canine, firearm, or other device or means. Officers need not
result might be reached. exhaust every lesser force alternative before employing a higher
This issue speaks directly to the matter of establishing and level of force, nor should they continue to employ that higher
adhering to legally acceptable canine deployment policy and pro- level of force if a lesser force option becomes a reasonable alter -
cedures. It also has direct bearing on training of police canines—a native. Deployment of a police canine should be regarded as any
matter that will be discussed later in this paper. Further, it must other tool in the police officer's use-of-force arsenal. On a "con -
be remembered that the case is binding authority only within the tinuum of force," deployment of a police canine should be con -
Ninth Circuit notwithstanding the significant precedent that it sidered a force option below that of deadly force and about equal
establishes. Nonetheless, the Vera Cruz decision may be regarded to such less-lethal tools as the baton, stun gun, and carotid neck
as an important decision and one favorable to police canine units restraint.
in particular and law enforcement in general. Decisions to deploy a canine shall be based upon the following
As noted, Vera Cruz has direct bearing on when and under [three factors as established under Graham]:
what circumstances a police canine can be deployed. If the use of
a police canine to find and hold a suspect were indeed "deadly a. the severity of the crime;
force," according to the aforementioned Garner deadly force b. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of
analysis, then the use of police canines would have to be limited the officers or others; and
to situations in which the suspect against whom the dog is used
"poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to c. whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
others. As stated in Garner, canines could be deployed only evade arrest at the time.
"where the suspect 'threatens the officer with a weapon or there Deployment of a police canine constitutes the use of a high
is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime level of force that should be reserved for situations that justify
involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physi- this response alternative. The bite of a police canine will normal-
cal harm.'" Such a requirement would impose serious restrictions ly cause injury to the suspect and can cause significant injury.
on the use of police canines and their utility to law enforcement. Therefore, deployment of canines should not be performed on a
If the use of a canine is not considered deadly force governed routine or casual manner without objectively reasonable
by Garner, what then is the criterion that an officer should use in grounds. Evidence of one or more of the foregoing factors pro -
order to determine when deployment of a canine is warranted? It vides greater justification for the deployment of a canine. One
is not possible to answer this in other than a general way as par - court case exemplifies this fact, as follows.
ticular circumstances and scenarios may dictate on-scene deci - The Graham test was used in deciding a significant canine use-
sions that cannot be fully anticipated by any formal policy. But of-force case in California and has had a significant impact on
the courts have provided enough general guidance that some decisions made in other federal and state courts. In the California
overall criteria can and should be established by individual case Chew v. Gates,6 the plaintiff was stopped for a traffic violation
police agencies. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a new but fled on foot into a large junkyard where he hid for over two
test to be used by courts in determining whether the police have hours. While looking for the suspect, police discovered that he
used excessive force. In Graham v. Connor,2 the Court established had three outstanding felony warrants. Several police canines
that uses of force by police officers should be judged under a sin - were called in to search for the suspect, who was found hiding in
gle standard requiring the fact finder to determine whether the a crouched position between two large trash bins. In the process
officer acted in an objectively reasonable manner given all the of seizing the suspect, a police canine inflicted serious injuries to
facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time. the suspect's arm and side. The suspect sued under 42 U.S.C. §
2
1983 of the Civil Rights Act, contending that the seizure and involved, nor the mentally disturbed if no crime is involved.
injuries received constituted an excessive use of force. Persons who suffer from mental illness may not have the abil-
In deciding this case, the court applied the three-pronged ity to comprehend the threat associated with the deployment of a
Graham test to the circumstances of the arrest and found that the law enforcement canine against them. They may fail to comply
decision to use dogs to locate and apprehend the suspect was jus- with orders of the canine handler or may act in an inappropriate
tified. First, the crime that prompted the plaintiff's arrest was or bizarre manner that serves as a signal to the canine to take or
serious. Although police initially stopped the suspect for a traffic continue aggressive action beyond that which would be typical-
violation, his three outstanding felony warrants constituted a ly necessary.
serious offense. Second, the suspect posed an immediate threat to Much of the same can be said of persons who are under the
the officers' safety as he had not been searched for weapons, influence of alcohol or drugs. Some persons who are under the
could have been armed, and was hiding in a large area. Third, the influence of alcohol or drugs (particularly drugs like PCP) have a
suspect's flight from police after the initial stop and his history of much higher threshold of pain and may continue resistance that
evasion —as evidenced by the outstanding felony warrants — results in greater injury than would otherwise be expected. Of
demonstrated that the suspect was actively resisting arrest. course, officers cannot always be aware of the mental state of an
Upon application of the factors enunciated in Graham, it was individual or whether he or she is under the influence of alcohol
clear to the court that the circumstances of the suspect's arrest or drugs. And even when this information is available, it may be
exposed the police officers to a high degree of risk that justified a necessary at times to deploy a canine when the severity of the
greater use of force. Therefore, the manner in which the police crime warrants this action and alternative measures are either not
dog was used to arrest the plaintiff did not, under the circum - available or inadequate to gain control of the suspect.
stances, infringe upon the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Canine handlers should also exercise extra care when deploy -
Department policies and the training of handlers to use their ment is being considered in the case of a juvenile subject. The age
canines in detect-and-hold situations should be based on the of a subject is often difficult to determine, but if the officer is
three-pronged Graham test to determine whether they are justi- aware or should be aware that he or she is dealing with a juve -
fied in exposing a suspect to injury by the pursuing dog. nile, he or she should consider alternatives to the deployment of
Adoption of this policy and systematic training of officers in its a canine.
application will help to demonstrate that a department is not Finally, with regard to deployment, canine handlers should
"deliberately indifferent" to exposing suspects to such injury. secure their canine as soon as possible once a suspect has been
Another means of protecting against use-of-force litigation in located and taken into custody in order to guard against unnec -
canine deployment is to train and deploy canines to "detect and essary injury or charges that the dog was used in an intimidating
bark" rather than to "detect and hold." This issue will be dis - or threatening manner to coerce a confession.
cussed more fully later in this paper.
The model policy provides examples of situations in which B. Canine Team Utilization
the deployment of a canine may be justified under the foregoing The model policy recommends that canine handlers be avail-
terms. These justifiable deployments include but are not limited able 24 hours a day so all shifts can benefit from the canine's spe-
to the following: cialized capabilities. Those agencies with an adequate comple -
• conducting building searches for what are believed to be serious ment of canine teams can spread their availability across all
felony or armed misdemeanor suspects in hiding shifts, but those that do not must make decisions as to appropri-
ate usage and deployment. There are two basic approaches to
• assisting in the arrest or prevention of the escape of serious or
meeting this need.
violent offenders
First, agencies may recruit canine officers with the under -
• protecting officers or others from death or serious injury standing that they will be required to be available for off-duty
recall. In these circumstances, canine handlers are normally pro-
• engaging in assignments not listed here with the approval of
vided with pagers or cell phones so that they may be contacted
the canine team supervisor
quickly and easily. Many agencies also provide them with a
Situations that may justify the deployment of a canine are patrol or other vehicle equipped for canine transportation
those involving serious offenses and offenders and situations in whether or not the agency has a take-home car policy for all
which an officer's safety or that of other persons may be at risk. patrol personnel.
However, this does not preclude a canine team from responding For off-duty recall of canine teams to work effectively, agen -
to other calls for service where these risk factors are not evident. cies must make certain that overtime work in a duty capacity
This is frequently necessary in situations where patrol personnel complies with the regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
are limited in number and/or when there is an unusually high The act requires overtime pay for overtime work, and officers
volume of calls for service. Most agencies do not have the luxury may not waive their right to such compensation even if they
of dedicating canine teams for use only in serious criminal situa - choose to do so. Therefore, law enforcement agencies that use
tions and incidents. Normally, law enforcement agencies must their canine teams on a recall basis must be prepared to compen-
call upon canine teams to respond to routine calls for service and sate their officers for any overtime that they perform. In addition,
misdemeanor incidents. But, the model policy points out, "a whenever canine teams or other tactical officers are assigned on
canine team may be used to respond to minor complaint situa - a recall basis, certain limitations on their use must be implement-
tions but the canines should not be deployed." ed to ensure that the officers and their canines receive an ade -
In addition to the foregoing, the model policy also directs that quate amount of rest and relaxation to perform their duties effec-
canine teams should not be used to apprehend anyone suspected tively.
to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol if no other crime is Second, agencies may choose to limit canine team use to spe -
3
cific shifts or timeframes. The choice of specific time periods or effectively to only the primary handler. This bond is so close that
shifts should be based on an assessment of the volume and there have been instances in which canines had to be destroyed
nature of calls for service in which canine units might be utilized. before someone could administer medical assistance to the
Shift assignments should also be made based on a recognition injured handlers who the canines were protecting.
that the sensory abilities of police canines are used to their best In ending the discussion on deployment it should be noted
advantage at night. that misunderstandings concerning the use and tactical deploy -
It is important for all personnel to recognize that a canine ment of a canine team could largely be avoided by familiarizing
team is a specialized unit that should not be used for routine and all law enforcement personnel within the department about the
minor calls. A canine team that is involved in an incident where capabilities and limitations of canine units. One well-known
it is not needed reduces its utility for other officers who may have trainer refers to this as being "scent oriented." 7 Law enforcement
legitimate need. This is not to say that canine teams operating in personnel who are unfamiliar with the capabilities and appropri-
a patrol capacity should limit their activities only to those situa - ate use of canine teams either will not avail themselves of this
tions where the canine can be deployed. As the model policy valuable resource when necessary or will make inappropriate
makes clear, when the team is not involved in an incident where requests for or judgments about such teams. For example, offi -
the canine is being used, the team should be available to respond cers who are unfamiliar with the practices and techniques of
to calls for service and other enforcement activity even if deploy - canine teams are also not adequately trained to work with such
ment of the canine is not warranted. teams in backup or support capacities when necessary. Such offi-
Generally, a patrol unit will make an initial request for the cers may also unwittingly contaminate valuable scent material at
assistance of a canine team through a supervisor or the commu- crime scenes and thereby hamper a canine's efforts to track a sus-
nications center. This request should then be relayed to an avail- pect or perform other functions.
able canine team or a recall issued to an off-duty canine team. In Officer introductions to basic canine operations should be
the process, the responding team should be provided with as made at the career entry level. However, greater insight into the
much information about the incident as is available. The initial operation, skill, and capabilities of these teams can be gained
responding unit should brief the canine officer upon arrival. through roll call training by canine personnel and other training
In the event the handler decides that the canine should not be that may be available and authorized by the canine supervisor.
deployed, this decision should be explained to the on-scene
C. Canine Handler Selection
supervisor. If agreement cannot be reached concerning the
canine's use, the canine supervisor should be summoned. Selecting a qualified handler is vitally important in develop -
Normally, supervisory officers will defer to the canine officer's ing an effective and reliable canine unit. A canine officer and his
judgment, but the supervisor should have the final word in any or her dog must operate as a team. If the officer reveals charac -
difference of opinion. A record of any difference of opinion teristics that would inhibit or prevent him or her from working
regarding the tactical deployment of a canine should be entered with the canine in a positive, uninhibited, and constructive man -
into the handler's log. The handler's log is an important reposito- ner, that officer should be excluded from further consideration.
ry that should also include training records and certification and The prospective canine handler's work record is an important
re-certification data, bite memos and recall memos, medical indicator of past performance and should be examined closely.
records, awards and certificates, and other information as desig - Performance appraisals, awards and citations, and any addition -
nated by the canine supervisor. al achievements of the officer should be taken into consideration.
According to the model policy, "Where a tactical deployment Likewise, the frequency and nature of citizen complaints should
is justified by agency policy, the tactical measures used shall be at be examined, particularly any that may be related to excessive
the discretion of the canine handler and must be objectively rea - use of force. Additionally, interviews should be conducted with
sonable." The decision to deploy a canine is rarely a subject of the officer's most recent supervisors. Each candidate should
debate between trained and experienced canine handlers and appear before an oral board composed of the canine unit com -
supervisors. Assuming that the issue of whether to deploy is not mander and a supervisor and at least one experienced canine
in question, the canine handler is the best-qualified individual to handler. The board should make determinations concerning the
decide how to deploy and manage the canine. On this matter the candidate in the following areas, at a minimum:
canine handler should have full control as long as the decisions Attitude. Of course, the officer should enjoy being around
made are objectively reasonable. In spite of a police canine's dogs and have no intrinsic fear of them. The officer's attitude is
training, nearly all canines have strengths and weaknesses that important since the dog can sense its handler's responsiveness
only their handler and unit supervisor can fully appreciate. This and will react to those feelings.
fact provides most of the justification for the subsequent model Patience. Canine training requires a great deal of repetition
policy recommendation: and reinforcement. If the prospective handler is impatient and
prone to lose his or her temper, the officer will be ineffectual in
Police canines shall not normally be handled or given commands canine training. The dog works to please his handler and
by anyone other than the assigned handler. Only under emer - responds to the handler's praise as an essential part of his reward.
gency conditions shall another handler command the canine. Physical Condition. Canine officers are frequently required to
The bond and working relationship that is established exert substantial physical effort in training and working their
between a handler and his or her canine is what makes the canine canine in the field. Prospective canine handlers should be in good
team so effective, but it takes considerable time to establish. This health and excellent physical condition.
is just one reason why it is recommended that canines be housed Dependability. The handler is responsible for the overall wel-
at the handler's home rather than at a boarding location. While fare of his or her dog to include daily grooming and feeding and
the closeness between handler and canine is what establishes a health care.
good team, it can also serve to create a canine that responds most The prospective handler must be willing to devote this addi-
4
tional time and effort to these and related tasks. A potential applying for this assignment. Working with canines is a demand-
canine handler must also be willing to commit at least three years ing assignment and one that requires the development of a spe -
to his assignment as a canine officer. The time and expense cial handler-canine rapport. Where this ingredient is lacking in a
involved in training a handler makes such a commitment neces - team relationship, the effectiveness and performance of the team
sary. Many law enforcement agencies require an even longer will suffer.
commitment and some professionals make a case for assignment
of an officer to the canine unit for the working life of the dog. If D. Canine Selection and Training
the dog does not retrain well with a new handler, the time and Selecting suitable canines for law enforcement work is obvi -
money devoted to training the dog is lost. Also, the longer an offi- ously an essential concern. Law enforcement canines can be
cer spends in the assignment, the more proficient the officer and obtained in several different ways. One of the least expensive
canine become in working as a team. ways is through donations from private citizens. However,
The model policy provides additional advice concerning the acceptance of citizen donations requires establishment of a thor -
requirements for and selection of a canine handler. For example, ough screening process. Agencies that are interested in starting or
the policy states that the prospective canine handler should have expanding a canine unit in this manner are well advised to con -
a minimum of three years of experience as a police officer in a tact a law enforcement agency in their area which has an estab -
patrol or other enforcement capacity. This will provide the officer lished and professionally-certified canine program and is famil-
with a good working knowledge of the law as well as police pro- iar with screening practices of this type. While some agencies uti-
cedure and tactics. Some police departments require a greater lize donated dogs, police departments should research this issue
period of service to qualify for a canine assignment and can make thoroughly before adopting this procedure. Serious considera -
a good argument for these more demanding requirements. tion should be given to a policy that accepts only canines that
The prospective handler must also occupy a dwelling that will have been specifically bred for police use. In all cases, dogs from
accommodate the dog, to include a fenced yard or contained area the animal shelter or pound, and street animals in general that do
that meets security requirements and a kennel with a run ade - not have any medical or related history records should not be
quate to house the dog. Some law enforcement agencies, because used for police canine training irrespective of their breed and
of liability concerns, choose to house their canines in kennels apparent suitability. Many of these animals prove to be too tem -
operated by the department or by approved private concerns. peramental to function as working police dogs.
Liability can be a legitimate concern, for example, where a canine A better approach is to acquire a canine from a professional
bites or attacks a family member or guest in the handler's home. who has trained and/or bred the dog specifically for law enforce -
Such cases exist, but are most often due to careless handling by ment work. An advantage of this approach is that it is a conve -
the officer or other family members or failure to secure the dog nient and quick means of obtaining a police canine. It also great -
properly. However, most professionals in the field agree that ly reduces the possibility that an undesirable dog will be
housing a police canine away from its handler is an undesirable obtained. Most reputable breeders and trainers understand the
practice as it does not foster the type of handler-canine bonding individual characteristics of particular dogs and the traits that a
that is so important for the establishment and maintenance of a police canine should possess in order to function effectively. Most
good canine team. also have knowledge of a dog's lineage that allows better insights
If the officer candidate has a family or is living with other into a dog's potential performance and overall health.
individuals, these other persons must not be averse to the offi - Unfortunately, the cost of a well-trained law enforcement canine
cer's assignment or to the presence of the canine at the house. It can be prohibitive for many agencies. The potential purchaser
is generally ill advised to assign canines to homes where there are must also consider that most professional trainers have their own
children who are of insufficient maturity to understand that they personal training philosophies and techniques that may not be
should not approach the dog if the animal is unsupervised and compatible with the operating policies of a particular police
that the dog may be dangerous if approached improperly. There agency.
should also be no other dogs at the house, as they could become Whatever the procurement method, the prospective law
involved in a physical conflict for dominance. Of additional enforcement canine must be carefully evaluated for any disqual-
importance is the need for canine handlers to instruct members ifying characteristics, which should include but not be limited to
of the household and frequent visitors about the dog. Non-han - noise and gunfire shyness and over-aggressiveness. The dog
dlers must know never to approach the animal when the handler should not be too young or too old and unspayed females should
is not present and how to approach the dog in the handler's pres- not be used. Mixed breeds are sometimes acceptable for law
ence without giving the dog any cues that would inadvertently enforcement, but the German shepherd has found general accep-
initiate aggressive action. tance as one of the easiest dogs to train for this type of work and
Depending on department policy, the prospective handler one of the most readily adaptable to a variety of operational situ-
must also understand that, as part of a specialized unit, he or she ations. It should be noted however, that some German shepherds
may be subject to off-duty recall in an emergency. In most cases, bred in the United States have been found to be unsatisfactory
the officer will also be required to devote the necessary time to due to poor breeding practices. As a result, some law enforce -
exercise and care for the dog, whether that care can be provided ment agencies have increasingly turned to European suppliers.
on duty or must be provided during off-duty hours. These and Prior to being accepted for training, all dogs should be examined
related demands on the officer's off-duty time must be under - by a veterinarian for any potentially disqualifying medical con -
stood and accepted by the candidate for this position. ditions such as hip dysplasia or vision defects.
In agencies where canine officers receive considerable over - The importance of training for canine teams cannot be
time pay for work assignments or the off-duty care of their dogs, overemphasized. It has been recognized by the courts and has
screening of prospective handlers should ensure that the pay dif - factored heavily in many court decisions. Robinette v. Barnes 8 is
ferential is not the primary motivating factor of an officer who is one such case, mentioned earlier in this document, which empha-
5
sizes the importance of such training. In that case, the Sixth able to assist in training. Canine handlers must demonstrate
Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a civil rights lawsuit that had acquired abilities to the canine supervisor on a periodic basis as
been brought by the estate of a burglary suspect who had been prescribed by the law enforcement agency. Failure to participate
killed by a police canine. in or qualify under established training standards shall result in
In this particular case, Officer Barnes and his canine, Casey, de-certification of the team, and the team may not be deployed
responded shortly after midnight to an automobile dealership until re-certified, according to the model policy.
where a suspect was hiding after breaking into the building. The model policy takes the position that training and deploy -
Barnes and Casey entered the building and Barnes shouted a ment of police canines shall employ the detect-and-bark method.
warning that anyone inside the building should come out or he There are two legitimate schools of thought regarding the train -
would release the canine. Thirty seconds later, Barnes repeated ing and deployment of police canines. These are generally
the warning, and after another 30 seconds had elapsed, he referred to as the find-and-hold or find-and-bark methods
released the dog. Casey proceeded to search for the suspect while although they are referred to in other ways as well. The find-and-
Barnes checked doors that the dog had bypassed. Eventually bark method refers to training a police canine to bark in order to
Barnes followed Casey into a darkened area of the dealership alert the handler but not to bite the person unless the person
where his flashlight revealed the dog holding the suspect by the moves or provides some form of physical resistance. The find-
neck. Half the suspect's body was under a car and he was lying and-hold training directs the canine to find and hold (that is, bite)
motionless, face down in a pool of blood. Casey was ordered off the suspect until commanded to release by the handler whether
the suspect and leashed and an ambulance was summoned to the or not the subject is actively resisting.
scene. The suspect was pronounced dead on arrival. The National Law Enforcement Policy Center has taken the
The importance of competent training in the defense of civil position that the find and bark method is the preferred approach
liability cases is found in the court's analysis of whether or not to canine training and deployment for several reasons, to include
the use of a police dog to apprehend a suspect constituted the use the following:
of deadly force. The court stated that "when a properly trained
• The find-and-bark approach is not a radical, new, or untested
dog is used in an appropriate manner to apprehend a felony sus-
form of canine training. This method of training has been used
pect, the use of the dog does not constitute deadly force. While
extensively in Europe since the turn of the 20th century. The
the officer's intent in using a police dog, or the use of an improp-
technique found its way to the United States around 1980. In
erly trained dog, could transform the use of the dog into deadly
recent years, wider circles of police agencies have adopted this
force, we find no such intent or improper training present in this
case" [emphasis added]. approach for the same basic reasons that are discussed here.
The record in the case had shown that all members of the • A find-and-bark trained dog adds an additional dimension to
department's canine team had been trained according to guide - force alternatives available to canine handlers and is more con -
lines established by the U.S. Police Canine Association (USPCA) sistent with the escalation and de-escalation of force contained in
and that building searches were among the tasks that the canine the force continuum. It also is in keeping with the legal principal
teams were trained to perform. In addition to completing the ini- governing the use of force, which dictates that only force that rea-
tial training, all teams had participated in retraining every three sonably appears necessary may be used to gain compliance of a
weeks to reevaluate their skills. suspect. A find-and-bark trained canine will escalate force
Once the canine has been selected, the handler and canine against a suspect if there is resistance, furtive movement, or
must attend a formal training program. Most large law enforce - flight. A find-and-bark canine is also trained not to bite a nonre -
ment agencies with canines will assist in providing the training sistant suspect and to release a suspect if, once bitten, the suspect
as will the USPCA and the North American Police Work Dog becomes compliant. On the other hand, the first, and generally
Association, Inc. (NPWDA). If a professional training firm is the only, response of a find-and-hold trained canine is to bite a
desired, the police department should carefully check the indi- suspect.
vidual's or firm's references and qualifications. When a dog is
purchased pre-trained from a professional trainer, a handler • The find-and-bark approach offers a distinct advantage because
familiarization course is normally included. This is typically an use of canines in many situations (such as dark building search-
abbreviated training course and should not be considered a com- es) may require that the dog be off leash and out of the immediate
plete training regimen for handlers. A formal training course that sight and control of the handler. A find-and-bite trained dog can
conforms to the needs and established policies of the department inflict serious injury to a suspect or even an innocent bystander
must be completed before the team is ready for duty. The USPCA before the handler can locate the dog and command it to disen -
and the NPWDA have recommended standards for training that gage.
departments may refer to for development or evaluation of their • The find-and-bark trained canine can reduce the bite ratio of
training program. The association's primary focus is certification individual canines and that of a police agency's overall canine
and training and it also sponsors organized competitions and unit. Bite ratios, comparing apprehensions and/or contacts with
national seminars where canine handlers can expand and perfect a suspect to bites inflicted in such contacts, are often used in
their knowledge, skills, and abilities. courts to demonstrate that a particular canine is either more or
The model policy states that it is the duty of the canine super - less aggressive than the norm for canines in the department or in
visor to ensure that both basic and in-service training and certifi-
other jurisdictions. A lowered bite ratio can obviously work in
cation are conducted on a regular basis. Departmental canine
favor of a police canine team and the police department.
units should be cognizant of and conform to accepted profes -
sional standards for canine training in the law enforcement com- • There are no demonstrable downsides to the "enhanced" train -
munity. While there is no single source for such standards, there ing tool provided by find-and-bark trained police dogs. This
are a variety of reputable training resources and agencies avail - training adds an additional dimension to, and flexibility in, the
6
officer/handler's toolkit by using the dog in a manner that is con- and/or lack of control of canines by their handlers. This is an
sistent with the need to use force and the appropriate escalation issue that goes beyond concerns over the training or deployment
or de-escalation of force. method used. Police canines, like other tools in a police officer's
By comparison, advocates of the find-and-hold approach con - arsenal of force options, can be used inappropriately or even ille -
tend that, among other advantages, this method is safer for the gally. Use of a police canine is no exception. Therefore, aside from
officer and the canine and is a surer means of bringing a suspect the issue of preferred deployment techniques, the issues of police
under control than the detect-and-bark approach. On the other canine unit selection, training, and supervision addressed in this
hand, some claim that the find-and-bark method of deployment paper deserve equal, if not greater, attention if an agency is to
can be safer for officers. For example, given a dark building prevent or stem successful civil litigation.
search, once the canine alerts off leash, the handler and other offi- Additionally, it was noted earlier in this discussion that both
cers often have a greater time advantage and thus the opportuni- find-and-bark and find-and-hold constitute two legitimate
ty to make a more calculated and tactical approach to the suspect. schools of thought. While find-and-bark is recommended, two
caveats should be noted here. First, making a change to find-and-
Using a find-and-hold canine in the same scenario, they claim,
sometimes creates a sense of urgency for officers to reach the bark for a canine unit cannot be accomplished overnight.
Agencies interested in pursuing this approach must be willing to
scene in order to ensure that they can or should disengage the
invest the time and resources to retrain canines and their han -
dog to avert unnecessary injury to the suspect. Their position is
dlers professionally. In some cases, resistance to this style of
that in such rushed approaches an officer is more apt to make tac-
deployment will surface among handlers that may require their
tical mistakes that actually threaten officer safety. There are a
transfer to different duties. And some canines may have difficul-
variety of other arguments both for and against using either the
ty being retrained or be found to be unreliable once retrained.
find-and-hold find-and-bark methods. But systematic assess -
Second, it is recognized that the find-and-hold deployment
ment of safety, effectiveness, and related issues surrounding
method is the traditionally accepted and most widely used train -
these two deployment and training techniques does not exist,
ing method among police agencies today. The endorsement of
and most claims such as these are based largely on anecdotal
using a find and bark approach for canines should not be con -
information.
strued as a blanket condemnation of canine teams that are oper -
However, there are several matters that are clear concerning ating efficiently, effectively and with good safety and deploy -
the find-and-hold method of training and deployment that have
ment records using the find-and-hold method. For agencies that
primary bearing on the decision to recommend use of the find- maintain high standards for selection and training of canine
and-bark method of deployment. First, canines used in the find- teams, demand stringent reporting requirements of canine
and-hold approach are trained to bite given the appropriate com- deployments, bites, and apprehensions, require handlers to
mands and/or conditions. As noted previously, this is their sole maintain close supervision and control of their canines, and
means of reacting unless some type of cross training is possible where unnecessary/excessive canine bites and excessive force
and can be used reliably. Bites inflicted by police canines typical- incidents are not a significant issue, a reasonable and prudent
ly involve more than just holding the suspect. Canine bites typi- argument can be made for maintaining the find-and-hold
cally cause injury (sometimes serious) to suspects and sometimes deployment technique.
irrespective of any objective need to inflict injury in order to gain Before moving from this issue, two additional matters should
the suspect's compliance. The natural reaction of a person being be addressed in this context. First, the deployment of a police
bitten by a canine is to struggle and attempt to fend off the attack. canine trained to detect and hold constitutes a high level of
Unless the canine can be commanded to disengage in a timely force—one that is a step below deadly force on the force continu-
manner, such struggle will normally prompt the canine to con - um. For this reason, the model policy prohibits the use of canines
tinue or even escalate the biting response and thus aggravate the except when the subject (1) is suspected of a serious crime, or (2)
potential injuries. poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,or
Second, canine bites have generated a near —cottage industry (3) is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest.
for civil litigation in many parts of the United States. In fact, over By comparison, many police agencies permit officers to
the past 10 years, canine bites have become one of the leading deploy police canines in situations that fall short of the above sit -
sources of civil and criminal litigation alleging excessive or uations, as for example when permitting canines to bite passive -
improper use of force. This fact alone has prompted some police ly hiding suspects. The term "passively hiding" refers here to
agencies to disband their canine units entirely. Such actions are individuals who generally have no known history or suspicion of
unfortunate because they remove a valuable asset from a police being violent or who have no known serious criminal histories,
department's available tools and force options. It is also unfortu- where there is no reasonable suspicion that the person is armed
nate because employment of a find-and-bark method of training and/or violent (for instance, hands are visible and there is no
and deployment could offset many of the problems associated suggestion of a hidden weapon or intent to fight) but who, for a
with their canine unit short of disbanding it altogether. variety of possible reasons (intoxication, drug impairment, men-
Finally, many major metropolitan and other police agencies in tal illness, and so on) are not compliant. Again the decision to
the United States have successfully transitioned to the find and deploy a canine must be based on the three prongs of the Graham
bark method of canine training and usage without negative test (1) the severity of the crime, (2) whether the suspect poses an
repercussions. In fact, those agencies that have done so report immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3)
significant drops in bite ratios and civil and criminal litigation whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
without any perception of additional risk to canine units. evade arrest at the time [emphasis added].
These points having been made, it should also be clearly stat - Consider the consequences of using a level of force similar to
ed that a large part of the problem concerning litigation over that of a canine, such as a Taser® or nightstick, to gain compli -
canine bites has stemmed from inappropriate deployment ance of a passively hiding suspect. Such an act would normally
7
be regarded as a use of excessive force, unless the situation was Clearly, the courts have found that to guard against incidents
altered by other factors. Yet the deployment of a canine under the of excessive force and to defend oneself and one's department
same circumstances is regarded by some agencies as a practical against such charges, an agency must pay particular attention to
and reasonable means of finding and extracting such non-com - the proper selection of canines and canine handlers as well as
pliant individuals even though such deployment will likely their quality of their training and ability to effectively supervise
result in some injury to the suspect. their canine. Many of the cases that have been cited here involve
A second concern is that police agencies' failure to adhere to situations in which the canine was deployed without adequate
legally grounded deployment guidelines that reflect a canine's control and close supervision. Unless exigent circumstances dic-
level of force may drive the courts to reconsider the legal basis for tate, canines must be kept in visual contact once deployed so that
canine use and establish a more restrictive one than the "objec - they can be controlled appropriately when or if contact with a
tively reasonable" standard now in use under Graham. Voluntary suspect or other person is made.
efforts by police departments to impose internal policy restric - These cases also illustrate the need of agencies to establish
tions on canine use—such as employment of the detect-and bark- clear and complete policies and procedures on the use of canines,
method in the use of canines —can help to avoid such potential and ensure that all instances in which canines are deployed are
court intervention. At the very least, such actions demonstrate an accurately and completely documented and evaluated. Complete
agency's good faith efforts to manage their canines in a responsi- and accurate records in all these areas are vital. Handlers who are
ble manner. called into court should come prepared not only with accurate
Many major metropolitan police departments have success - records of the incident in question but with records that also
fully switched to the detect-and-bark method of canine training reflect their team and individual training and the past perfor -
and deployment. Unfortunately, many of these agencies have mance of the dog, to include certificates and awards.
done so only after paying significant damages to plaintiffs in civil As noted, deployment of a canine constitutes a use of force on
litigation. Nevertheless, these agencies can serve as good exam - the part of the officer. No matter what the results of the deploy -
ples to others. While many involved in the transition in these ment, a written report of the deployment must be prepared to
agencies had significant misgivings about the move to detect and adequately document the incident. Only through continuous
bark, the successful and effective use of canines in this capacity monitoring of the canine's use in this manner can the canine and
has served to dispel these initial concerns. In addition to imple - his handler be evaluated. In this regard, much has been written
menting the detect and bark approach, agencies must take steps about the use and value of so-called "bite ratios." Such
to ensure that canine deployment policy conforms to legally ratios—based on the number of bites in relationship to the num-
accepted criteria and strong supervision as discussed earlier in ber of apprehensions—are believed by some to be a good barom-
this document. eter for canine units in attempts to identify overly aggressive or
otherwise unmanageable dogs. Use of a bite-to-apprehension
E. Canine Bites and Canine-Inflicted Injuries ratio is preferred over a bite-to-deployment ratio because it
As in many other areas of police operations, the use of law includes only those deployments in which the canine made an
enforcement canines can create liability concerns for officers, encounter with a suspect and was thus in a position to bite.
supervisors, administrators, and their governing jurisdictions. However, it is good to maintain both bites-to-apprehensions and
But many of these concerns can be addressed by ensuring the bites-to-deployments statistics as it gives a more complete pic -
integrity of the screening and selection process for canine teams, ture of canine utilization.
providing handlers and their canines with the best possible train - There is an unquestionable need for departments to monitor
ing and supervision, monitoring the performance of the canine in dog bites and dog-produced injuries in an effort to identify prob -
tactical situations, and paying attention to accuracy and detail lem areas on the part of canines and handlers alike. However,
when writing bite reports. reliance on formulas or ratios alone can often inappropriately
A case that illustrates the importance of a strict performance and unfairly simplify an otherwise complex problem. In reality,
monitoring system for canine teams is Kerr v. City of West Palm each canine bite or canine-produced injury should be individual-
Beach.9 In this case, three plaintiffs brought suit against an agency, ly evaluated to determine whether it was justified in the total
its chief, and two canine handlers. The plaintiffs alleged that they context of the situation and the manner in which the canine was
had suffered serious injuries as a result of excessive force used in handled. Problems should be documented and corrective action
their apprehension. Among other problems relating to inade - taken where necessary.
quate training and unclear policy on the use of canines, the court This having been said, it is still advisable to develop a system
found that a strict performance monitoring system is necessary to that provides information on canine bite ratios in order to main -
ensure that misbehaving dogs receive prompt corrective training. tain some general understanding of the bites and injuries inflict -
The court stressed that the department had no specialized inter - ed by each dog in comparison to all other canines in the depart -
nal procedures for monitoring the performance of the canine ment. Such documentation is important not only to help identify
unit. Rather, the department relied on a general system of "force potential problems but also to demonstrate, during litigation and
reports" prepared by the shift commander upon being notified in related matters, the department's conscious attempt to identi-
that an officer had used force to make an apprehension. These fy and correct potential problems with regard to the use of
reports were not compiled to keep track of the performance of canines. However, in order for such a system to be implemented,
individual dogs and were usually discarded within 30 days. The an agency must require that a full report be prepared whenever a
court felt that these reports were insufficient to ensure that mis - canine is deployed, whether or not a bite or injury results from
behaving dogs would be withdrawn from use or receive correc- the deployment. Only in this manner can departments fully mon -
tive training. The court was also dismayed that the department itor the activities and results of canine usage.
had no procedure to investigate complaints once there were three In each instance of a canine bite or canine-produced injury,
citizen complaints of any type within a one-year period. whether or not it occurred in the line of duty, department proce -
8
dures must be followed. The model policy recommends that Searching a building for a suspect in hiding is one of the most
these include the following: a supervisor, preferably the canine useful functions of a law enforcement canine but also one of the
supervisor, should be summoned immediately to the scene. The most dangerous tasks that a canine team can perform. The
canine handler should examine the area of the bite to determine canine's keen hearing and sense of smell provide the dog with a
its seriousness. If no arrest is made, an offer will be made to the distinct advantage over officers operating in the same environ -
individual to provide medical care and treatment by a qualified ment and can greatly reduce the risk to patrol officers involved.
medical professional. If the suspect refuses such treatment or to There are many recorded incidents in which a canine has located
allow the officer to see the injuries, this refusal should be wit - a suspect in hiding after officers have searched the building.
nessed if possible by another officer and included in the incident Initial responding officers can take some steps prior to the
or use-of-force report. In most cases, an officer will want to seek canine unit's arrival that will enhance the dog's ability to conduct
medical attention for the suspect, even if the bite does not appear the search. The building should be completely contained and if
serious, so as to protect himself or herself and the agency against the use of a canine team is anticipated, entry should be avoided
future liability claims. If an arrest is made, the individual will be in order to reduce the possibility of contaminating the scent trail.
provided with medical attention in accordance with agency poli- The canine that enters a building in search of a suspect is seeking
cy on transporting and booking prisoners. the source of the freshest human scent left behind by the suspect
To more fairly and accurately document the seriousness of the on an object or in an area.
bite, a color photograph of the injured area shall be taken both Initial responders may also contact the building's owner or
before and immediately after treatment and attached to the supervisor to acquire information on such things as ventilation,
report. Many canine bites appear at first to be serious. However, building layout, and security system and lighting and to obtain
once the area is cleaned, the injuries are often far less serious than any necessary keys. Officers should also attempt to determine,
initially surmised. Before and after photographs of such injuries where possible, if there is anyone in the building other than the
can provide valuable documentation in this regard. To assist the suspect and where they are located. To the degree possible, these
officer in taking these photographs, a Polaroid or similar camera other individuals should be evacuated while ensuring that the
should be included in the equipment of each officer. These before suspect does not escape with them.
and after photographs are extremely important as they more The scent in the building will be affected by the building's air
accurately define the extent of injuries incurred. Taking photos conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems. If in use, the
both before and after medical treatment and cleaning of the canine may be able to alert to the scent but unable to locate its
wound also demonstrates the departments proactive stance and source. For this reason, heating and air conditioning systems
good faith in efforts to fully and accurately document the inci - should be shut down as soon as possible. Once the team has
dent. arrived, officers on the scene should brief the canine handler con -
The handler must complete a bite report and use-of-force cerning the number and description of suspects involved; their
report. These reports should answer all basic questions that identity, if known; any weapons involved; the suspect's proclivi-
might be asked during an adversarial investigation of the inci - ty to violence; the suspect's last known location and point of
dent. For example, the report should clearly define why the dog entry; and any other pertinent information that may be available.
was deployed; whether a prior warning was given and, if not, It is essential that a verbal warning be issued prior to releas -
why it was not given; what led the officer to believe that the sus - ing the canine in the building. Failure to do so is objectively
pect was dangerous; what factors led the officer to establish prob - unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 10
able cause; what tactics were employed and why; whether the Furthermore, failure to use such warnings will disqualify an offi-
canine was immediately called off when the officer could deter - cer for qualified immunity in case of a civil lawsuit. This warning
mine that the suspect was under control or not dangerous; and if should be: "This is the _________________ Police Department
the dog was leashed immediately thereafter. Canine Unit. Give yourself up or I'll release my dog, who is going
The report should be as detailed as possible to include the fol- to find you and he is going to bite you." 11 Even when using the-
lowing elements: detect-and-bark technique, there is the possibility that the sus -
• exact language of the warning given to the suspect pect may be bitten. Therefore it is recommended that the follow -
ing modified announcement be made: "This is the ____________
• elapsed time between the warning and release of the canine Police Department Canine Unit. Give yourself up or I will release
my dog who is going to find you and he may bite you." The
• elapsed time from release until the dog confronted the suspect
warning should be given from behind cover and in such a man -
• elapsed time between confrontation and the officer's arrival on ner, if possible, that will allow anyone inside to hear it. Use of the
the scene where the canine and suspect were located patrol vehicle's public address system is a preferred approach.
The officer should be precise in describing what he or she saw At the same time that the warning is given, the canine officer
taking place upon arriving at the scene and what measures were and other patrol units stationed at other locations should key
taken at that time. The officer should record any orders that were their radio transmitters so that the content of the warning will be
given to the canine and anything the suspect said at that time. recorded verbatim on tape at the communications center. The
The officer should also be as specific as possible about the man - warning should be read from a card so that the exact wording of
ner in which the dog was holding the suspect so that any prior the admonition will be proper and read in the same manner each
injuries to the suspect are not attributed to the encounter. The time. Under some exigent circumstances this warning need not
report should also include the circumstances surrounding the and should not be given if it will divulge police tactics that will
incident, the complete identity of the suspect and witnesses and eliminate the element of surprise. In a floor-to-floor search, the
any measures taken in response to the incident. warning should be repeated on each floor and a reasonable time
given for the suspect to surrender before the canine is released.
F. Building Search Procedures What is considered reasonable will depend on the size, nature,
9
and configuration of the building in question. Additionally, if ing process and in field deployment situations. They can also be
there is reason to believe that the suspect speaks a language other used as part of a transition process in which dogs are being
than English, an officer or other individual fluent in that lan - retrained to detect and bark. While some handlers and canine
guage should be summoned to repeat the warning and to remain trainers prefer not to use these devices, they are available as back -
on hand to interpret when the suspect is taken into custody. up to assist verbal commands.
When the canine team enters, the building's entrance and all exits The canine officer will also decide whether to work with a
should be secured and communications limited to that of a tacti- backup officer—a practice that is highly recommended. If used,
cal nature. the backup officer is usually responsible for covering the handler
The handler should determine whether to put a leash on the from all sides while the handler devotes his or her concentration
canine during the building search. Under normal circumstances to the activity of the canine and any signs of an alert. This is one
a canine will work better in this environment when unleashed. reason why it is important that all patrol officers understand the
However, if there is a risk to the dog because of the conditions working routines of canine units. They may be called upon in a
within the building, the handler may choose to work the canine given situation to work with a canine team in such a situation.
on a leash. The trained canine handler is best suited to make this For example, it is entirely possible that the canine could bypass
determination. The canine should not be used to search facilities the suspect in hiding because of irregular or inadequate scent
that contain substances potentially harmful to the animal unless patterns or for other reasons. Under such circumstances, the han-
overriding risk to human life is present. dler and the canine can be placed in great danger, and it is essen-
Officers should always wear body armor when conducting a tial that the backup officer be alert to this possibility. In low light
building search, and body armor is also available for use by conditions, the use of flashlights should be limited and never be
canines. If the handler expects to use it under tactical conditions, directed at the canine. The canine does not need the light, and
the canine should receive prior training in its use so that the ani- instead relies on sounds and smell to locate the suspect. As noted
mal is not hindered by the unexpected and unusual weight. before, except in exigent circumstances or where there is an
Under certain circumstances the use of canine armor may be imminent danger of death or serious injury, the canine handler
advisable. For example, some suspects under the influence of should keep the canine in visual contact.
narcotics have less perceptible fear of canines and have even been Should the canine alert, the handler must advise his or her
known to grab and attack them. Use of a collar can sometimes backup officer by using prearranged signals. Backup officers are
assist such individuals in their attack, as it is a convenient means essential once the suspect has been located because the handler
to grab the dog. If a decision is made to work the canine without cannot be expected to secure the canine and conduct a search of
a collar, the looped end of the leash may be used as a field expe - the suspect safely by himself or herself. Should there be more
dient collar or the collar and leash eliminated altogether. than one suspect, the availability of a backup officer is vital.
The model policy states that "except in exigent circumstances When the canine has engaged the suspect, the handler can
or where there is an imminent danger of death or serious injury, assume responsibility for controlling the dog while backup offi-
the canine should be kept in visual contact by the canine han - cers conduct the search and arrest, secure, and transport the pris -
dler." By exigent, the policy statement means that the situation is oner. The handler should never assume that there is only one sus-
determined to be of a highly urgent or critical nature in which pect. Anyone found during a building search should be appre -
immediate action is required. For example, a violent and poten - hended and then identified after the building has been complete-
tially armed felon who is in hiding in a darkened home or build - ly cleared.
ing and who may escape or cause serious injury to others unless When apprehending suspects, the canine must be command -
apprehended immediately would normally create an exigent sit - ed to disengage as soon as the suspect is subdued or readily com-
uation in which the canine should be deployed off leash. In plies with officer directions. Arrestees may not be transported in
searching nearly any darkened building where a potentially dan- the same vehicle with a police canine unless alternative trans -
gerous suspect is hiding, most canine officers prefer and would portation is not available and immediate transport is essential for
normally be justified in deploying their canine off leash. safety and security reasons.
The point to be emphasized in this context is the need for the Canine training should emphasize building searches using as
utmost handler control that is possible under the circumstances many different situations as possible to simulate actual tactical
without unnecessarily jeopardizing the officer's safety or that of encounters. If possible, arrangements should be made with the
others. Canines working off leash and out of sight in dimly lit or owners of local buildings to permit after-hours use of their facil-
dark surroundings or in some other situations are more likely to ity for training. The layout and flooring of the buildings should
inflict injury or more extensive injury to a suspect than would vary as much as possible. Canines should become accustomed to
normally be necessary to gain the suspect's compliance and con - working on a variety of floor surfaces such as tile, carpeting,
trol. Sufficient latitude should be provided to canine handlers to wood, and metal grating.
determine appropriate canine control strategies under various If the handler expects to be working with a backup officer, one
circumstances. For example, the recommendation of the model should be employed during simulation training. In all instances,
policy to keep canines under visual observation when off leash the training should be as realistic as possible. For example, when
would have to be foregone in situations of very low light or com- a decoy suspect is located, the scenario should be carried to its
plete darkness when the dog is working off leash. However, the logical conclusion to include the suspect's arrest, search, and
guiding principle should be to maintain as much control of the removal from the scene. The use of personnel who are unfamiliar
canine as is reasonably possible under the conditions at hand. to the dog and dressed in varied forms of civilian clothing will
To assist in controlling their canine, some handlers use so- add to the realism, as will the hiding of suspects in unusual loca-
called zap collars both for training during off-leash sessions as tions such as ceilings. Various exercises should include suspect
well as in actual tactical situations. These electronic collars can be searches, handler defense, re-attacks, and gunfire training,
used in combination with verbal commands to help in the train - among others, so that the handler will fully understand how the
10
dog will react under various conditions. the individual has passed.
Tracking is a complex ability that can only be perfected
G. Crowd Control through constant training and practice. Scent reacts in various
The use of canines for crowd control is a delicate subject ways depending upon varying weather conditions, the nature of
among law enforcement canine trainers and handlers, principal- the ground or surface on which the subject is walking, and other
ly because of the stereotypes created by the inappropriate use of factors. It is interesting to note that there are recorded incidents
canines to suppress civil rights demonstrations during the 1960s. in which canines have successfully followed scent trails up to
These incidents created a great deal of adverse publicity and neg - two weeks old. As in the case of building searches, there are
ative public opinion, much of which lingers to this day. actions that initial responding officers should and should not
The model policy prohibits the use of canines for the control take in order to make tracking easier for a canine unit. For exam -
of peaceful demonstrations. However, canine teams may respond ple, officers should remember where the suspect was last seen
as backup during a riot or other major unlawful assembly and and the direction that he was thought to be traveling and provide
may be held in reserve in the event that they are needed. Under the canine handler with as complete a description of the suspect
these conditions the dog may be deployed for crowd control with as possible. Officers at the scene should shut off the engines of
approval of the agency chief executive officer or a designee in their patrol vehicles and any other vehicles as soon as possible, as
order to protect life or property after an order to disperse has the carbon monoxide emissions from the exhaust will contami-
been made. In such situations, the model policy requires that nate scent trails. They should also avoid vehicle and foot move -
canines be "short-leashed at all times to protect individuals from ments in the area where the suspect or subject was last seen.
serious injury, and not initiate any offensive action, unless to Officers should not enter a suspect's vehicle, as it may be used
guard against imminent loss of life, serious bodily injury, or sub - as a source of scent. In like manner, officers should not handle or
stantial property damage." allow others to handle any items that were handled by the sus -
Law enforcement canines should be used for crowd control pect. Also, officers should not enter the immediate area where the
only with the approval of the watch commander during riot or subject was last seen for fear of contaminating existing scent
potential riot conditions or major unauthorized gatherings that material. And, most importantly, officers should make every
cannot be controlled by any other means, and then they should effort to contain the suspect within a given area, as this will make
serve generally in a deterrent capacity. In these cases, the canine the use of the dog much more effective. The model policy states:
should be under close control by the handler's side and should Canines used for tracking persons should remain on a leash of
not be released or permitted to attack unless the handler or sufficient length to provide a reasonable measure of safety to the
another individual is threatened with serious bodily injury or subject of the search without compromising the canine's tracking
death. Canines that are used in crowd control should be trained ability.
especially for that contingency and only the most controllable of
When tracking a suspect, the handler should normally use a
animals should be used in this capacity.
30-foot tracking leash and tracking harness. The harness, as
H. Tracking opposed to a collar, will not restrict the canine's breathing and,
subsequently, the dog's ability to track the suspect successfully. If
Another useful function of the law enforcement canine is
the canine must track for an extended period of time, the handler
tracking suspects and missing persons. In performing this func-
should check the dog's nose periodically for signs of dehydra -
tion, the dog can also discover articles of potential evidentiary
tion. In order to be prepared for this eventuality, the handler
value that may have been hidden or abandoned by the suspect.
should carry water in his or her vehicle or on his or her person
The model policy states:
for use by the dog.
Where trained police canines are available for tracking, they may When law enforcement canines are used for tracking suspects,
be used with supervisory approval to track missing persons or there is no guarantee that the suspect will not be bitten when
criminal suspects or to locate evidence that the supervisor has located, particularly if the suspect is in hiding, attempts to escape
reason to believe has been abandoned or hidden in a specified open from the canine, or becomes aggressive. Because of this, caution
area. Such searches are subject to the following conditions and must be taken when using law enforcement canines to track chil-
limitations: dren or other civilians who are simply lost.
When officers are pursuing suspects and contact with the suspect If law enforcement canines are to be used in civilian search
is lost, the officer, prior to summoning a canine team, shall capacities, they should be taught to track prior to any apprehen -
sion training. In this manner they can be taught that the success -
a. stop and pinpoint the location where the suspect was last seen; ful conclusion of a track does not automatically call for an attack.
b. shut off engines of vehicles in the area if possible; As an alternative to the use of the law enforcement canine for
searches, a police agency may contact the nearest chapter of the
c. avoid vehicle or foot movements in the area where the suspect National Association for Search and Rescue. Headquartered in
or subject was last seen. Washington, D.C., this organization provides fully trained canine
A dog is capable of distinguishing among many separate teams for purposes of locating lost persons. Canine teams from
odors where a human may not detect any scent at all. This abili - this organization have been used extensively with major success
ty allows canines to classify a single scent and to pursue that throughout the United States as well as abroad in the aftermath
scent to its source. A dog can follow either airborne scent or of major disasters.
ground scent, which in the case of humans is made up of various If local search and rescue teams are not available, a police
bodily secretions such as dead skin and sweat that are unique to department can request assistance through the Rescue
each individual. A person's trail is also made up of the scent of Coordination Center at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (tele -
crushed vegetation and disturbances on the ground over which phone 1-800-851-3051). Langley also serves as the coordination
11
center for inland search and rescue for all 50 states. The emer - treatment of canine injuries or accidents. A variety of excellent
gency management compacts that have been enacted with each publications and training programs are available for these pur -
state govern the extent of services that they may provide. Police poses. 12
agencies should contact their state emergency management When a handler is not available to care for his or her canine,
agency in advance of any need to determine what services are another handler may be designated or the dog may be housed in
available and how requests for those services must be made. a department-approved kennel. However, law enforcement
canines should never be housed in civilian kennels without the
I. Canine Care and Safety express approval of the canine supervisor.
The handler is responsible for the care and welfare of his or Teasing or agitating a police canine is strictly prohibited
her canine to include feeding, regular cleaning of the canine's unless it is done as part of a supervised training exercise. Neither
kennel and yard, general health inspections, and grooming. The civilians nor other police officers should be permitted to pet or to
handler is also responsible for ensuring that the dog is handled come into direct contact with a police canine unless it is done
and housed in a safe manner. under the direct supervision of the canine's handler and then
Regular cleaning of the dog's kennel and yard or exercise area only after the individual has been advised how to approach and
is important to prevent the contraction and spread of disease. touch the dog. The handler should decide whether to permit such
These areas should be cleaned daily and disinfected periodically contact based on his or her knowledge of the dog's disposition
with materials recommended by the canine supervisor or veteri- and history.
narian. Cleaning and disinfecting should also include the patrol When a canine is retired from duty, the handler should be per -
vehicle used by the canine handler. It is advisable for a canine mitted to apply for possession of the dog. If approved, it should
handler to have a take-home vehicle so that he or she can assume be with the understanding that no other dogs will be permitted
responsibility for its cleanliness and ensure that any illnesses the in the owner's house.
canine may contract will not be transmitted to other canines in
the agency. J. Canine Drug Detection13
The agency's trainer or veterinarian should advise the handler Drug enforcement agents and other law enforcement person -
on feeding and watering schedules as well as the type of food to nel commonly use drug sniffing canines at airports, at train sta -
be used. Grooming should be performed daily. It is a task that is tions, during motor vehicle stops, and in other situations to
pleasurable for the dog and one that fosters the bond between the detect illegal contraband. At airports, many federal circuit courts
handler and his or her canine. It also gives the officer a good and the U.S. Supreme Court have addressed "sniffs." The current
opportunity to examine the dog for possible illness or injury. state of the law authorizes such searches where reasonable suspi-
Such an examination should include the eyes, which should be cion exists. A gray area exists as to sniffs conducted in or around
clear and bright, and the surrounding tissue, which should be a schools, homes, or businesses. Regardless of the place of the sniff,
healthy pink color. There should be no swelling, discoloration, or it is clear that reasonable suspicion must be articulable in order to
discharge. avoid potential civil liability and in order to assure that seized
The dog's nose should be moist and cool and there should be evidence is not suppressed in criminal matters. Significant
no excessive drainage or discharge. Handlers should note any changes have been made in this revised version of the model pol-
sneezing or instances in which the dog paws at the nose. The ears icy with regard to the legality of canine drug searches. This is a
should be checked for excessive wax buildup, foul smells, or any continuously evolving area of the law and one on which canine
discoloration or discharge. The handler should take notice if the handlers and supervisors should remain up to date, particularly
dog shows discomfort or pain when the ears are handled. Where with respect to decisions of courts within their state and federal
earwax buildup is noted, the handler should clean only the inner judicial district and circuit courts.
ear flap and consult the veterinarian for additional treatment. Prior to discussing the law and tactics in various areas of
The dog's mouth and gums should be a healthy pink color and canine drug enforcement, it should be noted that many police
the teeth should be firm and white. The handler should check for agencies utilize canines other than those designated for seizures
damaged or broken teeth and excessive tartar buildup. in these capacities. Breeds that are inherently more gentle than
The dog's coat should be inspected for unusual hair loss, scab- German shepherds and Doberman pinschers, for example, can be
bing, reddening of the skin, flaking of skin, and the presence of used effectively for sniffing operations as well as for tracking. In
parasites such as fleas or ticks. The dog's feet should be checked using these alternative breeds, police agencies may be able to per-
for cuts and abrasions and the pads examined for the presence of form drug enforcement operations effectively without creating
rocks or other foreign objects. The toenails and claws should be an undue risk that the canine may bite a suspect or subject unnec-
checked to ensure that they are not too long and should be essarily.
clipped if necessary. The rectal area should be checked for red - 1. Airports. The lawfulness of using canines to sniff, nip, or bite
ness or swelling that might indicate the infection of the anal sacs at a suspect's personal belongings, such as luggage at an airport,
located on either side of the rectum. A canine that slides his has been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court.
hindquarters along the ground also suggests that such an infec - In United States v. Place,14 a traveler's behavior aroused the suspi-
tion is present. The handler may also take the dog's temperature cion of law enforcement officers as Place waited to purchase a
and check his heartbeat as instructed by a veterinarian. ticket from Miami to New York. The Miami officers alerted DEA
Stool and urine samples should be taken periodically as agents in New York to their suspicions and upon the suspect's
directed by a veterinarian. Any signs of illness should be report - arrival in New York, he was detained. The suspect refused to con-
ed to the unit supervisor as soon as possible. The handler is sent to a search of his luggage at which point the agents took the
responsible for taking his or her canine to the veterinarian for luggage to another airport where it was subjected to a "sniff test"
treatment and periodic examinations. All handlers should be by a trained narcotics detection dog. The entire detention of the
familiar with procedures that should be followed for emergency property lasted about 90 minutes. The suspect pleaded guilty to
12
possession of cocaine but appealed the denial of his motion to this issue. Two of the three (the Fifth and Ninth Circuits) have
suppress based on an unlawful search. The court of appeals held that such sniffs do constitute a search so as to require a war-
reversed the decision, holding that the prolonged seizure of the rant or reasonable suspicion.
luggage exceeded the limits of the investigative stop permitted The Seventh Circuit was the first to address the issue in Doe v.
by Terry v. Ohio15 and amounted to a seizure without probable Renfrow.19 In this case, school officials, city police officers, and
cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme their canines subjected the plaintiff and her classmates to a sur -
Court affirmed the reversal. Although it was ultimately deter - prise inspection in the classroom. The canines were described as
mined that the seizure in Place was unlawful, the U.S. Supreme being "led up and down each aisle of the classroom. Each student
Court articulated what would have been lawful under different was probed, sniffed, and inspected by at least one of the 14
circumstances. German shepherds brought to the school. When the canine
Specifically, the Court held that the investigative procedure of sniffed the plaintiff, it repeatedly pushed its nose and muzzle
subjecting luggage to a "sniff test" by a well-trained narcotics into her legs." She was immediately ordered to empty her pock -
detection dog does not constitute a "search" within the meaning ets and was subsequently subjected to a strip search in the school
of the Fourth Amendment. The Court based this holding on the nurse's office. No illegal substance was found.
fact that such sniffs do not require opening the luggage and thus The plaintiff brought suit for compensatory and punitive
are much less intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the infor - damages along with injunctive and declaratory relief against
mation gained by the sniff is limited and thus the owner is not school officials, the chief of police, and the trainer of the canine
subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience of more intru- used in the search, claiming a violation of the Fourth, Ninth, and
sive investigative methods. However, this ruling comes with sev - 14th Amendments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the constitu -
eral important caveats: the lawfulness of such "sniff" is contin - tionality of the canine search but found the strip search to be
gent on the existence of some reasonable suspicion of criminal unconstitutional. The plaintiff appealed to the United States
activity, and the encounter must be limited in its duration. A pro- Supreme Court and was denied certiorari. Nevertheless,
longed detention of a person's luggage may convert the deten - Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote a lengthy dissent
tion into a seizure requiring probable cause under the Fourth stating that he would have reversed the ruling. Other district
Amendment. courts are in accord. For example, a district court in Texas held
The issue of whether police dogs can be used to sniff luggage that individualized suspicion must be present to conduct a
not within the possession of a traveler (i.e., after it has been canine sniff of students and their cars on public school premises
checked in or before it has been claimed) has not been addressed during a regular school day. 20
by the U.S. Supreme Court but has been addressed by several A few courts have followed the Horton21 decision. Horton
district courts. In United States v. Bronstein,16 a police canine's involved a school's use of trained Doberman pinschers and
sniffing of luggage lined up on a conveyer belt following a flight German shepherds to sniff students' lockers and automobiles. On
was held not to be a search under the Fourth Amendment. In a random and unannounced basis, the dogs were also taken into
United States v. Fulero,17 a police canine's sniffing of air around a classrooms to sniff the students. In its finding, the Fifth Circuit
bus terminal locker was determined not to violate the Fourth noted, "The intensive smelling of people, even if done by dogs,
Amendment. Similarly, in a non-airport context, the First Circuit [is] indecent and demeaning" and held that the sniffing of stu -
Court of Appeals, relying on Place, held that a canine could law- dents by dogs was a search.
fully sniff a car that had been impounded by police because the More recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in B.C. v.
"olfactory genius of a drug detection dog does not infringe upon Plumas Unified School District.22 In that case the Ninth Circuit held,
the vehicle owner's Fourth Amendment rights." 18 for the first time, that a dog-sniff of students was a Fourth
The model policy address the foregoing issues from the per - Amendment search. The facts of this case are as follows: On May
spective of guidance on conducting searches in "public facilities 21, 1996, the principal and vice principal ordered plaintiff and his
and places" generally. The policy takes the following position: classmates to exit their classroom. As they exited, the students
passed a deputy sheriff and a drug-sniffing canine stationed out-
Police canines may not be used to sniff luggage or related per - side the classroom door. The students were then told to wait out-
sonal items in the physical possession of (i.e., control of or close
side the classroom while the dog sniffed backpacks, jackets, and
proximity to) an individual in a public facility or place unless other belongings that the students left in the room. The plaintiff
1. there is reasonable suspicion that the personal possession brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged sev -
contains illegal drugs or evidence of a crime, and eral deprivations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from
2. the time required to conduct the sniff is limited in duration. unreasonable searches and seizures and various state law claims.
Police canines may be used to sniff luggage or other personal The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the
effects of an individual on either a random or selective basis if the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant-
ed defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit
items are not in the possession of the owner (for example, on con-
veyor belts, in the possession of baggage handlers, etc.) affirmed.
The court began its analysis with the threshold principle that
Whenever possible, exploratory sniffing in public facilities a search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is
should be conducted with the advance knowledge of the facility prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. The court recog -
manager. It should be conducted without interference or annoy- nized that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit had
ance to the public or interruption of facility operations. yet addressed the issue of whether a dog sniff of a person is a
2. Schools and Students. Court decisions are conflicting on the search. The Ninth Circuit had in the past recognized, however,
issue of whether the sniff of a student's person or belongings in a that the level of intrusiveness is greater when the dog is permit -
public school is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth ted to sniff a person than when a dog sniffs unattended luggage.23
Amendment. To date, only three circuit courts have addressed The court held that the "close proximity sniffing of the person is
13
offensive whether the sniffer be canine or human" and that Similarly, in United States v. Solis the Ninth Circuit Court of
because the dog sniff at issue infringed the plaintiff's reasonable Appeals held that the sniff of the outside of a trailer situated in
expectation of privacy, it constituted a search. The court stated the parking lot of a gas station was not a prohibited search under
that to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment a "search the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the Court noted that the
must ordinarily be based on individualized suspicion of wrong - dog's intrusion was into the air space open to the public in the
doing." The court noted, however, that a suspicionless search vicinity of the trailer; there was no invasion of the curtilage; no
may be reasonable in limited circumstances where "(1) the priva- sophisticated mechanical or electronic devices were used; and the
cy interest implicated by the search are minimal and (2) where an owners had no reasonable expectation that the odor of drugs
important government interest furthered by the intrusion would would not emanate from the trailer.
be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspi- 4. Sniffs of Motor Vehicles. The model policy takes this posi-
cion." tion:
On that basis, the court evaluated the Quincy High School stu-
dents' privacy interests. Noting that students do not "shed their Canine drug sniffs of motor vehicles may be conducted when
constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate," the court con - a. there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the operator or pas-
cluded that the high school students' privacy interests were not sengers are in possession of illegal narcotics, or
minimal. From a government interest perspective, the court
noted that there was no record of any drug crisis or even drug b. the canine sniff is limited to the exterior of the vehicle.
problem at Quincy High School at the time of the search. In the The courts have upheld sniffs of motor vehicles conducted
absence of such a problem, the government's interest in deterring during stops on a street or highway. Such sniffs are valid if the
student drug use would not have been placed in jeopardy by the initial stop of the vehicle is valid and the detention period does
requirement of individualized suspicion. The court therefore not exceed a reasonable time. For example, in U.S. v. Morales-
ruled that the random and suspicionless dog sniff search of the Zamora,27 the cars of the various defendants were stopped at a
plaintiff was unreasonable under the circumstances. Based on roadblock on an interstate highway in New Mexico. The avowed
these facts, the model policy directs that: purpose of the roadblock was to check driver's licenses, registra -
The use of drug detection canines in schools is limited to situa- tions, and proof of insurance. In each case, while one officer was
tions where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that illegal checking the documents, another one walked around the vehicle
drugs are being sold, possessed, and/or consumed on the premis - with a drug-detection dog. When the dog alerted, the car was
es. Where reasonably possible, the school's principal or designat- searched and marijuana was found. The court upheld these as
ed authority should be contacted in advance of the search, and the valid stops, searches, and seizures. A somewhat different holding
canine search should be limited to inanimate objects where there was reached more recently in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of
is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Indianapolis v. Edmond.28 The Court ruled here that drug sniffs at
3. Sniffs Outside Residences. The law with regard to conducting vehicle checkpoints conducted for the primary purpose of detect-
a canine sniff search outside a residence is unclear from a nation - ing narcotics were not constitutional. Based on Edmond, police
al perspective. For this reason, canine officers should take heed of agencies should be sure that their vehicle checkpoints' primary
state and federal rulings within their jurisdictions to avoid civil purpose is valid (e.g., detection of intoxicated drivers, license
litigation and/or the dismissal of evidence in criminal proceed - inspections) and not a ruse for the unstated purpose of conduct -
ings. Based on the present status of the law, the model policy has ing canine sniffs of all vehicles with the primary intent being that
taken the following position on this matter: of drug detection and interdiction.
If drug-detection dogs are to be used in connection with
Canine searches of the exterior of residences—either individual
dwellings or the common areas of multiple dwellings —are not license checkpoints, three additional steps should be taken:
permitted without a search warrant or as otherwise permitted by • The checkpoint should be conducted in accordance with stan -
state or federal law. dard license check procedures.
In United States v. Thomas 24 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the • The sniff should be completed before the document check has
Second Circuit held that a "residential sniff" outside a suspect's been completed.
place of dwelling was held to be a search requiring reasonable
suspicion by the police. In this case, the police brought a canine • The motorist should not be detained while the sniff is complet-
to the outside of a suspect's house to sniff for illegal narcotics ed if the dog has not alerted prior to the completion of the docu -
after obtaining information from an informant. Such a search was ment check.
held to violate the Fourth Amendment "because of a heightened If a valid vehicle stop has been made upon reasonable suspi-
expectation of privacy in one's home." cion that drugs are being transported therein, drug-detection
However, the New York Court of Appeals specifically rejected dogs may also be used to sniff the exterior of the vehicle. In fact,
this holding and found that a canine sniff of the exterior of a res - in one such case, the Tenth Circuit held that the fact that the dog
idence does not violate the Fourth Amendment, in that there is unexpectedly and of its own volition leaped in the back of the
not a heightened expectation of privacy to the exterior of a resi - vehicle through the open hatchback and then alerted did not ren-
dence [emphasis added] as noted in New York's Dunn decision. 25 der the sniff invalid.
Yet the Dunn decision illustrates the divergence of judicial views 5. Trains. The practice of bringing drug-detection dogs onto
on this point. In that case, two members of the court felt that the trains has so far generated only a few court cases, though more
sniff of the residential exterior (and apartment) was not a search should be expected. Typical cases in the Fourth Circuit and the
at all, while two other judges said that probable cause and a war- D.C. Court of Appeals appear to establish, at least for those juris -
rant were required, and the fifth judge took the position that the dictions, that a sniff outside a train sleeper compartment (i.e., in
sniff was a search but that reasonable suspicion was sufficient. the corridor of the sleeping car) is not a search, and a sniff inside
14
an occupied sleeper compartment is a search 29 and requires rea- 20
Jones v. Latexo Independent School District , 499 F.Supp. 223 (1980).
21
Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District , 690 F.2d 470, 479 (5th Cir. 1982).
sonable suspicion. 30 Because of the scarcity of case law on this 22
B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999).
point, these views should not be regarded as settling the legality 23
See United States v. Beale, 736 F2d 1289, 1291-92 (9th Cir. 1984).
of such actions at this time.
24
United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2nd Cir. 1985).
25
New York v. Dunn, 553 N.Y. S.2d 257 (1990).
Assuming that a sniff conducted in one of the above locations 26
United States v. Solis, 536 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1976).
is proper, the next question is if the dog alerts, what action may 27
U.S. v. Morales-Zamora, 914 F.2d 200 (10th Cir. 1990).
28
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 99-1030, decided November 28,
the officers take thereafter? Once the dog has alerted, a search
2000. For a complete assessment of the impact of this case on canine sniffs of automobiles,
warrant should normally be obtained. As with other searches, refer to Policy Review, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer/Fall 2000, published by the Inter -
however, exigent circumstances may justify an immediate war - national Association of Chiefs of Police National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Alexandria,
Virginia.
rantless search. Warrantless searches always place a burden upon 29
U.S. v. Colyerm, 278 U.S. App. D.C. 367; 878 F.2d 469; 1989 U.S. App. The value of this
the police and prosecution to prove that such exigencies existed. decision is somewhat clouded by the court's further observation that even if in these circum -
Therefore, unless the circumstances are so egregious that waiting stances reasonable suspicion was required, the officers in this instance possessed such rea -
sonable suspicion.
for a warrant would result in almost certain loss of the evidence 30
U.S. v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1998). In this case, the officers brought the dog
or would threaten the safety of the officers involved, a warrant into the compartment with the consent of the suspect, who had however refused to give the
should be obtained. officers consent to search the luggage in the compartment. The dog alerted to the luggage.
The court held that a train compartment is similar to a motor vehicle and that under these cir-
It is also important to understand that an alert by a dog of cumstances probable cause was not required-a reasonable suspicion was sufficient to justify
proven reliability should itself be sufficient probable cause to jus- the search.
tify issuance of a search warrant. Several courts have held that an 31
See, e.g., Bouler v. Florida, 389 So. 2d 1197 (1980) (vehicle), and U.S. v. McCranie, 703 F.2d
1213 (10th Cir. 1983) (luggage at airport).
alert by a trained police canine of known reliability is sufficient to 32
See, e.g., U.S. v. Waltzer , 682 F.2d 370 (2nd Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 3543 (1983);
establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. 31 U.S. v. Beale, 674 F.2d. 1327 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. granted, vacated and remanded, 103 S.Ct. 3529
However, the proven reliability of the dog is a critical factor. The (1983); U.S. v. Fulero , 498 F.2d. 748 (DC Cir. 1974); and People v. Furman, 106 Cal. Rptr. 366
(1973).
prosecution should be prepared to introduce evidence of the dog's
past training and on-the-job performance to establish reliability.32

Endnotes
1
New York Police Department Canine Program, "Canine Handler's Guide," 24.
2
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct., 1865 (1989).
3
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct., 1865 (1989).
4
Mendoza v. Block , 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994). This project was supported by Grant No. 2000-DD-VX-0020 awarded by the
5
Much of the material in this section of the concepts and issues paper was adapted from Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
a paper on the use of police service dogs prepared by David H. Lawrence of the law firm The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, coordinates the activi -
Franscell, Strickland, Roberts and Lawrence of Pasadena, California. It originally appeared in ties of the following program offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
the Fall 1996 issue of Policy Review, the newsletter of the IACP National Law Enforcement the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
Policy Center. Permission to use this documentation is gratefully acknowledged. and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office of Victims of Crime. Points of view or
6
Chew v. Gates , 27 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994). opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official
7
"Scent: The Forgotten Evidence," narrated by William D. Tolhurst, Media Productions, position or policies of the United States Department of Justice or the IACP.
Lockport, New York 14094.
8
Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1988).
9
Kerr v. City of Palm Beach, 875 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1989).
10
Vathekan v. Prince Georges County, Maryland, 154 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1998).
11
Watkins v. City of Oakland , 145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1998). Every effort has been made by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy
12
Sheldon Rubin, DVM, and the editors of Consumer Guide , Emergency First Aid for Dogs Center staff and advisory board to ensure that this model policy incorporates the
(New York, NY: Beckman House, 1981). most current information and contemporary professional judgment on this issue.
13
This drug detection section of this concepts and issues paper is primarily the work of However, law enforcement administrators should be cautioned that no “model”
George J. Franscell, partner, and Ann M. Maurer, associate, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts and policy can meet all the needs of any given law enforcement agency. Each law
Lawrence, Attorneys-At-Law, Pasadena, California. See their article, "Court Decisions enforcement agency operates in a unique environment of federal court rulings, state
Provide Guidance on Use of Canine Units," in the October 2000 Police Chief , 138. laws, local ordinances, regulations, judicial and administrative decisions and col -
14
United States v. Place , 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). lective bargaining agreements that must be considered. In addition, the formula -
15
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868. tion of specific agency policies must take into account local political and communi -
16
U.S. v. Bronstein , 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1975). ty perspectives and customs, prerogatives and demands; often divergent law
17
United States v. Fulero , 498 F.2d 748 (D.C. Cir. 1974). enforcement strategies and philosophies; and the impact of varied agency resource
18
Doe v. Renfrow , 475 F. Supp. 1012, 631 F.2d 91, 635 F.2d 582 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. capabilities among other factors.
1022 (1981). States v. Rodriquez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780, 788 (1st Cir. 1991).
19
Doe v. Renfrow, 475 F. Supp. 1012, 631 F.2d 91, 635 F.2d 582 (1980), cert. Denied, 451 U.S.
1022 (1981).

15

Anda mungkin juga menyukai