Shots Fired - Police and Prosecutors "Lose the Paperwork"

The public is entitled to safe streets. Without a doubt, one who will try to kill you or your children should be the first priority of law enforcement authorities. When the potential killer is a vicious dog, however, we are seeing unconscionable lapses on the part of animal control, police and prosecutors.

The latest story comes to me from Delaware County, Ohio. Last December, pit bulls attacked a man on the street and police had to shoot at them. They got away but their owner was identified. Police reports were filed but the prosecutor’s office said the same were not received. Then in April, the same dogs attacked a woman standing on her front porch and police had to shoot at the dogs again. This time, charges were filed — but too late to protect the second victim.

For all we know, there could be a good explanation as to why this prosecution did not go forward in December. At this time, however, the public has reason to question whether the police and prosecutors are performing at adequate levels with regard to dangerous dogs. The public needs to know that someone is monitoring the performance of the people who were entrusted with the safety of the community.

A couple of years ago, I was contacted by the family of Jennifer Lowe, a 21-year-old young lady who was mauled to death by pit bulls that savaged her for more than 30 minutes. It turned out that sheriffs had shot at the dogs in the past, the animal control department had declared the dogs to be vicious, but law enforcement officers then took no steps that would have saved Jennifer from her brutal fate. As a result, the renowned Tennessee lawyer Wayne A. Ritche II and I sued several parties including the County of Knox, Tennessee, because of the inactions of the Knox County Sheriff’s Department and Knox County Animal Control. Following a detailed judicial evaluation of the case, Knox County offered a confidential settlement which was acceptable to Jennifer’s family.

Since then I have been pursuing similar cases against the authorities in other areas of the country. The lesson that public officials must learn from these lawsuits is that they must take vicious dogs out of the hands of irresponsible dog owners and off our streets. The dangerous dog laws must be enforced. If the authorities fail us in this important duty, the victims will have their day in court.

About these ads

Police Bomb Dog Bites Handler"s Son, Mother Sues TSA and Port Authority

A police officer of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was a K-9 handler of an explosives detection dog owned by the Transportation Security Administration. TSA provides bomb dogs to state and local law enforcement agencies under the National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program (NEDCTP). TSA is responsible for training the dogs and their handlers, as well as for establishing search protocols used by the Port Authority. The Port Authority is responsible for providing handlers, daily care, and kenneling of the dogs. The Port Authority has a “Local Canine Training Manual,” which specifies that safe handling and control of the dog rests with the individual handler to whom it is assigned. Handlers are to report any problems with dogs, such as a dog that growls at the handler. Handlers can also contact the TSA training office for minor behavioral and acclimation problems.

Officer Newsham was assigned a bomb detection dog named Dini trained at the Lackland Air Force Base “Dog School.” (Official picture here shows puppies that will enter Lackland’s TSA program.) Officer Newsham received an “acclimation packet” from TSA and an “ouch letter,” which provided information on how to adjust the dog to its new environment in the handler’s home. There was advice on how to avoid dog bites. Dini spent nonworking hours at Officer Newsham’s home.

Newsham began to notice Dini jumping on bags during searches, a behavior considered inappropriate and aggressive. At the Newsham’s home, the dog did not interact well with the Newshams’ pet dogs. Dini began to be aggressive towards Newsham himself. Newsham took the dog to a military veterinarian for a semi-annual exam and described the aggressive behavior, but no action was taken. There was no protocol for the veterinarian to remove the dog from an assignment. Newsham also mentioned the behavior to his NEDCTP Coordinator, who perhaps should have been concerned in part because aggressive behavior, particularly in alerting, can be dangerous with bomb dogs coming in contact with explosive materials. (Some dogs are trained to recognize both explosives and narcotics, and some trainers attempt to use different alerts with the same dog when training it to recognize different categories of odors, but there is no mention of that here.)

The evening of January 7, 2007, Newsham was watching TV and his son and the dog were in the room. The boy was putting together a puzzle and dropped a piece, which both he and the dog went for at the same time. The dog bit the boy. The boy’s mother filed a complaint against TSA as the owner of the dog, alleging negligence and violation of the New Jersey dog bite statute, seeking damages.

The TSA noted that the NEDCTP has a policy that no one should pet an assigned canine other than the handler. Further, TSA allows local law enforcement agencies to board assigned dogs in the handlers’ homes but also to put them in kennels. The court found that NEDCTP officials had not violated program requirements, and held the TSA immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). State law claims could proceed against the Port Authority in state court, however. Newsham v. Transportation Security Administration, 2010 WL 715838 (D.N.J. 2010).

Dog bite laws have been applied to police dogs. See Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department, 691 NW2d 828 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2005). The circumstances here, however, are rather unique and the officer may share some of the responsibility since he knew the dog was becoming aggressive. It is not clear to me that having the wife sue on behalf of the son and leaving the husband off the plaintiff list will resolve this conflict if the matter comes before another court.

It would be unfortunate if a case like this were taken as indicating that police dogs should be kenneled while off duty. There is good evidence that a dog that lives and plays with its handler will be more obedient to the handler and generally a better police dog. This appears to be more important in achieving a good relationship than a long period of working together. Lefebvre, D., Diederich, C., Delcourt, M., and Giffroy, J.-M. (2007). The Quality of the Relation Between Handler and Military Dogs Influences Efficiency and Welfare of Dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 104, 49-60.

Police Dog Bites Are More Serious Than Bites by Pet Dogs and More Often Result in Hospitalization and Surgery

Do bites by police dogs differ from bites by pet dogs? Without having thought at all about it, I probably would have assumed that the difference would come from the fact a police dog is often trying to subdue someone who is running away, while a house pet might be inclined to bite someone playing too rough or too long, or doing something else the dog doesn’t like. There are other differences, according to a trauma physician who looked at records of bite victims of the Los Angeles Police Department K9 Unit form 1988 to 1990. Dr. Meade also looked at bite victims at the King-Drew Medical Center, an LA inner city public hospital.

Police dog bite victims were bitten multiple times 73% of the time and hospitalized 42% of the time, while domestic dog bites were multiple only 16% of the time and resulted in hospitalization 6.9% of the time. Police dog bite victims were male 98% of the time and female only 2% of the time, while with domestic bites the victims were male 69% of the time and female 32% of the time. Children under 13 were bitten by police dogs almost never (0.2% of the time), while 74.8% of police dog bites were of individuals from 13 to 29 years old. Domestic dog bites were of children 29% of the time and were spread more evenly across age ranges. Police dog bites involved angiograms 8.9% of the time and operations 4% of the time, while angiograms were rare (0.1%) in domestic dog bites, and operations resulted 2.3% of the time.

Police dogs in the study were generally of larger breeds, such as Malinois and Dobermans, weighing from 70 pounds up. The dogs were taught to bite down hard, using their full mouths, including incisors in the front and molars at the back in order to strengthen their hold on a suspect. They were trained to “bite and hold,” i.e., not to let go until commanded to do so. Officers generally allowed dogs to continue to bite suspects as long as they struggled and fought to free themselves. This is called “bite until passive.” There were other differences. Police dogs bite the torso or limbs close to the torso, while domestic dogs more often catch a hand. The figure above shows the percentage of bites by body area, with police dog bites on the left and domestic dog bites on the right.

There were racial patterns. Caucasians made up 41% of LA County under the 1990 census but received only 7% of police dog bites. Hispanics made up 37% of the county population and were 32% of police dog bites. African-Americans made up 10% of the county population, yet were 60% of police dog bites. The article did not look at deployment patterns of police dogs and contained no discussion as to the disparity in the ethnicity of police dog bite victims. Judges have sometimes questioned whether racial factors might be present in the use of police dogs. See the dissent of Judge Logan of the Tenth Circuit in U.S. v. Moore, 22 F.3d 241 (10th Cir. 1994), questioning whether sniff searches at the Albuquerque train station might have indicated racial profiling. See also Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 27 F.Supp.2d 1053 (N.D. Ill. 1998), where the basis of a civil rights action concerned possible targeting of African-American and Hispanic motorists for drug sniffs.

Peter C. Meade, Police and Domestic Dog Bite Injuries: What Are the Differences? What Are the Implications about Police Dog Use? Injury Extra 37(11), 395-401 (2006). DNA testing has begun to be used to determine if a specific dog was involved in an attack. This could be useful in eliminating the need for rabies vaccinations in some cases. Brauner, P., Reshef, A., and Gorski, A., DNA Profiling of Trace Evidence–Mitigating Evidence in a Dog Biting Case. Journal of Forensic Sciences 46(5), 1232-1234 (2001). Matching a dog’s mouth to bites is complicated as density of tissue and other factors can affect the bite pattern. See Bush, M.A., Thorsrud, K., Miller, R.G., Dorion, R.B.J., and Bush, P.J. (2010). The Response of Skin to Applied Stress: Investigation of Bitemark Distortion in a Cadaver Model. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55(1), 71-76.