Prior to August of 2000, no United States canine association, national law enforcement association, state law enforcement or state canine standard took a stance on recommending a training philosophy of “bark and hold” over “bite and hold.” The three largest United States canine associations, United States Police Canine Association (USPCA), North American Police Work Dog Association (NAPWDA) and National Police Canine Association (NPCA) did not recommend either philosophy. No state Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) recommended one philosophy over the other.
In August 2000, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) published their “Law Enforcement Canine Model Policy.” This was the first time in the history of police canine where a law enforcement association recommended a training philosophy of “bark and hold.” Their model policy stated “Training and deployment of police canines shall employ the ‘guard and bark’ rather than the ‘guard and hold’ method.” IACP has re-issued this model policy in September 2001. IACP still remains the only law enforcement association that has recommended a training philosophy.
In January, 2001, the United States Department of Justice published their “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity.” It contained “Examples of Promising Police Practices and Policies.” It addressed usage of police dogs:
Use of Canines to Apprehend Suspects:
The use of a canine to attempt to apprehend or seize a civilian is a use of force. Special precautions are required to ensure that such force is not used unnecessarily or unreasonably. A canine should be deployed to apprehend or seize an individual only where:
A) The individual is suspected of having committed a serious or violent felony;
B) Less potentially injurious techniques are insufficient;
C) And, unless it is precluded by officer safety, a verbal warning is given prior to deployment and a supervisor’s approval is obtained.
Agencies should train their canines to follow the approach of “find and bark,” rather than “find and bite.”
DOJ has visited several canine units throughout the U.S. They recommend “bark and hold” rather than “bite and hold.” While DOJ agrees that the sole issue in a constitutional canine deployment is the deployment making decision under Graham v Connor, they appear to be mirroring the IACP’s recommendations on “find and bark.”
At least one agency, Cincinnati Police Department, took objection to DOJ’s recommendation of “bark and hold.” As a result, DOJ backed down from the recommendation of “bark and hold” and allowed CPD to continue with their current “bite and hold” training philosophy.
This is the agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the City of Cincinnati, as it applies to their canine unit:
A. Use of the Patrol Canine:
1. An on-duty Canine Unit supervisor must authorize a canine deployment (canine released from the car or announcement made that canine will soon be released). The supervisor in charge of the scene will make the decision to deploy a canine team if an on-duty Canine Unit supervisor is unavailable.
a. The supervisor must respond to the scene.
b. The supervisor must consider all three of the following criteria, and ensure at least one of them is met, before authorizing an off-leash canine deployment:
1) Search of a commercial building:
2) Suspect is wanted for a crime of violence; or
3) Supervisor reasonably believes that suspect has a weapon.
2. On-duty canine teams may be requested to the scene by any unit believing canine assistance will be helpful, however, a supervisor (as defined above in A.1.) must authorize actual deployment of the canine. The approving supervisor shall not serve as a canine handler in the deployment.
3. The canine handler will:
a. Ensure the dog is secure in the police vehicle except when directly involved in a police function or the handler anticipates imminent use.
b. Canines will be kept on lead in areas where the public has access and contact is a probability, unless the animal is being used for a police purpose (see section A.1.b. above for off-leash deployment requirements.
c. Recommend to the on-scene supervisor the best tactical application and deployment of the dog.
d. If the handler’s SOP and the on-scene supervisor’s interpretation of the best tactical application and deployment of the dog conflict, the on-scene supervisor will contact the Canine Squad Supervisor. If the Canine Squad Supervisor is not available, in the following order, contact:
1) Park Unit Supervisor
2) Park Unit Commander
3) Special Services Section Commander
e. Canine handlers will only allow their canines to engage a suspect by biting if the suspect poses a risk of imminent danger to the handler or others or is actively resisting or escaping. In the case of concealment, consistent with the use of force policy, handlers will not allow their canine to engage a suspect by biting if a lower level of force could reasonably be expected to control the suspect or allow for the apprehension. Imminent danger means a suspect is armed with a weapon or other instrumentality capable of producing significant bodily injury.
f. In instances where a canine apprehends a suspect by biting, the handler will call the dog off at the first moment the canine can be safely released, taking into account that the average person will struggle if seized or confronted by a canine. Struggling alone will not preclude the release of the canine.
4. Tracking:
a. All tracking is done with the canine on-leash. A Canine team may be used to conduct a track if the suspect is wanted for a felony, a crime of violence or is reasonably believed to be armed. Whenever a canine team is deployed for the purpose of performing a track, a loud and clear announcement will be made that a canine will be deployed and advising the subject to surrender and remain still if approached by a canine, unless the supervisor authorizing the deployment reasonably believes that the suspect is armed and/or the verbal warnings will cause unnecessary danger to the officer(s) or others. If an announcement is made, the canine handler shall wait a sufficient interval between the announcement and deployment to allow the suspect to surrender.
B. Tracking guidelines:
1. No one will follow the canine team on the track unless directed to do so by a supervisor.
2. Canines will not search for other animals.
3. In extreme cases, canine teams may search for lost or missing persons. Before authorizing the use of a canine team, the incident supervisor must weigh the urgency of locating the person with the risk of the person being engaged by the canine.
C. Building Searches:
1. A canine team may be used to conduct a search of a commercial building. Whenever a canine team is deployed for the purpose of performing a commercial building search, a loud and clear announcement will be made that a canine will be deployed and advising the suspect to surrender and remain still if approached by a canine. The canine handler issuing the announcement shall wait a sufficient interval between the announcement and deployment to allow the suspect to surrender. If the building is large, the handler will repeat the loud and clear announcement as the search proceeds and the canine team reaches a different floor, or parts of the building where the initial announcement may not have been heard.
a. If a Breaking & Entering offense is discovered at a school, officers will investigate the nature and extent of the offense before requesting a canine unit. Many Breaking & Entering offenses at schools involve juveniles who engage in petty theft and/or vandalism. Conversely, some Breaking & Entering offenses occurring at schools are committed by adults intent on significant theft, such as computers and other valuable equipment.
1) Officers at the scene of a school-related Breaking & Entering offense will investigate to determine if the offense appears to be primarily theft-related or primarily vandalism-related.
2) Canine units will not be used to conduct a building search for vandalism-based Breaking & Entering offenses at schools. If reasonable suspicion exists that the offense is primarily theft-related, the canine unit may be used to conduct a Building Search, under the Building Search guidelines above.
3) If no reasonable suspicion exists to indicate whether a Breaking & Entering offense at a school is primarily theft-related or primarily vandalism-related, then canine units will not be used to conduct a building search.
b. Canine units will not be used to search a residence except in extraordinary circumstances.
1) The risk of innocent persons and pets being mistakenly engaged in a residence by the canine is too great.
c. Canine Units will not be used to conduct a building search on a Place Found Open (PFO) unless reasonable suspicion of a Breaking & Entering offense is present. If so, a canine team may be used under the Building Search guidelines above.
While the United States Federal Courts do not endorse a training philosophy, DOJ has based its findings upon the IACP recommendation. In the event DOJ investigates your agency for Civil Rights violations, canine handlers should be aware of DOJ’s recommendations.
The United States Police Canine Association (USPCA) and the North American Police Work Dog Association (NAPWDA) expressed several concerns with the IACP model policy in a meeting with IACP in August 2001. The IACP chose to ignore those concerns.
|
|
|