UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST CIRCUIT

DECISIONS AFFECTING:

CASE: GILL v THOMAS
83 F. 3d 537 (First Cir. 1996)

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) Driving on a suspended driver’s license.
2) Suspect Gill physically resists arrest.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT / DECISION FACTORS:

1) A misdemeanor crime.
2) Gill is unsearched and uncuffed.
3) Gill is actively resisting arrest by physical resistance.
4) The officer uses his police dog and mace to take Gill into custody.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) The Court concentrated on the suspect’s prior convictions being admissible in court.
2) The Court ruled that the use of the police dog and mace was not excessive force.
3) Since the main focus of this case was on the suspect’s prior convictions being admissible in court, there was no mention on how the court found the use of force, police dog and mace, was reasonable.

CASE: JARRETT v TOWN OF YARMOUTH
309 F. 3d 54 (2002) First Circuit

INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:

1) Suspect Jarrett was involved in a single vehicle, non-injury traffic accident. The accident was witnessed by police officers.
2) Jarrett fled on foot from the accident.

CANINE DEPLOYMENT/DECISION FACTORS:

1) Jarrett was wanted for hit and run, a misdemeanor.
2) One of the officers on-scene believed that Jarrett had possibly been involved in a prior armed robbery.
3) A police dog, under positive control (on-lead), tracked and located Jarrett.
4) The canine handler ordered Jarrett to stop fleeing or the dog would be released. (A verbal canine warning.)
5) Jarrett did not comply and ran away.
6) The police dog was released and bit Jarrett.

COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1) Officers should consider the type of crime for which a suspect is wanted when deciding what level of force is appropriate in apprehending a suspect. In addition to the severity of the crime, these other facts should be weighed:
• Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or others;
• Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. (Graham v Connor, U.S. Supreme Court)

2) The officer in this case was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for releasing his police dog on Jarrett. It was not clearly established in 1994 that using a dog to bite and hold a fleeing misdemeanant was excessive force. The officer knew Jarrett was probably a prior armed robbery suspect and the officer did not know if Jarrett was armed.

It is important to note the limited nature of the court’s ruling. The court agreed with the U.S. District Court’s ruling that the officer acted with excessive force by releasing the dog on Jarrett, a minor misdemeanant. Rather, the court found the officer acted reasonably under clearly established law in 1994.

3) Also, as of 1994, the law was also not clearly established that a police supervisor could be held liable for a “bite and hold” policy for use of police dogs in apprehending suspects on grounds that the “bite and hold” method was excessive force. As a result, the supervisor was also entitled to qualified immunity from liability.

4) Because the court held that both the officer and supervisor were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, the court found it unnecessary to address any other issues, including a claim that the “bite and hold” policy is unconstitutional.

5) Use of police dogs trained in “bite and hold” technique generally does not constitute deadly force, absent some demonstration that properly trained police dogs are reasonably capable of causing death.

Return to the Case Law Index

Return to the Home Page