Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability for Use of Police Dogs, 2007 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 101. [Jan. 2007].
     Police officers did not violate a motorist's rights in deploying a dog against him. The plaintiff reached into his vehicle after being asked to put his hands up, and the officer gave him a warning before releasing the dog. Further, even by the plaintiff's own version of the events, he continued to resist after the officers deployed the dog. Under the circumstances, the officers did not act unreasonably in waiting to call off the dog until the arrestee was properly secured in the police vehicle. Jones v. Wild, No. 07-6526, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18132 (4th Cir.).
     The force used against an arrestee, including the use of a K-9 police dog, were objectively reasonable. While his injuries were "severe," they resulted from his own actions in running away and hiding in a dark and densely vegetated swamp area to avoid being captured. Even if the officer were assumed to have used excessive force, he would be entitled to qualified immunity, as he had not violated any clearly established constitutional right. The court also ruled that the officer, having not acted maliciously or in bad faith, was not liable for assault and battery under Florida state law. Pace v. City of Palmetto, No. 8:05-CV-1221, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42407 (M.D. Fla.).
     Man bitten by released police dog failed to show either that city's policies on use of dogs were unlawful (despite their license on when an officer should issue a warning before directing a dog to bite and hold and suspect) or that there was a history of the city's officers unreasonably using dogs to apprehend suspects. Officer acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide such a warning. Stabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, No. 04-2538, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11602 (8th Cir.).
     Officers who searched the plaintiff's house without a warrant were entitled to qualified immunity because the information they had at the time of their entry indicated to them that a number of her dogs, seen and heard barking inside the apparently uninhabited, partially renovated house, lacking heat and electricity on a cold day, were in urgent need of assistance. There was no clearly established law as to whether officers could make a warrantless entry into a home to provide emergency assistance to animals. Shapiro v. City of Glen Cove, No. 05-3827, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12138 (2nd Cir.).
     Sheriff's deputy might not be entitled to immunity under Ohio law from individual liability for injuries his police dog inflicted by jumping on an 85-year-old woman causing her to suffer a broken hip. The incident occurred while the deputy was getting ready to leave for work, and when he left his dog off a leash to go relieve himself. Hicks v. Allen, No. 2005-A-0002, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 614 (11th Dist.).[N/R]
     A lone officer, who came upon an incident involving two people engaged in a fight, along with a third person who jumped into the fight to try to stop it, acted reasonably under the circumstances in releasing his police dog which bit one of the individuals. Moore v. Vangelo, No. 05-4309, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3156 (3rd Cir.).[N/R]
     The use of a drug-sniffing dog to sniff outside a motorist's vehicle was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, so there was no requirement that the officers get the motorist's consent before using the dog in this manner. The use of the dog sniff on the outside of the car did not change the valid traffic stop into an unreasonable seizure. Hugueley v. Dresden Police Department, No. 05-1348, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4922 (W.D. Tenn.). [N/R]
     Officers could be found to have unconstitutionally seized a man by ordering a dog to find and bite him when he was accused of minor traffic misdemeanor offenses, there was no evidence that he posed a threat to their safety, and he was allegedly not trying to evade arrest by running away. Additionally, the question of whether or not the officers were looking for this specific suspect was irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they seized him for Fourth Amendment purposes, so long as they acted intentionally, and his seizure by the dog was the result of their actions. Rogers v. City of Kennewick, No. 05-35300, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27064 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
     Officers who allegedly used police dog to subdue unarmed mentally ill suspect trespassing on a neighbor's property, who broke a window, were not entitled to summary judgment on a federal civil rights claim contending that this was an unreasonable use of force. The court was unable to determine, from the record, whether the officers used the dog because they reasonably thought the suspect was a threat to their physical safety after he engaged in what was characterized as lunging activity, or whether the dog was used simply because the man was non-compliant. Summary judgment was, however, granted to the officers on the plaintiff's negligence claim. Gander v. Wood, No. 05-6229, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74774 (D. Ore.). [N/R]
     Officer did not act unreasonably during plaintiff's arrest by shooting and killing his pit bull. Evidence showed that witnesses saw the dog growling, being aggressive, and advancing towards the officer, justifying the officer's actions. Chambers v. Doe, No. Civ. 04-415, 2006 U.S.Dist. Lexis 69965 (D. Del. 2006). [N/R]
     California appeals court upholds jury's rejection of arrestee's argument that use of police dog to find and restrain him was an unreasonable use of force, and trial judge's refusal to give jury instructions on deadly force, since the "use of a trained police dog does not constitute deadly force." Thompson v. Co. of Los Angeles, #B174594, 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 1278 (2nd App. Dist. 2006). [2006 LR Oct]
     Police chief was not entitled to qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment claim that he acted unreasonably in shooting and killing a family's pet dog while it was in their enclosed backyard, mistakenly believing that it was a loose dog that he had earlier pursued through the neighborhood. Andrews v. City of W. Branch, No. 05-1188, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18748 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
     Police officer did not use excessive force by using a dog to subdue an arrestee when the suspect was resisting the officers by kicking and thrashing his legs after having led officers in a car chase and then entered a private residence while under the influence of cocaine, opiates, cannabis and alcohol. Strickland v. Shotts, No. 05-1050, 155 Fed. Appx. 908 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Federal civil rights lawsuit by arrestee claiming excessive use of force in the use of police dogs to subdue him was properly dismissed without prejudice when the plaintiff used a false name to file his complaint. This prejudiced the defendant police officers by denying them access to any additional information that might be available under the arrestee's true name, and his true name was not disclosed until his testimony at trial. Zocaras v. Castro, No. 03-22034-CIV, 232 F.R.D. 694 (S.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
     Because city policy possibly allowed the use of dogs to catch and bite suspects without verbal warnings, summary judgment was improper in excessive force lawsuit brought by homeless man bitten by dog while lying on the floor in a shelter for public toilets. Officer controlling dog, however, was entitled to qualified immunity. Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, No. 04-2538, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26152 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR Jan]
     Police officer was not entitled to summary judgment in lawsuit by arrestee claiming excessive use of force in release of police dog, when it was disputed whether or not he received a warning before the dog was released. Court finds no evidence, however, to support a claim of deliberate indifference on the part of the city in adequately training the police dog. Rather, the evidence showed both that the dog was "extensively" trained, and that the city had no awareness of any alleged "vicious" tendencies on the part of the dog. Chatman v. City of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, No. 04-3630, 131 Fed. Appx. 18 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
    While city was not entitled to statutory immunity from liability under Minnesota dog-bite statute for injuries arrestee suffered when bitten by police dog, since dog-bite liability statute did apply to a municipality which owned the dog, the officer's decision to release the dog in order to make the arrest was discretionary, entitling the officer and city to official immunity. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department, No. A03-1707, 700 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. App. 2005). [N/R]
     Officer acted properly, while investigating a prowler call, in stopping the only car observed in the area, which had tinted windows obstructing his view inside, and he and another officer acted properly in attempting to conduct a pat-down search of a passenger outside the vehicle who was known to be a convicted narcotics felon. Appeals court fails to reach issues of whether officers acted lawfully, however, in shooting passenger, and in hitting him and using a dog against him after the shooting, in light of disputes as to whether he was actually armed with a gun and continued to pose a threat after he was shot. Holeman v. City of New London, No. 04-5031, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21213 (2nd Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
     Officer's shooting and killing of man's pet dog was not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The officer could have, under the circumstances, reasonably believed that the dog posed an imminent threat to his safety, based on its weight of 55 to 60 lbs, its speed in traveling 15 feet in five seconds, and the fact that it would have reached him in five seconds had he not shot it. While the dog owner did yell that the dog would not hurt the officer, the officer did not have to wait until the dog was within biting range before taking action to protect himself. Dziekan v. Gaynor, No. 3:03CV1486, 376 F. Supp. 2d 267 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
     Owner of dog failed to assert a viable constitutional claim in seeking damages for the loss of 60 days of the companionship of her pet on a theory that her due process property rights had been violated by the dog's detention. Plaintiff ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for making a "frivolous argument in a meritless case." Wall v. City of Brookfield, No. 04-313, 406      A police dog bite of a handcuffed vehicle passenger at the scene of a traffic stop was not a Fourth Amendment seizure, because the police officer did not intentionally use the dog to seize the passenger or direct the dog to bite him. Cardona v. Connolly, No. 3:03CV1838, 361 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officers and sheriff's deputy were not entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly seizing "truckloads" of personal property while executing search warrant at residence for the sole purpose of supporting sentencing enhancement in a pending case by proving that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was a gang, or for shooting two dogs at the residence. San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, No. 02-16329, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jun]
     Trial court properly set aside jury's award of $1 in nominal damages to a man bit twice by a police dog during an attempt to apprehend him. His persistent insistence during discovery that he was not the suspect that the police were seeking at the time, until he admitted during cross-examination at trial that he was, constituted perjury for which the denial of the jury's award was a proper sanction. Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, No. 03-2195, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4969 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR May]
     Jury could properly find that officer's use of police dog to detain suspect following high-speed pursuit of car was proper when he then believed she was a burglary suspect and was attempting to flee arrest. Exclusion of testimony of expert witness was not an abuse of discretion when his testimony would be irrelevant to whether the officer acted in a reasonable manner. Marquez v. City of Albuquerque, No. 02-2294, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3299(10th Cir.). [2005 LR Apr]
     The seizure and immediate euthanization of over 200 dogs and cats seized from a woman's trailer home and its attached fenced-in yard did not give rise to a viable claim for deprivation of property without due process of law when the county employees' actions were "random and unauthorized" under state law. This made it impracticable to provide a pre-deprivation hearing, and was not unconstitutional so long as there were available state remedies to compensate the woman for any losses. Bogart v. Chapell, No. 03-2092, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1650 (4th Cir.). [2005 LR Mar]
     Police officer who shot and killed a dog which had chased and pinned down a man in his back yard was entitled to immunity from liability under a Louisiana statute providing that an officer may kill any dangerous or vicious animal and shall not be liable for damages as a result of such killing. Hebert v. Broussard, No. 04-485, 886 So.2d 666 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Arrestee's conviction for resisting an officer did not bar him from pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit for alleged excessive use of force against him. Ninth Circuit federal appeals court, overturning prior ruling, adopts Model Penal Code definition of "deadly force," but leaves it to trial court to decide whether the use of a police dog against the arrestee was deadly force in this case. Smith v. City of Hemet, No. 03-56445, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 336 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Feb]
     A man who claimed that he was injured by a police dog because police officers were negligent in failing to control the dog and in allowing it to roam without a leash during a search for suspects could not recover damages in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Recovery for such injuries under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 can not be based on merely negligent conduct, and the plaintiff, who was not the suspect sought, did not claim that the officers intended to have the dog attack him. Cochran v. City of Deer Park, Tex., No. 04-20044, 108 Fed. Appx. 129 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for police dog's biting of woman who insisted on remaining in the middle of a volatile situation when police and the dog entered her house to arrest her son. Dunigan v. Noble, No. 03-1304, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24647 (6th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
    Minnesota statute imposing strict liability for dog bites on dog owners ruled non-applicable to police dogs in lawsuit brought for damages against police department by wife for police dog's biting of her husband during his arrest. Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department, No. A03-1707, 680 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. App. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer's use of police dog to stop and subdue motorist who fled on foot after resisting arrest while driving under the influence of alcohol was not excessive force under the circumstances. Tilson v. City of Elkhart, Indiana, 317 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
     Police supervisors were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on arrestee's claim that his rights were violated when he was injured by a police dog while fleeing from an allegedly stolen car. Supervisors could be held liable if they were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm to suspects from improper dog attacks based on knowledge of past incidents, and their failure to correct the problem through effective training or discipline. Rosenberg v. Vangelo, #02-2176, 93 Fed. Appx. 373 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to extend "firefighters' rule," barring landowners' liability for injuries firefighters suffer in coming onto their property to fight fires to injuries suffered by police officers in the course of performing their duties. Wisconsin police officer, therefore, was not barred from pursuing injuries claims against the owners of a loose dog which bit her. Cole v. Hubanks, No. 02-1416, 681 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
    Police dog's biting of bystander rather than pursued car theft suspect was not the result of any municipal policy or custom. No liability for city for alleged violation of bystander's federal civil rights. Roddy v. Canine Officer, 293 F. Supp. 2d 906 (S.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestee allegedly bitten by police dog while he was handcuffed and in custody did not sufficiently state a claim against the city or police department for inadequate training of its canine handlers when he failed to explain what training would have avoided his injuries. Additionally, it was undisputed that individual defendant trainer of police canine handlers did not instruct them that they could use the force of a police dog biting a handcuffed suspect. Viehmeyer v. City of Santa Ana, No. 02-56157, 67 Fed. Appx. 470 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Deputy's use of a police dog to "bite and hold" an arrestee's arm for approximately one minute did not constitute the use of deadly force and it was not excessive force when suspect was wanted for a felony offense of fleeing from police by driving a car in "willful disregard" for the lives of others. Miller v. Clark County, No. 02-35558, 340 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Dec]
     Family could not recover damages for loss of consortium or intentional infliction of emotional distress based on county dog warden's shooting of their pet dog. Loss of "love and affection" from death of dog was not the kind of damages family could obtain under Kentucky state law, the shooting did not take place in front of the family, and there was no evidence that defendant intended, by his actions, to inflict emotional harm. Court also refuses to find a practice of destroying impounded dogs by shooting them inhumane, leaving such issues to be decided by the legislature. Ammon v. Welty, No. 1999-CA-001759-MR, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2003). [N/R]
      Officers who themselves exercised no authority over police dog who was alleged to have repeatedly bitten unarmed suspect wearing only shorts could not be held liable, despite being present, allegedly observing dog biting suspect, and taking no action to restrain the dog. Further proceedings will occur concerning excessive force claims against the officer who allegedly unleashed the dog to subdue the plaintiff. Hinds v. Mohr, No. 02-6320, 56 Fed. Appx. 591 (4th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court holds that privately owned pet dogs are personal "effects" protected under the Fourth Amendment from unreasonable searches and seizures, but also finds that animal control officers' actions in shooting and killing the plaintiffs' dogs were objectively reasonable under circumstances where the dogs posed an actual or potential threat to the officers or others. Altman v. City of High Point, North Carolina, No. 02-1178, 330 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
     City's policy of providing training on the most likely situations and problems that could arise in the use of police dogs against arrestees was adequate, and not a basis for imposing liability on the city for injuries arrestee suffered from being bitten by dog. Holiday v. City of Kalamazoo, No. 4:01-CV-161, 255 F. Supp. 2d 732 (W.D. Mich. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     Officer's conduct in allowing a dog to continue to bite an arrestee until the suspect raised his hands as the officer ordered did not constitute excessive force, despite the fact that the suspect was in his underwear. Suspect's conduct in running away "inexplicably" from a minor traffic stop gave the officer reasons to be concerned for his and other officers' safety. Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on failure to give a verbal warning prior to using the dog, but appeals court does hold that they should have given a warning, and that claims against the city could be pursued for failure to require such warnings. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, No. 02-1081, 328 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     Sweep of high school for drugs with drug sniffing dogs by sheriff's personnel at the request of school authorities, combined with pat-down searches and a strip search of a student in a private room on the basis of individualized suspicion once a package of drugs was found were not unreasonable. Officers also did not use excessive force in allegedly choking a student to prevent him from swallowing a package of marijuana seeds, but their subsequent strip search of him in the school's parking lot was "excessively intrusive." Rudolph v. Lowndes County Board of Education, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for using dog to "bite and hold" suspect who had fled from the scene of a minor traffic accident in 1994, as was police chief who allegedly promulgated a "bite and hold" policy for the use of police dogs. There was no clearly established law at the time indicating that such use of dogs was an excessive use of force. Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth, #00-2498, 309 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2002). [2003 LR May]
     Building owner was not liable to deputy sheriff for dog bite suffered while attempting to serve process on a tenant in an eviction case. Landlord was not reasonably on notice of the presence of the dog on the building premises simply because of dog droppings in the yard. Landlord was also entitled to protection under the one-bite rule even if they knew of the dog's presence, when they had no knowledge of this dog's dangerous propensities. Montier v. Silver Lake I, L.P., #2001-514, 813 A.2d 978 (RI 2003). [N/R]
    Under District of Columbia law, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress could be based on officers' alleged unlawful entry into and search of arrestee's home without justification, killing of his pet dog inside the residence, and failure to secure the premises after his arrest, resulting in the loss of property alleged to have a value in excess of $6,000. Amons v. District of Columbia, 231 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court upholds criminal conviction of officer for violating suspect's civil rights by allegedly releasing police dog to bite him without any warning while he had his hands up, was not resisting police orders, and had not made any sudden moves. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of officer's alleged subsequent involvement in the misuse of police dogs, or in allowing the government to present rebuttal expert witness testimony that the officer's use of her dog in the immediate case was improper. U.S.A. v. Mohr, #01-5002, 318 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Apr]
     Mere conclusory allegations that the city had a policy of not adequately training officers in the use of dogs could not be the basis for federal civil rights liability for the city, in the absence of any evidence. Officer had objective reasonable basis for belief in probable cause for arrest for drug violation when dog located suspect during search for drug dealer, suspect possessed rolling papers, and friend with arrestee admitted he had been smoking marijuana. Collins v. City of Manchester, 208 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.N.H. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers acted objectively reasonably in forcing a diabetic motorist to a stop and forcibly removing him from his truck through the use of pepper spray, baton blows, and bites from a police dog when his erratic driving was serious enough that people might have been killed by it, and he refused to comply with lawful orders once he was stopped. Moore v. Winer, 190 F. Supp. 22d 804 (D. Maryland 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
     Police officer did not use excessive force in releasing a police dog into the woods to search for and hold a suspect when he had reason to belief he had already committed serious crimes, including threatening someone with a gun while intoxicated, and posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers and the public and was actively attempting to evade capture through flight. Neeley v. Samis, 183 F. Supp. 2d 672 (D. Del. 2002). [N/R]
     Officer's use of a police dog trained in a bite-and-hold technique to find and apprehend a motorist who ran away after what seemed to be a routine traffic stop was not an excessive use of force under the Fourth Amendment; motorist's fleeing gave officer some grounds to believe that more serious misconduct might have been involved. Officer did not know, for a fact, that motorist was unarmed. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 176 F. Supp. 2d 926 (D. Minn. 2001). [2002 LR May]
     346:149 California jury awards $400,000 to boy for unprovoked attack at age three by police dog running loose. Quiroz v. City of Richmond, Nos. C98-00553 c/w C98-02454 (Contra Costa Co., Calif. Super. Ct.), June 29, 2001, reported in The National Law Journal, p. B3 (Sept. 3, 2001).
     344:119 A police dog is not a "person" who can be sued for violation of civil rights under color of state law; federal appeals court also upholds enforceability of plaintiff's release agreement which barred his suit against officer. Dye v. Wargo, No. 00-3250, 253 F.3d 296 (7th Cir. 2001).
     [N/R] Officer was not entitled to absolute immunity for his alleged command to his dog to attack an arrestee after the arrestee had complied with the officer's orders to stand and place his hands on his head. Griggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, #00-7108, 232 F.3d 917 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
     339:36 African-American arrestees stated claim for racial discrimination based on assertion of city practice or custom of using pepper spray and excessive force against them based on race; alleged breaking of arrestee's arm, use of pepper spray against him, and biting by police dog during "unnecessary" subduing was conduct which, if true, no reasonable officers could have believed was warranted. Wilkerson v. Thrift, 124 F. Supp. 2d 322 (W.D.N.C. 2000).
     334:150 Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict in favor of officer who used police dog to subdue an auto theft suspect; plaintiff's two prior felony convictions, based on no contest pleas, were properly used to impeach his testimony; plaintiff was not entitled to an explicit jury instruction concerning "alternative courses of action" available to the officer or the officer's alleged "lack of probable cause" to believe that the plaintiff was armed. Brewer v. City of Napa, #98-16460, 210 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2000).
     334:155 New trial granted in lawsuit over police dog's biting of arrestee; prospective jurors who indicated, during questioning, that they would have difficulty in awarding damages for pain and suffering unless it involved a condition that the plaintiff would suffer from for life should have been dismissed for cause. Pacot v. Wheeler, No. 4D99-0269, 758 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. App. 2000).
     326:20 Police officers did not violate dog owner's property rights when they shot and killed her pit bull, which had just bitten a woman and was coming towards them and ambulance attendants in a menacing manner; city did not act with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's rights by limiting training to situations involving mad dogs with rabies. Hooper v. City of Detroit, 50 F.Supp. 2d 689 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
     328:52 Federal appeals court rules that the random suspicionless use of drug-sniffing dogs to sniff students in a high school was an unreasonable search, particularly when there was no "drug crisis" or "drug problem" at the school; deputy sheriff, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil rights violations because the law on the subject was not clearly established at the time of the sniff. B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, No. 97- 17287, 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999).
     321:135 Ex-boyfriend, under court order not to come within 100 feet of former girlfriend's apartment, had no legitimate expectation of privacy inside it; he had no standing, therefore, to assert a Fourth Amendment claim based on officers' warrantless entry into apartment to arrest him for violating order; further proceedings ordered on whether officers used excessive force in using dog against him. Washington v. St. Albans Police Dept., 30 F.Supp. 2d 455 (D. Vt. 1998).
     318:94 Jury awards $255,000 in damages to owners of pet dog shot and killed by officers in the yard of owner's home; officers claimed that dog jumped at them, while plaintiffs argued that dog merely stared at officers, was arthritic, and was unable to leap in the air. Fuller v. City of Richmond, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Cal (Dec. 30, 1998), reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, p. A15 (Dec. 31, 1998).
     316:53 Man bites dog--multiple times; federal court orders arrestee to pay Oklahoma highway patrol $2,263 for medical expenses of police dog he injured while trying to flee from arrest for cocaine offenses. U.S. v. Stemmons, U.S. Dist. Ct. Oklahoma, reported in The Natl. Law Jour., p. A23 (Feb. 15, 1999).
     316:52 Update: Federal appeals court reinstates lawsuit against officer for releasing a dog into a house suspected of harboring a burglar, when a resident had assured officers that no one was legally in the house; dog bite constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure. Vathekan v. Prince George's County, No. 96-2246, 154 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1998).
     313:5 Officer and police chief were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability in case where burglary suspect complained about overlong duration and extent of force of police dog's bite. Watkins v. City of Oakland, Cal., #96-17239, 145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1998).
     309:132 Mere presence of drug sniffing dog in children's bedroom during execution of arrest warrant for their mother did not, without more, violate children's rights; dogs did not sniff children or exhibit aggressive behavior. Matheny v. Boatright, 970 F.Supp. 1039 (S.D. Ga. 1997).
     306:86 Federal appeals court rules that use of police dog to subdue fleeing suspect was not the use of deadly force in absence of circumstances under which there was "more than a remote possibility of death." Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido, 126 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 1997).
     {N/R} Officer who shoved man to keep him out of the clutches of lunging police dog, causing a fall which allegedly caused injury, did not use excessive force. Palacios v. City of Oakland, 970 F.Supp. 732 (N.D.Cal. 1997).
     289:5 Federal appeals court rules that evidence of alleged unconstitutional policies concerning use of dogs against suspects was properly excluded during trial of claims against only individual police officers; further rules that, once jury found that no unreasonable force was used in this one instance, city and police chief were entitled to judgment on claims against them for alleged unconstitutional policy Quintanilla v. City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 1996).
     293:70 Officer was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for releasing a dog into a house suspected of harboring a burglar, when a resident had assured officers that no one was legally in the house; officer not liable for dog's biting of sleeping occupant who no one knew was inside Vathekan v. Prince George's County, Md, 935 F.Supp. 699 (D.Md 1996).
     293:71 Use of police dog to pursue and hold intoxicated driving suspect who was resisting and fleeing arrest was not an excessive use of force; officer did not know whether suspect was armed, and severity of his injuries were, in part, attributable to his own actions in resisting the dog Carey v. Cassista, 939 F.Supp. 136 (D.Conn 1996).
     {N/R} Also see: Shannon v. City of Costa Mesa, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 2236 (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished opinion, reported in table at 46 F.3d 1145, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 7342, cert denied 1995 U.S. Lexis 5511), (officers acted reasonably in releasing a dog when a suspect was "actively resisting arrest when he hid in the bushes and did not come out after the canine announcement"); Brooks v. City of Santa Ana, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 2236 (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished opinion, reported in table at 46 F.3d 1145, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 7342, cert denied 1995 U.S. Lexis 5511), (decided with Shannon), (law was not clearly established such that reasonable officers would have known that their actions in deploying a dog in a search for a felony hit-and-run arrestee, who escape from custody and hid in foliage violated a clearly established right); Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 875 F2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1989), (trial court properly denied injunctive and declaratory relief against city's policies on use of police dogs); Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F2d 909 (6th Cir. 1988), (circumstances of arrest of burglary suspect hiding inside a darkened building justified the use of a police dog who bit the suspect on the neck); and Fikes v. Cleghorn, 47 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1995), (use of police dog who bit fleeing suspect was not excessive use of force).
     280:53 Plaintiff's claims against police officer and against county should be tried separately when evidence of county's customs and policies, including past alleged incidents of police misconduct, would be prejudicial to officer's defense Dawson v. Prince George's County, 896 F.Supp. 537 (D.Md 1995).
     280:55 Arizona trial court erred in dismissing lawsuit against city for officer's use of dog in restraining arrestee; later amendment to strict liability dog bite statute did not apply retroactively to bar claim against city, although city had possible defense if force used was reasonably needed to effect the arrest Weekly v. City of Mesa, 888 P.2d 1346 (Ariz App. 1995).
     265:6 Federal appeals court rules that use of police dog to apprehend bank robber was reasonable; use of dog to subdue him did not constitute excessive force when he failed to submit to arrest and continued to struggle Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357 (9th Cir. 1994).
     269:70 Federal appeals court orders trial on whether city's alleged policy of using police dogs trained to bite hard and hold all concealed or fleeing suspects constituted a policy authorizing the unreasonable use of force Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994).
     Police chief and officers who established policy on use of dogs and trained dogs were entitled to qualified immunity from damages in suit brought by suspect bit by police dog during arrest; use of dog was objectively reasonable under the circumstances Chew v. Gates, 744 F.Supp. 955 (CD Cal 1990).
     Police department's canine policy admitted as evidence in excessive force suit Peraza v. Delameter, 722 F.2d 1455 (9th Cir. 1984).
     Unleashing dog on arrestee constitutes Section 1983 claim Luce v. Hayden, 598 F.Supp. 1101 (D.Maine 1984).