You are on page 1of 15

IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center

Law Enforcement Canines
Concepts and Issues Paper Originally Published: May 1992 Revised: September 2001 I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Document This paper is designed to accompany the Model Policy on Law Enforcement Canines published by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. This paper provides essential back ground material and supporting documentation to provide greater understanding of the developmental philosophy and implementation requirements for the model policy. This material will be of value to law enforcement executives in their efforts to tailor the model to the requirements and circumstances of their communities and their law enforcement agencies. This revision of the concepts and issues paper provides additional information on the issues of deployment, canines as a use of force, the legality of canine sniffs when employed in various contexts, and additional information not provided in the original paper. B. Background Most law enforcement historians agree that the first official use of canines for police service took place in Ghent, Belgium, in the 1890s. In the United States, the New York Police Department began an experimental police canine program in 1907, with dogs imported from Belgium. Used primarily in affluent neighbor hoods, the dogs were very effective in reducing burglaries and related crimes. However, as one might expect, the experimental program employed some rather unusual training methods and techniques compared to modern day police canine use and train ing. One observer noted for example that during the first few weeks of training, the dogs were taught that any person in uni form was friendly and that all others were potential enemies. More interestingly, the dogs were taught to wrap their legs around one of the suspect's legs and to hold tightly in order to throw the person to the ground. Thereupon the dog was instructed to pounce on the suspect and bark until police officers arrived.1 Since that time, the training of police canines has improved dramatically, and the role of these animals has also expanded to include their use in searching for and apprehending suspects, providing support for patrol officers, and detecting drugs and explosives. Law enforcement canines are now also being trained to assist in the investigation of fires of suspicious origin by detecting trace elements of accelerants used in arson. One particular program of this type developed by the canine division of the Connecticut State Police allows arson investigators to save time and expense in the investigation of suspicious fires. Law enforce ment canines are now also used to discover human bodies —a unique specialty that is highly useful in the aftermath of natural or manmade disasters and in homicide investigations. Their success has been widely documented in situations involving deceased victims in the wilderness, earthquake victims, even drowning victims who are still submerged under water. One canine trained to find human bodies was even successful in locating human remains that were estimated to be 175 years old. Other uses for law enforcement canines continue to be explored that capitalize on their acute sense of smell and hearing and their unique enthusiasm for working with their handlers.

II. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Canine Deployment This revision of the Model Policy on Law Enforcement Canines provides additional guidance on the deployment of canines to apprehend suspects that was not available in the original policy on this subject. To begin with, the policy states that "the deploy ment of a police canine for the location and apprehension of a suspect is a use of force that must be consistent with this agency's principles of escalation and deescalation of force." To understand this position and those that follow from it, it is important to clarify a question that has been widely debated by both the courts and police agencies for a number of years: Is the deployment of a police canine a use of deadly force? To a large degree this question was answered in 1998 by a decision from the Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido [139 F.3d, 659, 663 (9th Cir. 1998)]. The court said in their holding that as we read Garner [i.e., Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)] deadly force is that force which is reasonably likely to cause death. . . . Vera Cruz presented no evidence that properly trained police dogs are reasonably capable of causing death. . . In fact, Vera Cruz presented no evidence at trial that police dogs can kill under any circumstances. . . . Nevertheless, we will 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 aberration doesn't convert otherwise non-deadly force into deadly force. As the Vera Cruz opinion pointed out, there is at least one known case in which a police canine did kill a suspect. This was documented in Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (6th Circuit, 1988). The Robinette court held that the use of the dog did not amount to deadly force because the outcome was "an extreme aberration." The Vera Cruz case provides law enforcement with a strong precedent in any future civil litigation in which a suspect alleges that the use of a police canine constituted "deadly force." This may affect the drafting of a department's policy concerning the use of canines, especially in jurisdictions within the Ninth Circuit. Notwithstanding the significance of Vera Cruz to law enforcement canine operations, a word of caution is in order. The findings of this case should not be regarded as a license to employ canines indiscriminately or a guarantee that the use of canines will never be held to constitute the use of deadly force. The case merely holds that the plaintiff in this particular litigation failed to introduce sufficient evidence to convince the court that the use of a canine in this instance "posed more than a remote possibility of death" to the plaintiff. Should a plaintiff in any sub sequent litigation be able to present such evidence, a contrary result might be reached. This issue speaks directly to the matter of establishing and adhering to legally acceptable canine deployment policy and procedures. It also has direct bearing on training of police canines—a matter that will be discussed later in this paper. Further, it must be remembered that the case is binding authority only within the Ninth Circuit notwithstanding the significant precedent that it establishes. Nonetheless, the Vera Cruz decision may be regarded as an important decision and one favorable to police canine units in particular and law enforcement in general. As noted, Vera Cruz has direct bearing on when and under what circumstances a police canine can be deployed. If the use of a police canine to find and hold a suspect were indeed "deadly force," according to the aforementioned Garner deadly force analysis, then the use of police canines would have to be limited 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 others. As stated in Garner, canines could be deployed only "where the suspect 'threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.'" Such a requirement would impose serious restrictions on the use of police canines and their utility to law enforcement. If the use of a canine is not considered deadly force governed by Garner, what then is the criterion that an officer should use in order to determine when deployment of a canine is warranted? It is not possible to answer this in other than a general way as par ticular circumstances and scenarios may dictate on-scene deci sions that cannot be fully anticipated by any formal policy. But the courts have provided enough general guidance that some overall criteria can and should be established by individual police agencies. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a new test to be used by courts in determining whether the police have used excessive force. In Graham v. Connor,2 the Court established that uses of force by police officers should be judged under a sin gle standard requiring the fact finder to determine whether the officer acted in an objectively reasonable manner given all the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time. 2

This is an objective standard that is not concerned with the underlying motivation or intent of the officer(s) involved. It applies equally to the deployment of police canines and to other uses of force. If an officer is not permitted to employ force under Connor, the deployment of the officer's canine in the same situa tion is also impermissible. The Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to embrace this notion, espoused under Graham v. Connor3 in the first post- Graham canine/excessive force case, Mendoza v. Block. In that decision, the court stated, "This [objec tively reasonable] analysis applies to any arrest situation where force is used, whether it involves physical restraint, use of a baton, use of a gun, or use of a dog" (emphasis added). 4 In light of the foregoing information, 5 the model policy provides a number of recommendations designed to give some spe cific operational guidance to officers in making decisions on the appropriate deployment of canines: The deployment of a police canine for the location and apprehen sion of a suspect is a use of force that must be consistent with this agency's principles of escalation and de-escalation of force. Force used by police officers should not exceed what is objectively reasonable to bring a situation under control, whether that is the use of pepper aerosol spray, Taser®, stun gun, baton, canine, firearm, or other device or means. Officers need not exhaust every lesser force alternative before employing a higher level of force, nor should they continue to employ that higher level of force if a lesser force option becomes a reasonable alter native. Deployment of a police canine should be regarded as any other tool in the police officer's use-of-force arsenal. On a "con tinuum of force," deployment of a police canine should be con sidered a force option below that of deadly force and about equal to such less-lethal tools as the baton, stun gun, and carotid neck restraint. Decisions to deploy a canine shall be based upon the following [three factors as established under Graham]: a. the severity of the crime; b. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and c. whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest at the time. Deployment of a police canine constitutes the use of a high level of force that should be reserved for situations that justify this response alternative. The bite of a police canine will normally cause injury to the suspect and can cause significant injury. Therefore, deployment of canines should not be performed on a routine or casual manner without objectively reasonable grounds. Evidence of one or more of the foregoing factors pro vides greater justification for the deployment of a canine. One court case exemplifies this fact, as follows. The Graham test was used in deciding a significant canine useof-force case in California and has had a significant impact on decisions made in other federal and state courts. In the California case Chew v. Gates,6 the plaintiff was stopped for a traffic violation but fled on foot into a large junkyard where he hid for over two hours. While looking for the suspect, police discovered that he had three outstanding felony warrants. Several police canines were called in to search for the suspect, who was found hiding in a crouched position between two large trash bins. In the process of seizing the suspect, a police canine inflicted serious injuries to the suspect's arm and side. The suspect sued under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 of the Civil Rights Act, contending that the seizure and injuries received constituted an excessive use of force. In deciding this case, the court applied the three-pronged Graham test to the circumstances of the arrest and found that the decision to use dogs to locate and apprehend the suspect was justified. First, the crime that prompted the plaintiff's arrest was serious. Although police initially stopped the suspect for a traffic violation, his three outstanding felony warrants constituted a serious offense. Second, the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officers' safety as he had not been searched for weapons, could have been armed, and was hiding in a large area. Third, the suspect's flight from police after the initial stop and his history of evasion —as evidenced by the outstanding felony warrants — demonstrated that the suspect was actively resisting arrest. Upon application of the factors enunciated in Graham, it was clear to the court that the circumstances of the suspect's arrest exposed the police officers to a high degree of risk that justified a greater use of force. Therefore, the manner in which the police dog was used to arrest the plaintiff did not, under the circum stances, infringe upon the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Department policies and the training of handlers to use their canines in detect-and-hold situations should be based on the three-pronged Graham test to determine whether they are justified in exposing a suspect to injury by the pursuing dog. Adoption of this policy and systematic training of officers in its application will help to demonstrate that a department is not "deliberately indifferent" to exposing suspects to such injury. Another means of protecting against use-of-force litigation in canine deployment is to train and deploy canines to "detect and bark" rather than to "detect and hold." This issue will be dis cussed more fully later in this paper. The model policy provides examples of situations in which the deployment of a canine may be justified under the foregoing terms. These justifiable deployments include but are not limited to the following: • conducting building searches for what are believed to be serious felony or armed misdemeanor suspects in hiding • assisting in the arrest or prevention of the escape of serious or violent offenders • protecting officers or others from death or serious injury • engaging in assignments not listed here with the approval of the canine team supervisor Situations that may justify the deployment of a canine are those involving serious offenses and offenders and situations in which an officer's safety or that of other persons may be at risk. However, this does not preclude a canine team from responding to other calls for service where these risk factors are not evident. This is frequently necessary in situations where patrol personnel are limited in number and/or when there is an unusually high volume of calls for service. Most agencies do not have the luxury of dedicating canine teams for use only in serious criminal situa tions and incidents. Normally, law enforcement agencies must call upon canine teams to respond to routine calls for service and misdemeanor incidents. But, the model policy points out, "a canine team may be used to respond to minor complaint situa tions but the canines should not be deployed." In addition to the foregoing, the model policy also directs that canine teams should not be used to apprehend anyone suspected to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol if no other crime is 3

involved, nor the mentally disturbed if no crime is involved. Persons who suffer from mental illness may not have the ability to comprehend the threat associated with the deployment of a law enforcement canine against them. They may fail to comply with orders of the canine handler or may act in an inappropriate or bizarre manner that serves as a signal to the canine to take or continue aggressive action beyond that which would be typically necessary. Much of the same can be said of persons who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Some persons who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs (particularly drugs like PCP) have a much higher threshold of pain and may continue resistance that results in greater injury than would otherwise be expected. Of course, officers cannot always be aware of the mental state of an individual or whether he or she is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. And even when this information is available, it may be necessary at times to deploy a canine when the severity of the crime warrants this action and alternative measures are either not available or inadequate to gain control of the suspect. Canine handlers should also exercise extra care when deploy ment is being considered in the case of a juvenile subject. The age of a subject is often difficult to determine, but if the officer is aware or should be aware that he or she is dealing with a juve nile, he or she should consider alternatives to the deployment of a canine. Finally, with regard to deployment, canine handlers should secure their canine as soon as possible once a suspect has been located and taken into custody in order to guard against unnec essary injury or charges that the dog was used in an intimidating or threatening manner to coerce a confession. B. Canine Team Utilization The model policy recommends that canine handlers be available 24 hours a day so all shifts can benefit from the canine's specialized capabilities. Those agencies with an adequate comple ment of canine teams can spread their availability across all shifts, but those that do not must make decisions as to appropriate usage and deployment. There are two basic approaches to meeting this need. First, agencies may recruit canine officers with the under standing that they will be required to be available for off-duty recall. In these circumstances, canine handlers are normally provided with pagers or cell phones so that they may be contacted quickly and easily. Many agencies also provide them with a patrol or other vehicle equipped for canine transportation whether or not the agency has a take-home car policy for all patrol personnel. For off-duty recall of canine teams to work effectively, agen cies must make certain that overtime work in a duty capacity complies with the regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The act requires overtime pay for overtime work, and officers may not waive their right to such compensation even if they choose to do so. Therefore, law enforcement agencies that use their canine teams on a recall basis must be prepared to compensate their officers for any overtime that they perform. In addition, whenever canine teams or other tactical officers are assigned on a recall basis, certain limitations on their use must be implemented to ensure that the officers and their canines receive an ade quate amount of rest and relaxation to perform their duties effectively. Second, agencies may choose to limit canine team use to spe -

cific shifts or timeframes. The choice of specific time periods or shifts should be based on an assessment of the volume and nature of calls for service in which canine units might be utilized. Shift assignments should also be made based on a recognition that the sensory abilities of police canines are used to their best advantage at night. It is important for all personnel to recognize that a canine team is a specialized unit that should not be used for routine and minor calls. A canine team that is involved in an incident where it is not needed reduces its utility for other officers who may have legitimate need. This is not to say that canine teams operating in a patrol capacity should limit their activities only to those situa tions where the canine can be deployed. As the model policy makes clear, when the team is not involved in an incident where the canine is being used, the team should be available to respond to calls for service and other enforcement activity even if deploy ment of the canine is not warranted. Generally, a patrol unit will make an initial request for the assistance of a canine team through a supervisor or the communications center. This request should then be relayed to an available canine team or a recall issued to an off-duty canine team. In the process, the responding team should be provided with as much information about the incident as is available. The initial responding unit should brief the canine officer upon arrival. In the event the handler decides that the canine should not be deployed, this decision should be explained to the on-scene supervisor. If agreement cannot be reached concerning the canine's use, the canine supervisor should be summoned. Normally, supervisory officers will defer to the canine officer's judgment, but the supervisor should have the final word in any difference of opinion. A record of any difference of opinion regarding the tactical deployment of a canine should be entered into the handler's log. The handler's log is an important repository that should also include training records and certification and re-certification data, bite memos and recall memos, medical records, awards and certificates, and other information as desig nated by the canine supervisor. According to the model policy, "Where a tactical deployment is justified by agency policy, the tactical measures used shall be at the discretion of the canine handler and must be objectively rea sonable." The decision to deploy a canine is rarely a subject of debate between trained and experienced canine handlers and supervisors. Assuming that the issue of whether to deploy is not in question, the canine handler is the best-qualified individual to decide how to deploy and manage the canine. On this matter the canine handler should have full control as long as the decisions made are objectively reasonable. In spite of a police canine's training, nearly all canines have strengths and weaknesses that only their handler and unit supervisor can fully appreciate. This fact provides most of the justification for the subsequent model policy recommendation: Police canines shall not normally be handled or given commands by anyone other than the assigned handler. Only under emer gency conditions shall another handler command the canine. The bond and working relationship that is established between a handler and his or her canine is what makes the canine team so effective, but it takes considerable time to establish. This is just one reason why it is recommended that canines be housed at the handler's home rather than at a boarding location. While the closeness between handler and canine is what establishes a good team, it can also serve to create a canine that responds most 4

effectively to only the primary handler. This bond is so close that there have been instances in which canines had to be destroyed before someone could administer medical assistance to the injured handlers who the canines were protecting. In ending the discussion on deployment it should be noted that misunderstandings concerning the use and tactical deploy ment of a canine team could largely be avoided by familiarizing all law enforcement personnel within the department about the capabilities and limitations of canine units. One well-known trainer refers to this as being "scent oriented." 7 Law enforcement personnel who are unfamiliar with the capabilities and appropriate use of canine teams either will not avail themselves of this valuable resource when necessary or will make inappropriate requests for or judgments about such teams. For example, offi cers who are unfamiliar with the practices and techniques of canine teams are also not adequately trained to work with such teams in backup or support capacities when necessary. Such officers may also unwittingly contaminate valuable scent material at crime scenes and thereby hamper a canine's efforts to track a suspect or perform other functions. Officer introductions to basic canine operations should be made at the career entry level. However, greater insight into the operation, skill, and capabilities of these teams can be gained through roll call training by canine personnel and other training that may be available and authorized by the canine supervisor. C. Canine Handler Selection Selecting a qualified handler is vitally important in develop ing an effective and reliable canine unit. A canine officer and his or her dog must operate as a team. If the officer reveals charac teristics that would inhibit or prevent him or her from working with the canine in a positive, uninhibited, and constructive man ner, that officer should be excluded from further consideration. The prospective canine handler's work record is an important indicator of past performance and should be examined closely. Performance appraisals, awards and citations, and any addition al achievements of the officer should be taken into consideration. Likewise, the frequency and nature of citizen complaints should be examined, particularly any that may be related to excessive use of force. Additionally, interviews should be conducted with the officer's most recent supervisors. Each candidate should appear before an oral board composed of the canine unit com mander and a supervisor and at least one experienced canine handler. The board should make determinations concerning the candidate in the following areas, at a minimum: Attitude. Of course, the officer should enjoy being around dogs and have no intrinsic fear of them. The officer's attitude is important since the dog can sense its handler's responsiveness and will react to those feelings. Patience. Canine training requires a great deal of repetition and reinforcement. If the prospective handler is impatient and prone to lose his or her temper, the officer will be ineffectual in canine training. The dog works to please his handler and responds to the handler's praise as an essential part of his reward. Physical Condition. Canine officers are frequently required to exert substantial physical effort in training and working their canine in the field. Prospective canine handlers should be in good health and excellent physical condition. Dependability. The handler is responsible for the overall welfare of his or her dog to include daily grooming and feeding and health care. The prospective handler must be willing to devote this addi-

tional time and effort to these and related tasks. A potential canine handler must also be willing to commit at least three years to his assignment as a canine officer. The time and expense involved in training a handler makes such a commitment neces sary. Many law enforcement agencies require an even longer commitment and some professionals make a case for assignment of an officer to the canine unit for the working life of the dog. If the dog does not retrain well with a new handler, the time and money devoted to training the dog is lost. Also, the longer an officer spends in the assignment, the more proficient the officer and canine become in working as a team. The model policy provides additional advice concerning the requirements for and selection of a canine handler. For example, the policy states that the prospective canine handler should have a minimum of three years of experience as a police officer in a patrol or other enforcement capacity. This will provide the officer with a good working knowledge of the law as well as police procedure and tactics. Some police departments require a greater period of service to qualify for a canine assignment and can make a good argument for these more demanding requirements. The prospective handler must also occupy a dwelling that will accommodate the dog, to include a fenced yard or contained area that meets security requirements and a kennel with a run ade quate to house the dog. Some law enforcement agencies, because of liability concerns, choose to house their canines in kennels operated by the department or by approved private concerns. Liability can be a legitimate concern, for example, where a canine bites or attacks a family member or guest in the handler's home. Such cases exist, but are most often due to careless handling by the officer or other family members or failure to secure the dog properly. However, most professionals in the field agree that housing a police canine away from its handler is an undesirable practice as it does not foster the type of handler-canine bonding that is so important for the establishment and maintenance of a good canine team. If the officer candidate has a family or is living with other individuals, these other persons must not be averse to the offi cer's assignment or to the presence of the canine at the house. It is generally ill advised to assign canines to homes where there are children who are of insufficient maturity to understand that they should not approach the dog if the animal is unsupervised and that the dog may be dangerous if approached improperly. There should also be no other dogs at the house, as they could become involved in a physical conflict for dominance. Of additional importance is the need for canine handlers to instruct members of the household and frequent visitors about the dog. Non-han dlers must know never to approach the animal when the handler is not present and how to approach the dog in the handler's presence without giving the dog any cues that would inadvertently initiate aggressive action. Depending on department policy, the prospective handler must also understand that, as part of a specialized unit, he or she may be subject to off-duty recall in an emergency. In most cases, the officer will also be required to devote the necessary time to exercise and care for the dog, whether that care can be provided on duty or must be provided during off-duty hours. These and related demands on the officer's off-duty time must be under stood and accepted by the candidate for this position. In agencies where canine officers receive considerable over time pay for work assignments or the off-duty care of their dogs, screening of prospective handlers should ensure that the pay dif ferential is not the primary motivating factor of an officer who is 5

applying for this assignment. Working with canines is a demanding assignment and one that requires the development of a spe cial handler-canine rapport. Where this ingredient is lacking in a team relationship, the effectiveness and performance of the team will suffer. D. Canine Selection and Training Selecting suitable canines for law enforcement work is obvi ously an essential concern. Law enforcement canines can be obtained in several different ways. One of the least expensive ways is through donations from private citizens. However, acceptance of citizen donations requires establishment of a thor ough screening process. Agencies that are interested in starting or expanding a canine unit in this manner are well advised to con tact a law enforcement agency in their area which has an estab lished and professionally-certified canine program and is familiar with screening practices of this type. While some agencies utilize donated dogs, police departments should research this issue thoroughly before adopting this procedure. Serious considera tion should be given to a policy that accepts only canines that have been specifically bred for police use. In all cases, dogs from the animal shelter or pound, and street animals in general that do not have any medical or related history records should not be used for police canine training irrespective of their breed and apparent suitability. Many of these animals prove to be too tem peramental to function as working police dogs. A better approach is to acquire a canine from a professional who has trained and/or bred the dog specifically for law enforce ment work. An advantage of this approach is that it is a conve nient and quick means of obtaining a police canine. It also great ly reduces the possibility that an undesirable dog will be obtained. Most reputable breeders and trainers understand the individual characteristics of particular dogs and the traits that a police canine should possess in order to function effectively. Most also have knowledge of a dog's lineage that allows better insights into a dog's potential performance and overall health. Unfortunately, the cost of a well-trained law enforcement canine can be prohibitive for many agencies. The potential purchaser must also consider that most professional trainers have their own personal training philosophies and techniques that may not be compatible with the operating policies of a particular police agency. Whatever the procurement method, the prospective law enforcement canine must be carefully evaluated for any disqualifying characteristics, which should include but not be limited to noise and gunfire shyness and over-aggressiveness. The dog should not be too young or too old and unspayed females should not be used. Mixed breeds are sometimes acceptable for law enforcement, but the German shepherd has found general acceptance as one of the easiest dogs to train for this type of work and one of the most readily adaptable to a variety of operational situations. It should be noted however, that some German shepherds bred in the United States have been found to be unsatisfactory due to poor breeding practices. As a result, some law enforce ment agencies have increasingly turned to European suppliers. Prior to being accepted for training, all dogs should be examined by a veterinarian for any potentially disqualifying medical con ditions such as hip dysplasia or vision defects. The importance of training for canine teams cannot be overemphasized. It has been recognized by the courts and has factored heavily in many court decisions. Robinette v. Barnes 8 is one such case, mentioned earlier in this document, which empha-

sizes the importance of such training. In that case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a civil rights lawsuit that had been brought by the estate of a burglary suspect who had been killed by a police canine. In this particular case, Officer Barnes and his canine, Casey, responded shortly after midnight to an automobile dealership where a suspect was hiding after breaking into the building. Barnes and Casey entered the building and Barnes shouted a warning that anyone inside the building should come out or he would release the canine. Thirty seconds later, Barnes repeated the warning, and after another 30 seconds had elapsed, he released the dog. Casey proceeded to search for the suspect while Barnes checked doors that the dog had bypassed. Eventually Barnes followed Casey into a darkened area of the dealership where his flashlight revealed the dog holding the suspect by the neck. Half the suspect's body was under a car and he was lying motionless, face down in a pool of blood. Casey was ordered off the suspect and leashed and an ambulance was summoned to the scene. The suspect was pronounced dead on arrival. The importance of competent training in the defense of civil liability cases is found in the court's analysis of whether or not the use of a police dog to apprehend a suspect constituted the use of deadly force. The court stated that "when a properly trained dog is used in an appropriate manner to apprehend a felony suspect, the use of the dog does not constitute deadly force. While the officer's intent in using a police dog, or the use of an improperly trained dog, could transform the use of the dog into deadly force, we find no such intent or improper training present in this case" [emphasis added]. The record in the case had shown that all members of the department's canine team had been trained according to guide lines established by the U.S. Police Canine Association (USPCA) and that building searches were among the tasks that the canine teams were trained to perform. In addition to completing the initial training, all teams had participated in retraining every three weeks to reevaluate their skills. Once the canine has been selected, the handler and canine must attend a formal training program. Most large law enforce ment agencies with canines will assist in providing the training as will the USPCA and the North American Police Work Dog Association, Inc. (NPWDA). If a professional training firm is desired, the police department should carefully check the individual's or firm's references and qualifications. When a dog is purchased pre-trained from a professional trainer, a handler familiarization course is normally included. This is typically an abbreviated training course and should not be considered a complete training regimen for handlers. A formal training course that conforms to the needs and established policies of the department must be completed before the team is ready for duty. The USPCA and the NPWDA have recommended standards for training that departments may refer to for development or evaluation of their training program. The association's primary focus is certification and training and it also sponsors organized competitions and national seminars where canine handlers can expand and perfect their knowledge, skills, and abilities. The model policy states that it is the duty of the canine super visor to ensure that both basic and in-service training and certification are conducted on a regular basis. Departmental canine units should be cognizant of and conform to accepted profes sional standards for canine training in the law enforcement community. While there is no single source for such standards, there are a variety of reputable training resources and agencies avail 6

able to assist in training. Canine handlers must demonstrate acquired abilities to the canine supervisor on a periodic basis as prescribed by the law enforcement agency. Failure to participate in or qualify under established training standards shall result in de-certification of the team, and the team may not be deployed until re-certified, according to the model policy. The model policy takes the position that training and deploy ment of police canines shall employ the detect-and-bark method. There are two legitimate schools of thought regarding the train ing and deployment of police canines. These are generally referred to as the find-and-hold or find-and-bark methods although they are referred to in other ways as well. The find-andbark method refers to training a police canine to bark in order to alert the handler but not to bite the person unless the person moves or provides some form of physical resistance. The findand-hold training directs the canine to find and hold (that is, bite) the suspect until commanded to release by the handler whether or not the subject is actively resisting. The National Law Enforcement Policy Center has taken the position that the find and bark method is the preferred approach to canine training and deployment for several reasons, to include the following: • The find-and-bark approach is not a radical, new, or untested form of canine training. This method of training has been used extensively in Europe since the turn of the 20th century. The technique found its way to the United States around 1980. In recent years, wider circles of police agencies have adopted this approach for the same basic reasons that are discussed here. • A find-and-bark trained dog adds an additional dimension to force alternatives available to canine handlers and is more con sistent with the escalation and de-escalation of force contained in the force continuum. It also is in keeping with the legal principal governing the use of force, which dictates that only force that reasonably appears necessary may be used to gain compliance of a suspect. A find-and-bark trained canine will escalate force against a suspect if there is resistance, furtive movement, or flight. A find-and-bark canine is also trained not to bite a nonre sistant suspect and to release a suspect if, once bitten, the suspect becomes compliant. On the other hand, the first, and generally the only, response of a find-and-hold trained canine is to bite a suspect. • The find-and-bark approach offers a distinct advantage because use of canines in many situations (such as dark building searches) may require that the dog be off leash and out of the immediate sight and control of the handler. A find-and-bite trained dog can inflict serious injury to a suspect or even an innocent bystander before the handler can locate the dog and command it to disen gage. • The find-and-bark trained canine can reduce the bite ratio of individual canines and that of a police agency's overall canine unit. Bite ratios, comparing apprehensions and/or contacts with a suspect to bites inflicted in such contacts, are often used in courts to demonstrate that a particular canine is either more or less aggressive than the norm for canines in the department or in other jurisdictions. A lowered bite ratio can obviously work in favor of a police canine team and the police department. • There are no demonstrable downsides to the "enhanced" train ing tool provided by find-and-bark trained police dogs. This training adds an additional dimension to, and flexibility in, the

officer/handler's toolkit by using the dog in a manner that is consistent with the need to use force and the appropriate escalation or de-escalation of force. By comparison, advocates of the find-and-hold approach con tend that, among other advantages, this method is safer for the officer and the canine and is a surer means of bringing a suspect under control than the detect-and-bark approach. On the other hand, some claim that the find-and-bark method of deployment can be safer for officers. For example, given a dark building search, once the canine alerts off leash, the handler and other officers often have a greater time advantage and thus the opportunity to make a more calculated and tactical approach to the suspect. Using a find-and-hold canine in the same scenario, they claim, sometimes creates a sense of urgency for officers to reach the scene in order to ensure that they can or should disengage the dog to avert unnecessary injury to the suspect. Their position is that in such rushed approaches an officer is more apt to make tactical mistakes that actually threaten officer safety. There are a variety of other arguments both for and against using either the find-and-hold find-and-bark methods. But systematic assess ment of safety, effectiveness, and related issues surrounding these two deployment and training techniques does not exist, and most claims such as these are based largely on anecdotal information. However, there are several matters that are clear concerning the find-and-hold method of training and deployment that have primary bearing on the decision to recommend use of the findand-bark method of deployment. First, canines used in the findand-hold approach are trained to bite given the appropriate commands and/or conditions. As noted previously, this is their sole means of reacting unless some type of cross training is possible and can be used reliably. Bites inflicted by police canines typically involve more than just holding the suspect. Canine bites typically cause injury (sometimes serious) to suspects and sometimes irrespective of any objective need to inflict injury in order to gain the suspect's compliance. The natural reaction of a person being bitten by a canine is to struggle and attempt to fend off the attack. Unless the canine can be commanded to disengage in a timely manner, such struggle will normally prompt the canine to con tinue or even escalate the biting response and thus aggravate the potential injuries. Second, canine bites have generated a near —cottage industry for civil litigation in many parts of the United States. In fact, over the past 10 years, canine bites have become one of the leading sources of civil and criminal litigation alleging excessive or improper use of force. This fact alone has prompted some police agencies to disband their canine units entirely. Such actions are unfortunate because they remove a valuable asset from a police department's available tools and force options. It is also unfortunate because employment of a find-and-bark method of training and deployment could offset many of the problems associated with their canine unit short of disbanding it altogether. Finally, many major metropolitan and other police agencies in the United States have successfully transitioned to the find and bark method of canine training and usage without negative repercussions. In fact, those agencies that have done so report significant drops in bite ratios and civil and criminal litigation without any perception of additional risk to canine units. These points having been made, it should also be clearly stat ed that a large part of the problem concerning litigation over canine bites has stemmed from inappropriate deployment 7

and/or lack of control of canines by their handlers. This is an issue that goes beyond concerns over the training or deployment method used. Police canines, like other tools in a police officer's arsenal of force options, can be used inappropriately or even ille gally. Use of a police canine is no exception. Therefore, aside from the issue of preferred deployment techniques, the issues of police canine unit selection, training, and supervision addressed in this paper deserve equal, if not greater, attention if an agency is to prevent or stem successful civil litigation. Additionally, it was noted earlier in this discussion that both find-and-bark and find-and-hold constitute two legitimate schools of thought. While find-and-bark is recommended, two caveats should be noted here. First, making a change to find-andbark for a canine unit cannot be accomplished overnight. Agencies interested in pursuing this approach must be willing to invest the time and resources to retrain canines and their han dlers professionally. In some cases, resistance to this style of deployment will surface among handlers that may require their transfer to different duties. And some canines may have difficulty being retrained or be found to be unreliable once retrained. Second, it is recognized that the find-and-hold deployment method is the traditionally accepted and most widely used train ing method among police agencies today. The endorsement of using a find and bark approach for canines should not be con strued as a blanket condemnation of canine teams that are oper ating efficiently, effectively and with good safety and deploy ment records using the find-and-hold method. For agencies that maintain high standards for selection and training of canine teams, demand stringent reporting requirements of canine deployments, bites, and apprehensions, require handlers to maintain close supervision and control of their canines, and where unnecessary/excessive canine bites and excessive force incidents are not a significant issue, a reasonable and prudent argument can be made for maintaining the find-and-hold deployment technique. Before moving from this issue, two additional matters should be addressed in this context. First, the deployment of a police canine trained to detect and hold constitutes a high level of force—one that is a step below deadly force on the force continuum. For this reason, the model policy prohibits the use of canines except when the subject (1) is suspected of a serious crime, or (2) poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,or (3) is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest. By comparison, many police agencies permit officers to deploy police canines in situations that fall short of the above sit uations, as for example when permitting canines to bite passive ly hiding suspects. The term "passively hiding" refers here to individuals who generally have no known history or suspicion of being violent or who have no known serious criminal histories, where there is no reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and/or violent (for instance, hands are visible and there is no suggestion of a hidden weapon or intent to fight) but who, for a variety of possible reasons (intoxication, drug impairment, mental illness, and so on) are not compliant. Again the decision to deploy a canine must be based on the three prongs of the Graham test (1) the severity of the crime, (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest at the time [emphasis added]. Consider the consequences of using a level of force similar to that of a canine, such as a Taser® or nightstick, to gain compli ance of a passively hiding suspect. Such an act would normally

be regarded as a use of excessive force, unless the situation was altered by other factors. Yet the deployment of a canine under the same circumstances is regarded by some agencies as a practical and reasonable means of finding and extracting such non-com pliant individuals even though such deployment will likely result in some injury to the suspect. A second concern is that police agencies' failure to adhere to legally grounded deployment guidelines that reflect a canine's level of force may drive the courts to reconsider the legal basis for canine use and establish a more restrictive one than the "objec tively reasonable" standard now in use under Graham. Voluntary efforts by police departments to impose internal policy restric tions on canine use—such as employment of the detect-and barkmethod in the use of canines —can help to avoid such potential court intervention. At the very least, such actions demonstrate an agency's good faith efforts to manage their canines in a responsible manner. Many major metropolitan police departments have success fully switched to the detect-and-bark method of canine training and deployment. Unfortunately, many of these agencies have done so only after paying significant damages to plaintiffs in civil litigation. Nevertheless, these agencies can serve as good exam ples to others. While many involved in the transition in these agencies had significant misgivings about the move to detect and bark, the successful and effective use of canines in this capacity has served to dispel these initial concerns. In addition to imple menting the detect and bark approach, agencies must take steps to ensure that canine deployment policy conforms to legally accepted criteria and strong supervision as discussed earlier in this document. E. Canine Bites and Canine-Inflicted Injuries As in many other areas of police operations, the use of law enforcement canines can create liability concerns for officers, supervisors, administrators, and their governing jurisdictions. But many of these concerns can be addressed by ensuring the integrity of the screening and selection process for canine teams, providing handlers and their canines with the best possible train ing and supervision, monitoring the performance of the canine in tactical situations, and paying attention to accuracy and detail when writing bite reports. A case that illustrates the importance of a strict performance monitoring system for canine teams is Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach.9 In this case, three plaintiffs brought suit against an agency, its chief, and two canine handlers. The plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered serious injuries as a result of excessive force used in their apprehension. Among other problems relating to inade quate training and unclear policy on the use of canines, the court found that a strict performance monitoring system is necessary to ensure that misbehaving dogs receive prompt corrective training. The court stressed that the department had no specialized inter nal procedures for monitoring the performance of the canine unit. Rather, the department relied on a general system of "force reports" prepared by the shift commander upon being notified that an officer had used force to make an apprehension. These reports were not compiled to keep track of the performance of individual dogs and were usually discarded within 30 days. The court felt that these reports were insufficient to ensure that mis behaving dogs would be withdrawn from use or receive corrective training. The court was also dismayed that the department had no procedure to investigate complaints once there were three citizen complaints of any type within a one-year period. 8

Clearly, the courts have found that to guard against incidents of excessive force and to defend oneself and one's department against such charges, an agency must pay particular attention to the proper selection of canines and canine handlers as well as their quality of their training and ability to effectively supervise their canine. Many of the cases that have been cited here involve situations in which the canine was deployed without adequate control and close supervision. Unless exigent circumstances dictate, canines must be kept in visual contact once deployed so that they can be controlled appropriately when or if contact with a suspect or other person is made. These cases also illustrate the need of agencies to establish clear and complete policies and procedures on the use of canines, and ensure that all instances in which canines are deployed are accurately and completely documented and evaluated. Complete and accurate records in all these areas are vital. Handlers who are called into court should come prepared not only with accurate records of the incident in question but with records that also reflect their team and individual training and the past perfor mance of the dog, to include certificates and awards. As noted, deployment of a canine constitutes a use of force on the part of the officer. No matter what the results of the deploy ment, a written report of the deployment must be prepared to adequately document the incident. Only through continuous monitoring of the canine's use in this manner can the canine and his handler be evaluated. In this regard, much has been written about the use and value of so-called "bite ratios." Such ratios—based on the number of bites in relationship to the number of apprehensions—are believed by some to be a good barometer for canine units in attempts to identify overly aggressive or otherwise unmanageable dogs. Use of a bite-to-apprehension ratio is preferred over a bite-to-deployment ratio because it includes only those deployments in which the canine made an encounter with a suspect and was thus in a position to bite. However, it is good to maintain both bites-to-apprehensions and bites-to-deployments statistics as it gives a more complete pic ture of canine utilization. There is an unquestionable need for departments to monitor dog bites and dog-produced injuries in an effort to identify prob lem areas on the part of canines and handlers alike. However, reliance on formulas or ratios alone can often inappropriately and unfairly simplify an otherwise complex problem. In reality, each canine bite or canine-produced injury should be individually evaluated to determine whether it was justified in the total context of the situation and the manner in which the canine was handled. Problems should be documented and corrective action taken where necessary. This having been said, it is still advisable to develop a system that provides information on canine bite ratios in order to main tain some general understanding of the bites and injuries inflict ed by each dog in comparison to all other canines in the depart ment. Such documentation is important not only to help identify potential problems but also to demonstrate, during litigation and in related matters, the department's conscious attempt to identify and correct potential problems with regard to the use of canines. However, in order for such a system to be implemented, an agency must require that a full report be prepared whenever a canine is deployed, whether or not a bite or injury results from the deployment. Only in this manner can departments fully mon itor the activities and results of canine usage. In each instance of a canine bite or canine-produced injury, whether or not it occurred in the line of duty, department proce -

dures must be followed. The model policy recommends that these include the following: a supervisor, preferably the canine supervisor, should be summoned immediately to the scene. The canine handler should examine the area of the bite to determine its seriousness. If no arrest is made, an offer will be made to the individual to provide medical care and treatment by a qualified medical professional. If the suspect refuses such treatment or to allow the officer to see the injuries, this refusal should be wit nessed if possible by another officer and included in the incident or use-of-force report. In most cases, an officer will want to seek medical attention for the suspect, even if the bite does not appear serious, so as to protect himself or herself and the agency against future liability claims. If an arrest is made, the individual will be provided with medical attention in accordance with agency policy on transporting and booking prisoners. To more fairly and accurately document the seriousness of the bite, a color photograph of the injured area shall be taken both before and immediately after treatment and attached to the report. Many canine bites appear at first to be serious. However, once the area is cleaned, the injuries are often far less serious than initially surmised. Before and after photographs of such injuries can provide valuable documentation in this regard. To assist the officer in taking these photographs, a Polaroid or similar camera should be included in the equipment of each officer. These before and after photographs are extremely important as they more accurately define the extent of injuries incurred. Taking photos both before and after medical treatment and cleaning of the wound also demonstrates the departments proactive stance and good faith in efforts to fully and accurately document the inci dent. The handler must complete a bite report and use-of-force report. These reports should answer all basic questions that might be asked during an adversarial investigation of the inci dent. For example, the report should clearly define why the dog was deployed; whether a prior warning was given and, if not, why it was not given; what led the officer to believe that the sus pect was dangerous; what factors led the officer to establish prob able cause; what tactics were employed and why; whether the canine was immediately called off when the officer could deter mine that the suspect was under control or not dangerous; and if the dog was leashed immediately thereafter. The report should be as detailed as possible to include the following elements: • exact language of the warning given to the suspect • elapsed time between the warning and release of the canine • elapsed time from release until the dog confronted the suspect • elapsed time between confrontation and the officer's arrival on the scene where the canine and suspect were located The officer should be precise in describing what he or she saw taking place upon arriving at the scene and what measures were taken at that time. The officer should record any orders that were given to the canine and anything the suspect said at that time. The officer should also be as specific as possible about the man ner in which the dog was holding the suspect so that any prior injuries to the suspect are not attributed to the encounter. The report should also include the circumstances surrounding the incident, the complete identity of the suspect and witnesses and any measures taken in response to the incident. F. Building Search Procedures 9

Searching a building for a suspect in hiding is one of the most useful functions of a law enforcement canine but also one of the most dangerous tasks that a canine team can perform. The canine's keen hearing and sense of smell provide the dog with a distinct advantage over officers operating in the same environ ment and can greatly reduce the risk to patrol officers involved. There are many recorded incidents in which a canine has located a suspect in hiding after officers have searched the building. Initial responding officers can take some steps prior to the canine unit's arrival that will enhance the dog's ability to conduct the search. The building should be completely contained and if the use of a canine team is anticipated, entry should be avoided in order to reduce the possibility of contaminating the scent trail. The canine that enters a building in search of a suspect is seeking the source of the freshest human scent left behind by the suspect on an object or in an area. Initial responders may also contact the building's owner or supervisor to acquire information on such things as ventilation, building layout, and security system and lighting and to obtain any necessary keys. Officers should also attempt to determine, where possible, if there is anyone in the building other than the suspect and where they are located. To the degree possible, these other individuals should be evacuated while ensuring that the suspect does not escape with them. The scent in the building will be affected by the building's air conditioning, heating, and ventilation systems. If in use, the canine may be able to alert to the scent but unable to locate its source. For this reason, heating and air conditioning systems should be shut down as soon as possible. Once the team has arrived, officers on the scene should brief the canine handler con cerning the number and description of suspects involved; their identity, if known; any weapons involved; the suspect's proclivity to violence; the suspect's last known location and point of entry; and any other pertinent information that may be available. It is essential that a verbal warning be issued prior to releas ing the canine in the building. Failure to do so is objectively unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 10 Furthermore, failure to use such warnings will disqualify an officer for qualified immunity in case of a civil lawsuit. This warning should be: "This is the _________________ Police Department Canine Unit. Give yourself up or I'll release my dog, who is going to find you and he is going to bite you." 11 Even when using thedetect-and-bark technique, there is the possibility that the sus pect may be bitten. Therefore it is recommended that the follow ing modified announcement be made: "This is the ____________ 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 warning should be given from behind cover and in such a man ner, if possible, that will allow anyone inside to hear it. Use of the patrol vehicle's public address system is a preferred approach. At the same time that the warning is given, the canine officer and other patrol units stationed at other locations should key their radio transmitters so that the content of the warning will be recorded verbatim on tape at the communications center. The warning should be read from a card so that the exact wording of the admonition will be proper and read in the same manner each time. Under some exigent circumstances this warning need not and should not be given if it will divulge police tactics that will eliminate the element of surprise. In a floor-to-floor search, the warning should be repeated on each floor and a reasonable time given for the suspect to surrender before the canine is released. What is considered reasonable will depend on the size, nature,

and configuration of the building in question. Additionally, if there is reason to believe that the suspect speaks a language other than English, an officer or other individual fluent in that lan guage should be summoned to repeat the warning and to remain on hand to interpret when the suspect is taken into custody. When the canine team enters, the building's entrance and all exits should be secured and communications limited to that of a tactical nature. The handler should determine whether to put a leash on the canine during the building search. Under normal circumstances a canine will work better in this environment when unleashed. However, if there is a risk to the dog because of the conditions within the building, the handler may choose to work the canine on a leash. The trained canine handler is best suited to make this determination. The canine should not be used to search facilities that contain substances potentially harmful to the animal unless overriding risk to human life is present. Officers should always wear body armor when conducting a building search, and body armor is also available for use by canines. If the handler expects to use it under tactical conditions, the canine should receive prior training in its use so that the animal is not hindered by the unexpected and unusual weight. Under certain circumstances the use of canine armor may be advisable. For example, some suspects under the influence of narcotics have less perceptible fear of canines and have even been known to grab and attack them. Use of a collar can sometimes assist such individuals in their attack, as it is a convenient means to grab the dog. If a decision is made to work the canine without a collar, the looped end of the leash may be used as a field expe dient collar or the collar and leash eliminated altogether. The model policy states that "except in exigent circumstances or where there is an imminent danger of death or serious injury, the canine should be kept in visual contact by the canine han dler." By exigent, the policy statement means that the situation is determined to be of a highly urgent or critical nature in which immediate action is required. For example, a violent and poten tially armed felon who is in hiding in a darkened home or build ing and who may escape or cause serious injury to others unless apprehended immediately would normally create an exigent sit uation in which the canine should be deployed off leash. In searching nearly any darkened building where a potentially dangerous suspect is hiding, most canine officers prefer and would normally be justified in deploying their canine off leash. The point to be emphasized in this context is the need for the utmost handler control that is possible under the circumstances without unnecessarily jeopardizing the officer's safety or that of others. Canines working off leash and out of sight in dimly lit or dark surroundings or in some other situations are more likely to inflict injury or more extensive injury to a suspect than would normally be necessary to gain the suspect's compliance and con trol. Sufficient latitude should be provided to canine handlers to determine appropriate canine control strategies under various circumstances. For example, the recommendation of the model policy to keep canines under visual observation when off leash would have to be foregone in situations of very low light or complete darkness when the dog is working off leash. However, the guiding principle should be to maintain as much control of the canine as is reasonably possible under the conditions at hand. To assist in controlling their canine, some handlers use socalled zap collars both for training during off-leash sessions as well as in actual tactical situations. These electronic collars can be used in combination with verbal commands to help in the train 10

ing process and in field deployment situations. They can also be used as part of a transition process in which dogs are being retrained to detect and bark. While some handlers and canine trainers prefer not to use these devices, they are available as back up to assist verbal commands. The canine officer will also decide whether to work with a backup officer—a practice that is highly recommended. If used, the backup officer is usually responsible for covering the handler from all sides while the handler devotes his or her concentration to the activity of the canine and any signs of an alert. This is one reason why it is important that all patrol officers understand the working routines of canine units. They may be called upon in a given situation to work with a canine team in such a situation. For example, it is entirely possible that the canine could bypass the suspect in hiding because of irregular or inadequate scent patterns or for other reasons. Under such circumstances, the handler and the canine can be placed in great danger, and it is essential that the backup officer be alert to this possibility. In low light conditions, the use of flashlights should be limited and never be directed at the canine. The canine does not need the light, and instead relies on sounds and smell to locate the suspect. As noted before, except in exigent circumstances or where there is an imminent danger of death or serious injury, the canine handler should keep the canine in visual contact. Should the canine alert, the handler must advise his or her backup officer by using prearranged signals. Backup officers are essential once the suspect has been located because the handler cannot be expected to secure the canine and conduct a search of the suspect safely by himself or herself. Should there be more than one suspect, the availability of a backup officer is vital. When the canine has engaged the suspect, the handler can assume responsibility for controlling the dog while backup officers conduct the search and arrest, secure, and transport the pris oner. The handler should never assume that there is only one suspect. Anyone found during a building search should be appre hended and then identified after the building has been completely cleared. When apprehending suspects, the canine must be command ed to disengage as soon as the suspect is subdued or readily complies with officer directions. Arrestees may not be transported in the same vehicle with a police canine unless alternative trans portation is not available and immediate transport is essential for safety and security reasons. Canine training should emphasize building searches using as many different situations as possible to simulate actual tactical encounters. If possible, arrangements should be made with the owners of local buildings to permit after-hours use of their facility for training. The layout and flooring of the buildings should vary as much as possible. Canines should become accustomed to working on a variety of floor surfaces such as tile, carpeting, wood, and metal grating. If the handler expects to be working with a backup officer, one should be employed during simulation training. In all instances, the training should be as realistic as possible. For example, when a decoy suspect is located, the scenario should be carried to its logical conclusion to include the suspect's arrest, search, and removal from the scene. The use of personnel who are unfamiliar to the dog and dressed in varied forms of civilian clothing will add to the realism, as will the hiding of suspects in unusual locations such as ceilings. Various exercises should include suspect searches, handler defense, re-attacks, and gunfire training, among others, so that the handler will fully understand how the

dog will react under various conditions. G. Crowd Control The use of canines for crowd control is a delicate subject among law enforcement canine trainers and handlers, principally because of the stereotypes created by the inappropriate use of canines to suppress civil rights demonstrations during the 1960s. These incidents created a great deal of adverse publicity and neg ative public opinion, much of which lingers to this day. The model policy prohibits the use of canines for the control of peaceful demonstrations. However, canine teams may respond as backup during a riot or other major unlawful assembly and may be held in reserve in the event that they are needed. Under these conditions the dog may be deployed for crowd control with approval of the agency chief executive officer or a designee in order to protect life or property after an order to disperse has been made. In such situations, the model policy requires that canines be "short-leashed at all times to protect individuals from serious injury, and not initiate any offensive action, unless to guard against imminent loss of life, serious bodily injury, or sub stantial property damage." Law enforcement canines should be used for crowd control only with the approval of the watch commander during riot or potential riot conditions or major unauthorized gatherings that cannot be controlled by any other means, and then they should serve generally in a deterrent capacity. In these cases, the canine should be under close control by the handler's side and should not be released or permitted to attack unless the handler or another individual is threatened with serious bodily injury or death. Canines that are used in crowd control should be trained especially for that contingency and only the most controllable of animals should be used in this capacity. H. Tracking Another useful function of the law enforcement canine is tracking suspects and missing persons. In performing this function, the dog can also discover articles of potential evidentiary value that may have been hidden or abandoned by the suspect. The model policy states: Where trained police canines are available for tracking, they may be used with supervisory approval to track missing persons or criminal suspects or to locate evidence that the supervisor has reason to believe has been abandoned or hidden in a specified open area. Such searches are subject to the following conditions and limitations: When officers are pursuing suspects and contact with the suspect is lost, the officer, prior to summoning a canine team, shall a. stop and pinpoint the location where the suspect was last seen; b. shut off engines of vehicles in the area if possible; c. avoid vehicle or foot movements in the area where the suspect or subject was last seen. A dog is capable of distinguishing among many separate odors where a human may not detect any scent at all. This abili ty allows canines to classify a single scent and to pursue that scent to its source. A dog can follow either airborne scent or ground scent, which in the case of humans is made up of various bodily secretions such as dead skin and sweat that are unique to each individual. A person's trail is also made up of the scent of crushed vegetation and disturbances on the ground over which 11

the individual has passed. Tracking is a complex ability that can only be perfected through constant training and practice. Scent reacts in various ways depending upon varying weather conditions, the nature of the ground or surface on which the subject is walking, and other factors. It is interesting to note that there are recorded incidents in which canines have successfully followed scent trails up to two weeks old. As in the case of building searches, there are actions that initial responding officers should and should not take in order to make tracking easier for a canine unit. For exam ple, officers should remember where the suspect was last seen and the direction that he was thought to be traveling and provide the canine handler with as complete a description of the suspect as possible. Officers at the scene should shut off the engines of their patrol vehicles and any other vehicles as soon as possible, as the carbon monoxide emissions from the exhaust will contaminate scent trails. They should also avoid vehicle and foot move ments in the area where the suspect or subject was last seen. Officers should not enter a suspect's vehicle, as it may be used as a source of scent. In like manner, officers should not handle or allow others to handle any items that were handled by the sus pect. Also, officers should not enter the immediate area where the subject was last seen for fear of contaminating existing scent material. And, most importantly, officers should make every effort to contain the suspect within a given area, as this will make the use of the dog much more effective. The model policy states: Canines used for tracking persons should remain on a leash of sufficient length to provide a reasonable measure of safety to the subject of the search without compromising the canine's tracking ability. When tracking a suspect, the handler should normally use a 30-foot tracking leash and tracking harness. The harness, as opposed to a collar, will not restrict the canine's breathing and, subsequently, the dog's ability to track the suspect successfully. If the canine must track for an extended period of time, the handler should check the dog's nose periodically for signs of dehydra tion. In order to be prepared for this eventuality, the handler should carry water in his or her vehicle or on his or her person for use by the dog. When law enforcement canines are used for tracking suspects, there is no guarantee that the suspect will not be bitten when located, particularly if the suspect is in hiding, attempts to escape from the canine, or becomes aggressive. Because of this, caution must be taken when using law enforcement canines to track children or other civilians who are simply lost. If law enforcement canines are to be used in civilian search capacities, they should be taught to track prior to any apprehen sion training. In this manner they can be taught that the success ful conclusion of a track does not automatically call for an attack. As an alternative to the use of the law enforcement canine for searches, a police agency may contact the nearest chapter of the National Association for Search and Rescue. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., this organization provides fully trained canine teams for purposes of locating lost persons. Canine teams from this organization have been used extensively with major success throughout the United States as well as abroad in the aftermath of major disasters. If local search and rescue teams are not available, a police department can request assistance through the Rescue Coordination Center at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia (tele phone 1-800-851-3051). Langley also serves as the coordination

center for inland search and rescue for all 50 states. The emer gency management compacts that have been enacted with each state govern the extent of services that they may provide. Police agencies should contact their state emergency management agency in advance of any need to determine what services are available and how requests for those services must be made. I. Canine Care and Safety The handler is responsible for the care and welfare of his or her canine to include feeding, regular cleaning of the canine's kennel and yard, general health inspections, and grooming. The handler is also responsible for ensuring that the dog is handled and housed in a safe manner. Regular cleaning of the dog's kennel and yard or exercise area is important to prevent the contraction and spread of disease. These areas should be cleaned daily and disinfected periodically with materials recommended by the canine supervisor or veterinarian. Cleaning and disinfecting should also include the patrol vehicle used by the canine handler. It is advisable for a canine handler to have a take-home vehicle so that he or she can assume responsibility for its cleanliness and ensure that any illnesses the canine may contract will not be transmitted to other canines in the agency. The agency's trainer or veterinarian should advise the handler on feeding and watering schedules as well as the type of food to be used. Grooming should be performed daily. It is a task that is pleasurable for the dog and one that fosters the bond between the handler and his or her canine. It also gives the officer a good opportunity to examine the dog for possible illness or injury. Such an examination should include the eyes, which should be clear and bright, and the surrounding tissue, which should be a healthy pink color. There should be no swelling, discoloration, or discharge. The dog's nose should be moist and cool and there should be no excessive drainage or discharge. Handlers should note any sneezing or instances in which the dog paws at the nose. The ears should be checked for excessive wax buildup, foul smells, or any discoloration or discharge. The handler should take notice if the dog shows discomfort or pain when the ears are handled. Where earwax buildup is noted, the handler should clean only the inner ear flap and consult the veterinarian for additional treatment. The dog's mouth and gums should be a healthy pink color and the teeth should be firm and white. The handler should check for damaged or broken teeth and excessive tartar buildup. The dog's coat should be inspected for unusual hair loss, scabbing, reddening of the skin, flaking of skin, and the presence of parasites such as fleas or ticks. The dog's feet should be checked for cuts and abrasions and the pads examined for the presence of rocks or other foreign objects. The toenails and claws should be checked to ensure that they are not too long and should be clipped if necessary. The rectal area should be checked for red ness or swelling that might indicate the infection of the anal sacs located on either side of the rectum. A canine that slides his hindquarters along the ground also suggests that such an infec tion is present. The handler may also take the dog's temperature and check his heartbeat as instructed by a veterinarian. Stool and urine samples should be taken periodically as directed by a veterinarian. Any signs of illness should be report ed to the unit supervisor as soon as possible. The handler is responsible for taking his or her canine to the veterinarian for treatment and periodic examinations. All handlers should be familiar with procedures that should be followed for emergency 12

treatment of canine injuries or accidents. A variety of excellent publications and training programs are available for these pur poses. 12 When a handler is not available to care for his or her canine, another handler may be designated or the dog may be housed in a department-approved kennel. However, law enforcement canines should never be housed in civilian kennels without the express approval of the canine supervisor. Teasing or agitating a police canine is strictly prohibited unless it is done as part of a supervised training exercise. Neither civilians nor other police officers should be permitted to pet or to come into direct contact with a police canine unless it is done under the direct supervision of the canine's handler and then only after the individual has been advised how to approach and touch the dog. The handler should decide whether to permit such contact based on his or her knowledge of the dog's disposition and history. When a canine is retired from duty, the handler should be per mitted to apply for possession of the dog. If approved, it should be with the understanding that no other dogs will be permitted in the owner's house. J. Canine Drug Detection13 Drug enforcement agents and other law enforcement person nel commonly use drug sniffing canines at airports, at train sta tions, during motor vehicle stops, and in other situations to detect illegal contraband. At airports, many federal circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have addressed "sniffs." The current state of the law authorizes such searches where reasonable suspicion exists. A gray area exists as to sniffs conducted in or around schools, homes, or businesses. Regardless of the place of the sniff, it is clear that reasonable suspicion must be articulable in order to avoid potential civil liability and in order to assure that seized evidence is not suppressed in criminal matters. Significant changes have been made in this revised version of the model policy with regard to the legality of canine drug searches. This is a continuously evolving area of the law and one on which canine handlers and supervisors should remain up to date, particularly with respect to decisions of courts within their state and federal judicial district and circuit courts. Prior to discussing the law and tactics in various areas of canine drug enforcement, it should be noted that many police agencies utilize canines other than those designated for seizures in these capacities. Breeds that are inherently more gentle than German shepherds and Doberman pinschers, for example, can be used effectively for sniffing operations as well as for tracking. In using these alternative breeds, police agencies may be able to perform drug enforcement operations effectively without creating an undue risk that the canine may bite a suspect or subject unnecessarily. 1. Airports. The lawfulness of using canines to sniff, nip, or bite at a suspect's personal belongings, such as luggage at an airport, has been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. In United States v. Place,14 a traveler's behavior aroused the suspicion of law enforcement officers as Place waited to purchase a ticket from Miami to New York. The Miami officers alerted DEA agents in New York to their suspicions and upon the suspect's arrival in New York, he was detained. The suspect refused to consent to a search of his luggage at which point the agents took the luggage to another airport where it was subjected to a "sniff test" by a trained narcotics detection dog. The entire detention of the property lasted about 90 minutes. The suspect pleaded guilty to

possession of cocaine but appealed the denial of his motion to suppress based on an unlawful search. The court of appeals reversed the decision, holding that the prolonged seizure of the luggage exceeded the limits of the investigative stop permitted by Terry v. Ohio15 and amounted to a seizure without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the reversal. Although it was ultimately deter mined that the seizure in Place was unlawful, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated what would have been lawful under different circumstances. Specifically, the Court held that the investigative procedure of subjecting luggage to a "sniff test" by a well-trained narcotics detection dog does not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court based this holding on the fact that such sniffs do not require opening the luggage and thus are much less intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the infor mation gained by the sniff is limited and thus the owner is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience of more intrusive investigative methods. However, this ruling comes with sev eral important caveats: the lawfulness of such "sniff" is contin gent on the existence of some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the encounter must be limited in its duration. A prolonged detention of a person's luggage may convert the deten tion into a seizure requiring probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. The issue of whether police dogs can be used to sniff luggage not within the possession of a traveler (i.e., after it has been checked in or before it has been claimed) has not been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court but has been addressed by several district courts. In United States v. Bronstein,16 a police canine's sniffing of luggage lined up on a conveyer belt following a flight was held not to be a search under the Fourth Amendment. In United States v. Fulero,17 a police canine's sniffing of air around a bus terminal locker was determined not to violate the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, in a non-airport context, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on Place, held that a canine could lawfully sniff a car that had been impounded by police because the "olfactory genius of a drug detection dog does not infringe upon the vehicle owner's Fourth Amendment rights." 18 The model policy address the foregoing issues from the per spective of guidance on conducting searches in "public facilities and places" generally. The policy takes the following position: Police canines may not be used to sniff luggage or related per sonal items in the physical possession of (i.e., control of or close proximity to) an individual in a public facility or place unless 1. there is reasonable suspicion that the personal possession contains illegal drugs or evidence of a crime, and 2. the time required to conduct the sniff is limited in duration. Police canines may be used to sniff luggage or other personal effects of an individual on either a random or selective basis if the items are not in the possession of the owner (for example, on conveyor belts, in the possession of baggage handlers, etc.) Whenever possible, exploratory sniffing in public facilities should be conducted with the advance knowledge of the facility manager. It should be conducted without interference or annoyance to the public or interruption of facility operations. 2. Schools and Students. Court decisions are conflicting on the issue of whether the sniff of a student's person or belongings in a public school is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. To date, only three circuit courts have addressed 13

this issue. Two of the three (the Fifth and Ninth Circuits) have held that such sniffs do constitute a search so as to require a warrant or reasonable suspicion. The Seventh Circuit was the first to address the issue in Doe v. Renfrow.19 In this case, school officials, city police officers, and their canines subjected the plaintiff and her classmates to a sur prise inspection in the classroom. The canines were described as being "led up and down each aisle of the classroom. Each student was probed, sniffed, and inspected by at least one of the 14 German shepherds brought to the school. When the canine sniffed the plaintiff, it repeatedly pushed its nose and muzzle into her legs." She was immediately ordered to empty her pock ets and was subsequently subjected to a strip search in the school nurse's office. No illegal substance was found. The plaintiff brought suit for compensatory and punitive damages along with injunctive and declaratory relief against school officials, the chief of police, and the trainer of the canine used in the search, claiming a violation of the Fourth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the constitu tionality of the canine search but found the strip search to be unconstitutional. The plaintiff appealed to the United States Supreme Court and was denied certiorari. Nevertheless, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote a lengthy dissent stating that he would have reversed the ruling. Other district courts are in accord. For example, a district court in Texas held that individualized suspicion must be present to conduct a canine sniff of students and their cars on public school premises during a regular school day. 20 A few courts have followed the Horton21 decision. Horton involved a school's use of trained Doberman pinschers and German shepherds to sniff students' lockers and automobiles. On a random and unannounced basis, the dogs were also taken into classrooms to sniff the students. In its finding, the Fifth Circuit noted, "The intensive smelling of people, even if done by dogs, [is] indecent and demeaning" and held that the sniffing of stu dents by dogs was a search. More recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District.22 In that case the Ninth Circuit held, for the first time, that a dog-sniff of students was a Fourth Amendment search. The facts of this case are as follows: On May 21, 1996, the principal and vice principal ordered plaintiff and his classmates to exit their classroom. As they exited, the students passed a deputy sheriff and a drug-sniffing canine stationed outside the classroom door. The students were then told to wait outside the classroom while the dog sniffed backpacks, jackets, and other belongings that the students left in the room. The plaintiff brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged sev eral deprivations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and various state law claims. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court began its analysis with the threshold principle that a search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. The court recog nized that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit had yet addressed the issue of whether a dog sniff of a person is a search. The Ninth Circuit had in the past recognized, however, that the level of intrusiveness is greater when the dog is permit ted to sniff a person than when a dog sniffs unattended luggage.23 The court held that the "close proximity sniffing of the person is

offensive whether the sniffer be canine or human" and that because the dog sniff at issue infringed the plaintiff's reasonable expectation of privacy, it constituted a search. The court stated that to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment a "search must ordinarily be based on individualized suspicion of wrong doing." The court noted, however, that a suspicionless search may be reasonable in limited circumstances where "(1) the privacy interest implicated by the search are minimal and (2) where an important government interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion." On that basis, the court evaluated the Quincy High School students' privacy interests. Noting that students do not "shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate," the court con cluded that the high school students' privacy interests were not minimal. From a government interest perspective, the court noted that there was no record of any drug crisis or even drug problem at Quincy High School at the time of the search. In the absence of such a problem, the government's interest in deterring student drug use would not have been placed in jeopardy by the requirement of individualized suspicion. The court therefore ruled that the random and suspicionless dog sniff search of the plaintiff was unreasonable under the circumstances. Based on these facts, the model policy directs that: The use of drug detection canines in schools is limited to situations where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that illegal drugs are being sold, possessed, and/or consumed on the premis es. Where reasonably possible, the school's principal or designated authority should be contacted in advance of the search, and the canine search should be limited to inanimate objects where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. 3. Sniffs Outside Residences. The law with regard to conducting a canine sniff search outside a residence is unclear from a nation al perspective. For this reason, canine officers should take heed of state and federal rulings within their jurisdictions to avoid civil litigation and/or the dismissal of evidence in criminal proceed ings. Based on the present status of the law, the model policy has taken the following position on this matter: Canine searches of the exterior of residences—either individual dwellings or the common areas of multiple dwellings —are not permitted without a search warrant or as otherwise permitted by state or federal law. In United States v. Thomas 24 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a "residential sniff" outside a suspect's place of dwelling was held to be a search requiring reasonable suspicion by the police. In this case, the police brought a canine to the outside of a suspect's house to sniff for illegal narcotics after obtaining information from an informant. Such a search was held to violate the Fourth Amendment "because of a heightened expectation of privacy in one's home." However, the New York Court of Appeals specifically rejected this holding and found that a canine sniff of the exterior of a res idence does not violate the Fourth Amendment, in that there is not a heightened expectation of privacy to the exterior of a resi dence [emphasis added] as noted in New York's Dunn decision. 25 Yet the Dunn decision illustrates the divergence of judicial views on this point. In that case, two members of the court felt that the sniff of the residential exterior (and apartment) was not a search at all, while two other judges said that probable cause and a warrant were required, and the fifth judge took the position that the sniff was a search but that reasonable suspicion was sufficient. 14

Similarly, in United States v. Solis the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the sniff of the outside of a trailer situated in the parking lot of a gas station was not a prohibited search under the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the Court noted that the dog's intrusion was into the air space open to the public in the vicinity of the trailer; there was no invasion of the curtilage; no sophisticated mechanical or electronic devices were used; and the owners had no reasonable expectation that the odor of drugs would not emanate from the trailer. 4. Sniffs of Motor Vehicles. The model policy takes this position: Canine drug sniffs of motor vehicles may be conducted when a. there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the operator or passengers are in possession of illegal narcotics, or b. the canine sniff is limited to the exterior of the vehicle. The courts have upheld sniffs of motor vehicles conducted during stops on a street or highway. Such sniffs are valid if the initial stop of the vehicle is valid and the detention period does not exceed a reasonable time. For example, in U.S. v. MoralesZamora,27 the cars of the various defendants were stopped at a roadblock on an interstate highway in New Mexico. The avowed purpose of the roadblock was to check driver's licenses, registra tions, and proof of insurance. In each case, while one officer was checking the documents, another one walked around the vehicle with a drug-detection dog. When the dog alerted, the car was searched and marijuana was found. The court upheld these as valid stops, searches, and seizures. A somewhat different holding was reached more recently in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Indianapolis v. Edmond.28 The Court ruled here that drug sniffs at vehicle checkpoints conducted for the primary purpose of detecting narcotics were not constitutional. Based on Edmond, police agencies should be sure that their vehicle checkpoints' primary purpose is valid (e.g., detection of intoxicated drivers, license inspections) and not a ruse for the unstated purpose of conduct ing canine sniffs of all vehicles with the primary intent being that of drug detection and interdiction. If drug-detection dogs are to be used in connection with license checkpoints, three additional steps should be taken: • The checkpoint should be conducted in accordance with stan dard license check procedures. • The sniff should be completed before the document check has been completed. • The motorist should not be detained while the sniff is completed if the dog has not alerted prior to the completion of the docu ment check. If a valid vehicle stop has been made upon reasonable suspicion that drugs are being transported therein, drug-detection dogs may also be used to sniff the exterior of the vehicle. In fact, in one such case, the Tenth Circuit held that the fact that the dog unexpectedly and of its own volition leaped in the back of the vehicle through the open hatchback and then alerted did not render the sniff invalid. 5. Trains. The practice of bringing drug-detection dogs onto trains has so far generated only a few court cases, though more should be expected. Typical cases in the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals appear to establish, at least for those juris dictions, that a sniff outside a train sleeper compartment (i.e., in the corridor of the sleeping car) is not a search, and a sniff inside

an occupied sleeper compartment is a search 29 and requires reasonable suspicion. 30 Because of the scarcity of case law on this point, these views should not be regarded as settling the legality of such actions at this time. Assuming that a sniff conducted in one of the above locations is proper, the next question is if the dog alerts, what action may the officers take thereafter? Once the dog has alerted, a search warrant should normally be obtained. As with other searches, however, exigent circumstances may justify an immediate war rantless search. Warrantless searches always place a burden upon the police and prosecution to prove that such exigencies existed. Therefore, unless the circumstances are so egregious that waiting for a warrant would result in almost certain loss of the evidence or would threaten the safety of the officers involved, a warrant should be obtained. It is also important to understand that an alert by a dog of proven reliability should itself be sufficient probable cause to justify issuance of a search warrant. Several courts have held that an alert by a trained police canine of known reliability is sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. 31 However, the proven reliability of the dog is a critical factor. The prosecution should be prepared to introduce evidence of the dog's past training and on-the-job performance to establish reliability.32 Endnotes
New York Police Department Canine Program, "Canine Handler's Guide," 24. 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). 5 Much of the material in this section of the concepts and issues paper was adapted from a paper on the use of police service dogs prepared by David H. Lawrence of the law firm Franscell, Strickland, Roberts and Lawrence of Pasadena, California. It originally appeared in the Fall 1996 issue of Policy Review, the newsletter of the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. Permission to use this documentation is gratefully acknowledged. 6 Chew v. Gates , 27 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994). 7 "Scent: The Forgotten Evidence," narrated by William D. Tolhurst, Media Productions, 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). 12 Sheldon Rubin, DVM, and the editors of Consumer Guide , Emergency First Aid for Dogs (New York, NY: Beckman House, 1981). 13 This drug detection section of this concepts and issues paper is primarily the work of George J. Franscell, partner, and Ann M. Maurer, associate, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts and Lawrence, Attorneys-At-Law, Pasadena, California. See their article, "Court Decisions Provide Guidance on Use of Canine Units," in the October 2000 Police Chief , 138. 14 United States v. Place , 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). 15 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868. 16 U.S. v. Bronstein , 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1975). 17 United States v. Fulero , 498 F.2d 748 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 18 Doe v. Renfrow , 475 F. Supp. 1012, 631 F.2d 91, 635 F.2d 582 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 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).
2 1

Jones v. Latexo Independent School District , 499 F.Supp. 223 (1980). Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District , 690 F.2d 470, 479 (5th Cir. 1982). B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999). 23 See United States v. Beale, 736 F2d 1289, 1291-92 (9th Cir. 1984). 24 United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359 (2nd Cir. 1985). 25 New York v. Dunn, 553 N.Y. S.2d 257 (1990). 26 United States v. Solis, 536 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1976). 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, 2000. For a complete assessment of the impact of this case on canine sniffs of automobiles, refer to Policy Review, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer/Fall 2000, published by the Inter national Association of Chiefs of Police National Law Enforcement Policy Center, Alexandria, Virginia. 29 U.S. v. Colyerm, 278 U.S. App. D.C. 367; 878 F.2d 469; 1989 U.S. App. The value of this decision is somewhat clouded by the court's further observation that even if in these circum stances reasonable suspicion was required, the officers in this instance possessed such rea sonable suspicion. 30 U.S. v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1998). In this case, the officers brought the dog into the compartment with the consent of the suspect, who had however refused to give the 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 circumstances probable cause was not required-a reasonable suspicion was sufficient to justify the search. 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). 32 See, e.g., U.S. v. Waltzer , 682 F.2d 370 (2nd Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 3543 (1983); U.S. v. Beale, 674 F.2d. 1327 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. granted, vacated and remanded, 103 S.Ct. 3529 (1983); U.S. v. Fulero , 498 F.2d. 748 (DC Cir. 1974); and People v. Furman, 106 Cal. Rptr. 366 (1973).
20 21 22

This project was supported by Grant No. 2000-DD-VX-0020 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, coordinates the activi ties of the following program offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office of Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice or the IACP.

Every effort has been made by the IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center staff and advisory board to ensure that this model policy incorporates the most current information and contemporary professional judgment on this issue. However, law enforcement administrators should be cautioned that no “model” policy can meet all the needs of any given law enforcement agency. Each law enforcement agency operates in a unique environment of federal court rulings, state laws, local ordinances, regulations, judicial and administrative decisions and col lective bargaining agreements that must be considered. In addition, the formula tion of specific agency policies must take into account local political and communi ty perspectives and customs, prerogatives and demands; often divergent law enforcement strategies and philosophies; and the impact of varied agency resource capabilities among other factors.

15