| * Delaware
* New Jersey * Pennsylvania * Virgin Islands |
CASE: MARLEY
v CITY OF ALLENTOWN
961 F. 2d 1567 (Third Cir. 1992)
The Third Circuit affirmed this canine case. The court’s decision was without a published opinion. Technically, this means that the court’s findings, rulings and comments cannot be used or referred to in other cases.
Even with this decision without published opinion, the case is
still referred to in Chew v Gates, Mendoza v Block, and Watkins
v City of Oakland (all Ninth Circuit) and Jarrett v Town
of Yarmouth (First Circuit).
Due to this case being referred to in three other cases, its decision should be noted.
The unpublished decision found that it was not objectively reasonable to use a Police Dog to apprehend a fleeing misdemeanant along with constitutional constraints on use of deadly force.
INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS AND OFFICER’S ACTIONS:
1) Traffic violation.
2) Attempted traffic stop, suspect drove away, eventually stopped and then fled on foot.
COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1) The court looked to both U.S. Supreme Court cases Tennessee v Garner and Graham v Connor.
2) In regard to Garner, the Marley court found it was proper for the jury to determine if the force (dog) was deadly. The court stated that if the force (dog) was deadly, the officer’s actions were not objectively reasonable, because the suspect was an unarmed, fleeing misdemeanant.
3) In regard to Graham, the Marley court looked at the totality of circumstances as required by Graham. The court stated that the evidence in this case supported that the suspect was unarmed, posed no threat to anyone and possibly had stopped fleeing. Given these facts, even if the use of a Police Dog does not constitute deadly force, the use of the dog may be objectively unreasonable.
CASE: MOORE v VANGELO
222 Fed. Appx. 167 (U.S. Court of Appeals Third Circuit 2007)
The Third Circuit affirmed this canine case. The court’s decision was without a published opinion. Technically, this means that the court’s findings, rulings and comments cannot be used or referred to in other cases.
Even with this decision without published opinion, the case may be referred to when certain matters of law are pointed out by the Third Circuit.
The unpublished decision found use of the canine was not excessive force.
INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS AND OFFICER’S ACTIONS:
1) Three people involved in a fight on a street corner.
2) K-9 officer arrives, with no other back-up.
3) K-9 handler gives verbal orders to stop fighting.
4) The fight continues.
5) Unable to cope with the three perceived combatants alone, the K-9 handler released the K-9, commanding him to bite and hold Moore.
6) The K-9 bit Moore on the right forearm and held him until he was ordered off by the handler.
7) Moore was then immediately grabbed and swept to the ground where another officer handcuffed him.
8) Moore suffered a bite wound.
COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1) The court evaluated the elements in Graham v Connor:
A) The severity of the crime at issue;
B) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or others;
C) And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
2) Police officer’s use of a police dog to bite and hold a suspect perceived to be a combatant in a street fight involving two other individuals was reasonable. The officer was confronted with a dangerous situation where the safety of officers and others were at risk, the melee going on before him was an ongoing assault, and the officer was, at least temporarily, alone.
3) Police officer did not use excessive force in grabbing and sweeping the arrestee to the ground prior to handcuffing him. The officer was responding to a radio transmission by another officer requesting immediate help in dealing with three perceived combatants, the arrestee was being held by a police dog, and the officer was unable to put handcuffs on the arrestee while the arrestee remained upright.
Created
and maintained by Terry Fleck. Contact: k9fleck@aol.com
Copyright © 1999
- 2009 Terry Fleck. All rights reserved.