DECISIONS AFFECTING:
|
* Maryland * North Carolina * South Carolina * Virginia * West Virginia |
CASE: KOPF
v WING
942 F. 2d 265 (Fourth Cir. 1991)
KOPF vSKYRM
993 F. 2d 374 (Fourth Cir. 1993)
INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS:
1) Armed robbery with a handgun of an opened business.
2) Vehicle pursuit of suspect vehicle.
3) Vehicle stops and three suspects flee on foot.
4) One suspect is immediately taken into custody, the other two hide behind a garage in a backyard.
CANINE DEPLOYMENT DECISION / FACTORS:
1) Armed robbery with a handgun.
2) Two fleeing unsearched suspects.
3) Both suspects attempting to evade arrest by flight/hiding.
4) Officers make a canine announcement.
5) A canine was deployed to search for both suspects.
6) The dog locates both suspects and bites one of them. One suspect kicks the dog.
7) The suspect verbally surrenders, but will not show his hands. Officers could then see the suspect’s hands, but the police dog was not recalled.
8) Officers eventually physically take the suspect into custody and then the dog was called off.
9) The second suspect, bit by the dog and released without a command, was also physically taken into custody by officers.
COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
This case was tried by a U.S. District Court. The case was appealed to the Fourth Circuit under Kopf v Wing. It was returned to the District Court for re-trial. It was re-tried and appealed to the Fourth Circuit under Kopf v Skyrm.
Prior to the District Court re-hearing this case, the Prince George’s County, Maryland settled out of court. Kopf is settled and offers little guidance.
There were three key issues, which troubled the Fourth Circuit Court:
1) Expert testimony on proper use of police dogs and slapjacks in effecting arrest was excluded in the trials.
2) Evidence that the canine handler had previously shot a burglary suspect who stabbed his police dog to death was relevant in trial as to the alleged use of excessive force when the officer struck the robbery suspect in the head after the suspect kicked the officer’s dog.
3) Neither the suspect nor any civilian witnesses heard the canine warning announcement. A forewarning that the dog is going to attack, which provides the suspects a fair chance to surrender, is more reasonable than a surprise assault.
CASE: WEST
v RAIMOND
8 F. 3d 823 (1993)
This canine case was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. 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 Fourth Circuit.
The unpublished decision found that it was objectively reasonable to use a police dog to apprehend a fleeing misdemeanant, who was uncuffed and unsearched and was actively resisting arrest by fleeing.
INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS AND OFFICER’S ACTIONS:
1) Traffic violation, speeding.
2) Suspect West flees from police on a motorcycle and a long, high-speed pursuit ensues.
3) West crashes and is lying on the ground.
4) A K-9 handler orders West to stay on the ground.
5) West does not comply and tries to flee.
6) The K-9 apprehends West. The handler orders West to stop struggling.
7) West complies and the dog is immediately recalled.
COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1) The court analyzed the canine deployment by using the Graham v Connor objective reasonableness standard:
A) The severity of the crime at issue:
Misdemeanor speeding and evading a peace officer (pursuit).
B) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or others:
West had just led officers on a long, high-speed pursuit. He was uncuffed and unsearched.
C) And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight:
West was attempting to evade arrest by flight.
2) The court also concluded that the court did not fail to
hear West’s expert witness on the use of a canine in an arrest, since this was not a case of “complicated
police procedures.”
CASE: VATHEKAN v PRINCE GEORGE'S
COUNTY, MD
154 F. 3d 173 (Fourth Cir. 1998)
(See Canine Liability Settlement
Agreement Section)
CASE: McCOLLUM
v McDANIEL
32 Fed. Appx. 49 (2002) Fourth Circuit
The Fourth Circuit affirmed this canine case. The court’s decision was without a published opinion. Technically, this means 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 Fourth Circuit.
The unpublished decision found the use of a police dog was excessive force.
INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS AND OFFICER’S ACTIONS:
1) Suspect McCollum is stopped for a traffic violation.
2) There is a failure to yield and McCollum stops in front of his home.
3) McCollum flees into his home.
4) Three officers and a police dog enter the home, search for and locate McCollum hiding in the attic.
5) The ceiling fails, and all parties fall through the ceiling.
6) The police dog bites McCollum.
COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1) McCollum claims he was beaten by officers and bitten by the dog after he surrendered and was compliant.
2) McCollum was severely injured in this incident. He suffered fractures to his face; he lost his right eye; his ribs, hand and leg were broken; his lung collapsed; he had lacerations from the dog bite.
3) The court found the officers guilty of excessive force.
The jury’s award to McCollum was $4,112,670 ($4.1 million).
4) The court found the $4.1 million award excessive. The court reduced the award to $1,597,670. ($1.6 million).
CASE: ESTATE OF RODGERS V SMITH
188 Fed. Appx. 175 (2006)
This canine case was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. 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 Fourth Circuit.
The unpublished decision found that it was objectively reasonable to use a police dog to apprehend an armed suspect without warning the suspect that a police dog was being deployed as a use of force.
INITIAL SUSPECT VIOLATIONS AND OFFICER’S ACTIONS:
1) Suspect Rodgers abducts a female at gun point and forces her into his
vehicle.
2) Police officers see Rodgers in his vehicle with the victim.
3) A high risk stop is initiated, however Rodgers will not stop and
a high speed vehicle pursuit takes place.
4) Rodgers stops in a parking lot and the K-9 handler’s vehicle crashes
into Rodgers’ vehicle.
5) Rodgers exits the vehicle, hand gun in hand.
6) The police dog is released to bite Rodgers, without a verbal warning.
7) Rodgers then points his gun at the K-9
handler.
8) The officers shoot Rodgers, killing him.
COURT’S RULINGS, FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
1) The court analyzed the canine deployment by using the Graham v Connor objective reasonableness standard:
a) The severity of the crime at issue:
Kidnapping and high-speed vehicle pursuit.
b) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement
officers or others:
Rodgers was armed with a hand gun and used it in the kidnapping. Rodgers had
just led officers on a long, high-speed pursuit.
c) And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
evade arrest by flight:
Rodgers was attempting to evade arrest by flight and was actively resisting
arrest by arming himself with the hand gun.
2) Rodgers’ estate claimed that the K-9 handler unreasonably deployed the police dog without first warning Rodgers and affording him an opportunity for peaceful surrender.
The court concluded there was no Fourth Amendment violation. When the K-9 handler deployed the dog, the handler knew that Rodgers was holding a hand gun at his side. At the time of the deployment, the handler was no more than 10’ away from Rodgers. The handler testified that he deployed the dog without a warning because “I was close and there was no cover between Rodgers and I. And I didn’t want to draw any more attention to myself than I had to.”
Under these circumstances, the handler’s judgment was reasonable and there was no Fourth Amendment violation in the manner the handler deployed the police dog.
Created
and maintained by Terry Fleck. Contact: k9fleck@aol.com
Copyright © 1999
- 2009 Terry Fleck. All rights reserved.