Police Dog "Severe use of force"

Printable View

04-02-2016, 03:20 PM
UNK

Police Dog "Severe use of force"

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/l...402-story.html
04-02-2016, 03:50 PM
Lon

I take anything coming from the 9th Circuit with a grain of salt. I would not want to be a LEO in the 9th circuit.
04-02-2016, 05:07 PM
Dagga Boy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lon

I take anything coming from the 9th Circuit with a grain of salt. I would not want to be a LEO in the 9th circuit.

Take it with a grain of salt all you want, but the 9th Circuit is simply a predictor of what is coming in the next ten years everywhere else. It is why folks should pay attention to changes made in policing and training in the 9th Circuit to head off issues before they become an issue rather than simply saying that they are crazy in the 9th.

The solution to this is simple.........stop responding to burglar alarms without a responsible person on scene. Done. The only alarms we ever caught crooks on were Sonitrol.....and they rarely had bad alarms. These alarm companies are making money by using tax payer funded public LE to really do their work. Get an alarm, call a responsible party and get them on scene and then an officer will respond if it appears a crime has been committed and the responsible party requests officers make entry and will prosecute anyone in the building. If the public doesn't like it.........tough, you also get the police response you voted for when you voted for people who appoint these judges.
04-02-2016, 05:11 PM
orionz06

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyeti

The solution to this is simple.........stop responding to burglar alarms without a responsible person on scene. Done. The only alarms we ever caught crooks on were Sonitrol.....and they rarely had bad alarms. These alarm companies are making money by using tax payer funded public LE to really do their work. Get an alarm, call a responsible party and get them on scene and then an officer will respond if it appears a crime has been committed and the responsible party requests officers make entry and will prosecute anyone in the building. If the public doesn't like it.........tough, you also get the police response you voted for when you voted for people who appoint these judges.

Interesting. This would solve the issue I have with randomly tossing a dog in there and having an innocent bit. It also places a burden on the building owner to have video of some sort. This could be easily resolved from a responsible parties smart phone or PC. Having slept at work on a Friday night in order to drive legally I can totally sympathize with the victim here.
04-02-2016, 06:48 PM
pablo

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyeti

The solution to this is simple.........stop responding to burglar alarms without a responsible person on scene.

There's nothing new coming out of this ruling. The officer's actions wouldn't pass the smell test anywhere else.

There's never a reason to search an open building, especially with K9, without a business representative on scene. We got our butts handed to us in court years ago when a janitor got chewed up by one of our dogs under similar circumstances, and this is in Texas. I'd be really surprised if SDPD didn't have a policy in place to forbid searches without a business rep on scene.

What's the rush, set a perimeter and wait. We get paid by the hour not by the call.