Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
suspect that there's only one example in major case law. Just as a comparison, pet dogs and
strays do much more damage: They killed thirty-one people in 2011. Tasers caused about five
hundred deaths in the last decade. As Charlie Mesloh noted, whenever a particular use-of-
force method becomes popular, the incidents of its misuse rise as well.
The occasional misuse of patrol dogs creates enormous bad press, though, which in turn
can spur lawsuits and overwrought and under-researched recommendations and edicts that
spill over and affect the responsible units. The bad cases have multiple consequences. In 2001,
following the media exposure of two K9 units, one on either side of the country, with out-
of-control K9 officers, the U.S. Department of Justice decided that it would be better to shift
paradigms and recommend that K9 units use a system called “bark and hold” rather than
“bite and hold.” In other words, the patrol dogs were supposed to simply circle the suspect,
or to stand and bark at the suspect until that person tried to use force against the dog or
the officer. At that point, the dog was allowed to bite. The DOJ didn't have much evidence
on bark-and-hold effectiveness before recommending the change. And thousands of K9 units
across the country already trained bite and hold.
Charlie Mesloh decided to look at the issue. After all, the DOJ was recommending a huge
change with little research, and three quarters of Florida units used bite and hold.
The concept of bark and hold sounds great. No teeth. The dog scares the suspect and holds
him without harm until the officer claps on handcuffs and leads the chagrined suspect away.
It's the best of all worlds. he only problem? Charlie Mesloh found, when he did a careful
study in Florida, that bark and hold was “a good marketing tool”—and little else. The dogs
trained in bark and hold actually bit suspects more often than dogs trained in bite and hold.
The method inevitably gives the suspect more time to use a weapon on either the handler or
the dog. There's no national tracking system for patrol dogs injured or killed by suspects, but
the numbers are substantial.
There are lots of good reasons to use dogs for criminal apprehension. If the dog is well
trained, the handler can control him in ways he can't control any other weapon. An officer
can't recall a bullet once it's left the gun chamber. Once an officer has pushed the trigger on
a Taser, he can't change his mind. A dog is different—in principle, at least. That's because
good patrol dogs don't arrive with on and off switches already installed. Training a dog to the
point where he looks like a well-oiled machine is a beautiful thing, but being able to stop an
enthusiastic and driven dog from taking a bite takes skilled training and handling. Lughar's
selective deafness wasn't ideal; however, it was understandable and fixable.
• • •
As Steve Sprouse and I drove to the next training area, the aging patrol car's big engine shak-
ing the floorboards, we talked. Not about why law enforcement uses dogs in this manner. In
Search WWH ::




Custom Search