S.D. N.Y.: Plaintiff will get to attempt to prove that a police dog can be deadly force

Use of a police dog to attack is not found to be not lethal as a matter of law, despite cases in other circuits to the contrary because this circuit has not ruled. Blake v. City of New York, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49160 (S.D. N.Y. July 3, 2007):

fn2. While the Second Circuit has not decided the question, several other circuits have held that a properly trained police dog cannot, as a matter of law, constitute deadly force. See, e.g., Dunnigan v. Noble, 390 F.3d 486, 492 n. 8 (6th Cir. 2004) (“No federal appeals court has held a properly trained police dog is an instrument of deadly force.”); Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 1988)(“[W]e find that the use of a properly trained police dog to apprehend a felony suspect does not carry with it a ‘substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm [i.e. deadly force].'”); Kuha v. Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 598 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he use of a properly trained police dog in the course of apprehending a suspect does not constitute deadly force.”).[end fn]

. . .

Accordingly, the Court need only craft a charge which will help a jury decide whether the force used in this case was reasonable under all the circumstances. The Court will explain that, in conducting this analysis, the jury may consider the Graham factors, namely, the severity of the crime; whether Plaintiffs posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers; and whether the Plaintiffs actively resisted arrest. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. If appropriate, the Court may instruct the jury to consider additional factors as requested by the parties. The Court will advise the jury that the objective reasonableness inquiry is fact-specific, so the jury may consider any other aspects of this case that inform the reasonableness analysis.

The Court will not instruct the jury as to the definition of deadly force or the specific circumstances under which deadly force is or is not reasonable. That said, both sides may present evidence as to the amount of force a police dog can exert. Plaintiffs may present evidence that the police dog in this case could have killed Plaintiffs. Defendants may present evidence that the dog in this case could not have–or was highly unlikely to have–killed Plaintiffs. The parties may then argue that it was reasonable or unreasonable to use DJ under the circumstances of this case. But the Court will not instruct the jury as to deadly force.

A host of disputed facts about the legality of the police entry, excessive force, and whether a third-party could consent all precluded defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Deitch v. City of Olympia, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49253 (W.D. Wash. July 9, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.