Siccing a police dog on a suspected armed and dangerous burglar that dislodged a Glock with a switch was not unreasonable. Even if it was excessive force, which it wasn\u2019t, exclusion wouldn\u2019t be the proper remedy. United States v. Wilhoite, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232389 (D. Kan. Oct. 9, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nGood reasons exist not to extend the exclusionary rule beyond the illegal search and seizure realm. Exclusion is appropriate only when “the deterrence benefits of suppression \u2026 outweigh its heavy costs.” Davis, 564 U.S. at 237. Law enforcement conduct that is “deliberate,” “reckless,” or “grossly negligent” makes the “deterrent value of exclusion \u2026 strong.” Id. at 238. In other words, it encourages officers to limit their unilateral discretionary investigative choices by encouraging presentment of the issue to a neutral and detached judge except in limited circumstances. On the other hand, an “objectively reasonable good-faith belief that [one’s] conduct is lawful,” or conduct involving only “isolated negligence,” makes for a low deterrent value. Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Wilhoite makes no argument that these values supporting the exclusionary rule in the search and seizure context could ever be advanced by a post-hoc determination that the force used to affect an arrest was excessive. See United States v. Pemberton, 94 F.4th 1130, 1137 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 604, 220 L. Ed. 2d 237 (2024) (noting that application of the rule must either alter the behavior of officers or the policies of their department responsible for the misconduct). Instead, the potential for civil liability and damages provides a meaningful check on an officer’s conduct and a path for a plaintiff to pursue any claim he or she may have. See e.g. Collins, 714 F.3d at 543. Consistent with that reasoning, even if Janes’ conduct could be described as excessive force, there is no persuasive argument that exclusion would be an effective deterrent in this type of split-second encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second, there is no causal connection between the force used and the discovery of the firearm. The firearm was dislodged when the K-9 confronted Wilhoite, yet most of his arguments focused on the incidents that occurred or the injuries suffered arising from his attempt to flee the K-9. \u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Siccing a police dog on a suspected armed and dangerous burglar that dislodged a Glock with a switch was not unreasonable. Even if it was excessive force, which it wasn\u2019t, exclusion wouldn\u2019t be the proper remedy. United States v. Wilhoite, … Continue reading