Thread: Police dogs that bite off duty

If the service requires officers to kennel their police dogs at home (which most do), then to a certain extent the organisation/government should ensure that the officer is indemnified if his dog bites when not on duty. However, depending on the circumstances of such bites, the handler/s should still be held responsible and accountable (internally) for the proper control of their dogs both on and off duty. This is the case in most dog sections. Accidents do happen sometimes, and whether on or off duty, if you expected handlers to take full responsibility in all circumstances for a dog which the government requires to be bite trained, then there’d be far fewer police dog handlers. Let’s not forget that the handler does not in fact own the dog, he handles it on behalf of the government, and providing he/she hasn’t been negligent in doing so, it’s not unreasonable to expect the organisation he/she works for to provide officers with the appropriate cover.

Peter

lf the service owns the dog, they should be pro-active and provide the handler with a secure area to contain the dog. Joe public is required by law to do this if he has a "dangerous dog' bite trained or not. lf all care has been taken before hand, then each case should be judged on its merit, but if negligence is proven, then l dont see why the handler should be shielded.
Tony

I agree with both Peter and Tony

However as Tony pointed out, that each case should be judged on its merit.

If a handler was being irresponsible, ie his dog eascapes from a yard, and bites someone. Or the handler has his dog running around off-lead in a public park for example, and that dog chased and bite someone. The state should not be liable for such actions. The Police Officer involved should be treated just like everyone else in regards to dog laws.

If all due care was being taken by the Officer, and someone broke into his home and the dog bit someone, then yes the officer should be covered by the law just like everyone else.

I just wouldn't like to see a handler become irresponisble because he/she new they were always covered no mater what the situation. What happens if this officer has a beef with someone, and sets his dog up. Shouldn't a dog come under the same laws as a gun? If an officer shot someone off-duty, then that officer must be accountable for his actions, not the State.

Everyone not just Joe public should always be made accountable for their actions.

Thats just my opnion....

Tony, I agree entirely......maybe my explanation was a bit on the vague side. When I was in the job, it was the handler’s responsibility to ensure the dog was under control both on and off duty. The service did provide secure kennelling and pen at home and it was up to the handler to inspect it regularly to ensure it was secure. If it was damaged it was reported and attended to as soon as possible; if it needed immediate attention and this was not possible (such as at weekends), then the dog would have been kennelled at the force kennels. If a handler has no control over his dog and it bites somebody in a public place, then the system for training the handler and training and licensing the police dog must be seriously lacking, in which case it isn’t just the handler who is at fault.

If there is any doubt where bites are concerned, there is an in depth investigation by the force concerned, and if a handler is found to have been negligent, he would without doubt suffer the consequences which could result in loss of job and even prosecution, not to mention a civil action by the injured party. Certainly each case is determined on its merits, and in less severe cases the least a negligent handler could expect is being kicked off the dog section/squad, which in itself is probably just as severe to most PD handlers as losing their job.

Allowing or sending your dog at a person (whether you have a grudge or not), when you know the person is innocent of any wrongdoing, is a criminal offence and an officer would suffer the same consequences as anybody else. In fact the consequences would no doubt be more severe. There are incidents where offenders are apprehended by a police dog, which naturally in most cases results in injury to the criminal, and they then take civil action against the particular force whilst they are waiting to be jailed for the original offence. Should they also be allowed to get a payout by taking a civil action against the handler for doing his job?

Of course a handler should be and is accountable for his and his dog’s actions, but when I say accidents happen I don’t mean a handler’s negligence is an accident. I refer the type of situation where in the early hours the handler attends a break-in with the offender making his get away by jumping garden fences and being chased by the police dog. Whilst giving chase through back yards, a householder happens to come out to see what all the noise is about (don’t forget this is at 2/3am). He unfortunately walks into the path of the pursuing PD and is bitten. Of course he should be compensated, but has the handler been negligent? I don’t think so. This was just an unfortunate accident.

Peter

Good points Peter

There are incidents where offenders are apprehended by a police dog, which naturally in most cases results in injury to the criminal, and they then take civil action against the particular force whilst they are waiting to be jailed for the original offence. Should they also be allowed to get a payout by taking a civil action against the handler for doing his job?

I believe if the Officer used reasonable force to apprehend the offender, and it was proven he/she was guilty of some crime, I do not believe this person is entitled for any compensation.

Of course a handler should be and is accountable for his and his dog’s actions, but when I say accidents happen I don’t mean a handler’s negligence is an accident. I refer the type of situation where in the early hours the handler attends a break-in with the offender making his get away by jumping garden fences and being chased by the police dog. Whilst giving chase through back yards, a householder happens to come out to see what all the noise is about (don’t forget this is at 2/3am). He unfortunately walks into the path of the pursuing PD and is bitten. Of course he should be compensated, but has the handler been negligent? I don’t think so. This was just an unfortunate accident.

Peter I agree ith you 100% . The question I was asking was when the Officer was not on duty, and his dog bite somebody. I am going to find more info about the case in my OP.

I just find it interesting that these police dogs were kept in kennels to protect the handlers. If the handlers and the Police Department in question were being responsible in the first place... why then did this happen... I'll see if I can find more info on what actually happened.

lf the service owns the dog, they should be pro-active and provide the handler with a secure area to contain the dog. Joe public is required by law to do this if he has a "dangerous dog' bite trained or not. lf all care has been taken before hand, then each case should be judged on its merit, but if negligence is proven, then l dont see why the handler should be shielded.
Tony
TonyMcCallum

You took the words right out of my mouth Tony.It came to my attention in 2002 here in WA when they were asking for submissions on changes to provisions to the dog act.In this state police service dogs are not subject to the same provisions as civilian dogs when kept in the home.In other words if they were dog bites someone nothing will happen to them and the dog will not be classified as dangerous.In my submission I asked why is this so.Like every other question I have ever asked the State Government on dog matters I never received an answer.
I do not see why they are not subject to the same laws as anyone else if the dog is kept with the handler in a home environment then it should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.It is this us and them mentality that creates problems in the first place.The dog should have to have a secure area when not performing its duties.