canine legal update
K- 9 Patrol Cases, Part II
BY TERRY FLECK
Exclusive to Police K- 9 Magazine, this
column reports on the latest federal cases
affecting law-enforcement K-9s and
handlers. The following summary of
recent patrol K- 9 cases is published in two
parts. The first part appeared in the
July/August issue. Note that one of these
cases involves a suspect who was known
to be armed with a gun.
Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F. 3d 1283
(2009) U.S. Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit.
Initial suspect violations:
Suspect Crenshaw committed two
armed robberies using a gun. Officers
attempted a high-risk vehicle stop on
Crenshaw’s vehicle. Crenshaw led
officers on a vehicle pursuit and
crashed into a
marked patrol
vehicle. Crenshaw
abandoned his
vehicle and fled on
foot into a heavily
wooded area at night.
Canine deployment
decision factors:
A police dog was
used to track
Crenshaw. Officers
believed Crenshaw
still had his gun. The handler deployed
the dog, without giving a verbal warn-
ing. The handler ended up crawling
through dense brush. The handler
heard Crenshaw state: “I am over
here.” Just at that moment, the dog
made contact with the suspect. It took
the handler 3 to 5 seconds to crawl to
the area where the suspect was hiding.
Once the handler made it to Cren-
shaw, the suspect was ordered to show
his hands. Crenshaw did not imme-
diately comply. The handler was
unaware of whether the suspect was
still armed. The handler grabbed the
suspect’s hands. The dog was not
removed until both hands were
accounted for and secured. Crenshaw
was bitten numerous times.
Take the
additional time
to contact
residents prior to
entering their
backyards.
■ Above: In Crenshaw v. Lister, the suspect
was tracked into a heavily wooded area but
refused to surrender, even after he heard the
K- 9 announcement.
required to risk his own life by revealing his position in an unfamiliar
wooded area at night to an armed
fugitive who failed to show an intention to surrender following a K- 9
warning announcement. The handler
would have placed himself at risk had
he called off the canine before
ensuring that Crenshaw was fully
secured.
Trammell v. Thomason, 2009 WL
1706591 (2009), U.S. Court of
Appeals Eleventh Circuit. The
Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed this
canine case. The court’s decision was
without a published opinion. Technically, that means that the court’s
findings, rulings, and comments
cannot be used or referred to in other
cases. Even with that decision, without
published opinion, the case may be
referred to when certain matters of law
are pointed out by the Eleventh
Circuit. The unpublished decision
found that it was unreasonable to fail
to give a verbal warning before releasing a police dog to locate a residential
