LEGAL ISSUES
■ Right: The courts
have found that
when a police dog
is deployed in an
appropriate
manner to
apprehend a
felony suspect,
that deployment
does not
constitute dead
force.
an appropriate manner to apprehend a felony suspect, the
use of the dog does not constitute deadly force.”
In holding that deadly force was not involved, the
Robinette court relied on (1) evidence that K- 9 Casey and
Officer Barnes were properly trained (“Since at least January
1984, they have participated in a retraining program which
requires that the proficiency of each ‘K- 9’ team be
reevaluated every three weeks. Building search procedure is
among the skills reevaluated.”) and (2) evidence that the
deployment technique was proper, including the sufficiency
of warnings given (“Barnes shouted a warning that he had a
police dog and that anyone inside the building should come
out or he would turn the dog loose. Approximately thirty
seconds later, Barnes repeated the warning. After another
thirty seconds passed, Barnes released Casey.”). [Id at
910–911.]
Contrary to popular belief, Robinette did not shut the door
on canine use as a deadly force. The court found that “An
officer’s intent in using a police dog, or the use of an im-
properly trained dog, could transform the use of the dog into
deadly force.” [Id at 913.]
Related Cases
Seventeen years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Smith v.
City of Hemet, 394 F 3d 689, 707 (9th Cir 2005), cited the
preceding quote from Robinette to remind law enforcement
