The Roles of the Police Dogs - Essay Example

Canine Police: Social and Legal Issues Introduction Trained dogs have been in use in the recent years in law enforcement and majorly in the fight against drugs, explosives and terrorism. In North America, police dogs are referred to as canines with the dogs which are specifically trained being regarded as part of the law enforcement agencies. They are instrumental in assisting the police and other law enforcement people in their roles. The German shepherd is the most common breed used due to its qualities such as sharpness and good senses needed in the tasks it will be required to perform. There are various laws that define the roles of the police dogs and how they should be treated. The police-dogs are considered as complete or full-fledged police officer. Assaulting them is therefore punishable by the federal laws. Initially protected by the state laws, the police dogs are now protected by federal laws with individuals found guilty of assaulting the law enforcing animals standing the risk of serving ten years in prison or paying a fine of at least $1 000. This paper will address the topic by discussing the various legal and social issues surrounding the use of the canines in law enforcement. It is important to note that the police dogs being relied on to establish links in various crimes such as searching of cadavers, explosives, drugs etc., need to be protected by the law due to the sensitivity of the areas they are involved. For instance, in a case where a police dog injures a civilian in the course of duty, the police department from which it serves are held liable. In the same way, if an individual is found to have assaulted the police dog popularly known as K-9 a homophone of canine in the United States, they are made to stand trial and risk a possible conviction for the felony. This paper will therefore look at the federal laws and how different states protect and set laws in line with the use of the canines in law enforcement. How Canine Police Work A police dog just like any other personnel in the law enforcement sector has various responsibilities and rights that define the scope of their work. However, in the use of police dogs, there is no set or standardized set of laws that define how the dogs should be used. For instance, in trying to hunt down a suspect and presentation in court to assist in investigations or stand trial, the use of police dogs and the force applied may only be justified by the immediate behavior of the suspect such as resistance to arrest or the severity of the crime. The use of canine force is not always justified. In some cases, the police can operate without their use if the suspect is for instance not armed or he does not pose any threat to the society. In such cases, use of canine force may not be justifiable. However, the police are allowed to decide on the sensitivity of the situation and apply the right measures such as the employment of canine force if deemed important. In cases where a search is found important or in places such as airports where the passengers may be carrying drugs, the use of canine police is common. The sniffer dogs are trained in a way that using their strong sense of smell they will raise alarm if a certain bag or cargo is having certain substances that are illegal. This is achieved by years of training and choice of the right dog to undertake the task. It is however very important in the presentation of any evidence that the attorney requests for the dog training records. In case the dog used does not have an impressive training record, it would be hard to present or adopt the evidence presented. Due to such serious issues, the training records are kept safe to use as proof when the canine is used. For a dog to be used, it has to achieve an internationally recognized training and passed. The police officers handling them must also be trained well to be able to handle the sensitive cases that may arise. Legal Issues In various cases, it is important to establish the reliability of the canine team when they represent certain evidence in a court of law or when the canine’s alert was used in the formation of the case. In such cases, as the Florida Supreme Court held in the case Florida v Harris, it is important in such a situation for the prosecution to avail the court with records of a canine’s field performance which will be used to ascertain the reliability of the information or the evidence1. In the case identified above, and in which the guidance of the Florida Supreme Court was sought on the reliability of canine alerts, the court argued that certification in detection of narcotics would be needed if the canine’s alert against the same would be taken as reliable hence adoption in the determination of a legal procession. In the case, the canine team’s performance or its use in the past came as a contested issue. Records of its performance on top of its training therefore needs to be availed as well so that the court can use them to confirm reliability. However, this decision as proposed by the Florida Supreme Court was revered by the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the canine’s records of team performance were not important in determining the reliability of the evidence. This is important in addressing the legal issues in the use of canine police in law enforcement since evidence reliability is a core aspect in the development and determination of a given case. It therefore applies that in a given case, the use of canine police and admissibility of such evidence as it may be needed in a court of law will be determined by the training done on the dog. With the use of the same being more common in the recent times, the need to have standardized requirements is important to avoid situations where the determination of case may be formed on falsified information. Federal Law: protection of Canine Cops It is a federal offense to assault the canine police while on their duty or not on duty. The laws have been developed towards protecting the canines from individuals who may want to take advantage of them and inflict injury on them. The Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act is categorical on the rights of the canines and the horses which are used by the police force in maintaining law and order. This law covers the law enforcement animals mainly the dogs and the horses which can be killed by characters with ill motive as a way of blocking justice. Those individuals who are found to have maimed, assaulted or killed the animals will be fined at least $1000 and/or spend ten years in prison2. In the past, state laws were known to protect the animals against such perpetrators but in the recent times, the federal law has been put in place to protect them. In the United States, the U.S. Police Canine Association and the Humane Society have been instrumental in advocating for the rights of the law enforcement animals and they feel that the development of federal laws towards the same is a timely move. In various instances, criminals have taken advantage of the animals and either ended up assaulting them or killing them to hide the evidence. This will therefore discourage the criminals who are involved in cases such as drug peddling from getting involved in the felony. According to Russell Hess, executive director of the U.S. Police Canine Association, it is important to recognize the animals as more than police equipment on their role in law enforcement. These animals should be recognized as the partners they are in law enforcing. They should therefore be protected by the law from individuals who may try to harm them. It is common for individuals such as drug barons to try to kill the animals which they see as obstruction in their operations. The dogs are exposed to sensitive and risky conditions such as crime scenes and areas where drug peddlers are and so the need to have a law that protects them is important. Social Issues The use of canines in various tasks such as drug detection and crowd control has been marred by controversy on various basis such as the find and bite order versus the find and bark order. In the former, the dog during training is shown that in case it’s running after a suspect, it should get him and bite him as a way of either stopping him or controlling his movement. However, this training is criticized since the suspect is still not proven guilty and in majority of the cases he/she is bitten. The find and bite policy is therefore seen as violating the rights of the suspect since the suspect has a right to be given a fair trial. In defense, the police department claim that it is hardly possible to use an alternative method when the suspect is resisting arrest. The canines which can get the suspect in a more efficient way than the police are the first to get at the scene and before the police arrive, the suspect is already injured. The need to train the canines in a different way so that they do not injure the suspects is important. However, in most cases, the suspects try to retaliate when the canines catch up with them. One of the best training programs offered at Los Angeles Police Department showed the importance to employ the find and bite policy instead of the find and bark one. In find and bark policy, the canine is just supposed to hold the suspect until the police get at the scene. In other cases, the canines circling the suspect is also effective in ensuring that he is held at the position until the police get at the scene. It is hard to predict what the dog will do or its reaction if it’s employing the find and bark philosophy then finds an aggressive suspect. Chances are that the dog will react in defense and injury will likely occur. Legal issues that arise from this are on the severity of the crime that would call for the employment of the canines to track down the suspect. Though there lacks a standardized parameter of the same, it has been found that excessive force is used on crimes that do not warrant such force. An example of such a situation is the Robinette v Barnes case where one of the individuals was fatally bitten by the canines in a case seen as not warranting such amount of force. The suspect was killed by the canine which left the handler and got into the house broken into. With the instructions that had been used on it, it found the suspect and killed him. The Supreme Court addressed the issue and concluded that the factors that are supposed to determine the amount of force used in the use of canines include, the degree of the crime, the degree and immediacy of the threat against the police officers deployed and the public if present and lastly the nature of the suspect. If the suspect is resisting the arrest or becoming unruly, it would be prudent to use force in arrest or employ the assistance of the canines. The safety of the officers is always important in handling of suspects and criminals. It has been established that when using the canines, the risk of having the officers injured or killed is minimized as the canines can apprehend the suspects rather than having the officers doing it themselves. This makes it easier since the canines can maneuver in various places easily and with the command used they will do exactly as they are ordered. Unintentional biting, as was seen in the case of Blais v Town of Goffstown have been found to be the canine’s responsibility and not controlled by the handler. Conclusion The use of canine police has been instrumental in curbing crime in the United States and other parts of the world. The canines are used for various roles which include detection of explosives, drugs and other illegal substances at airports and other routine law enforcement tasks. They are also used to catch suspects and maintain order especially where the public becomes unruly such as during riots. Their use has helped to curb crime in a significant way. In the past, there were no laws defining how the canines can be used, their rights and their interaction with the public. However, today, there are laws which have been developed to protect the animals used in maintaining law and order. The main animals used are the dogs and the horses. To that effect, the U.S. law categorically states that any person who is found guilty of assaulting the animals will have serve at least ten years in prison and pay a fine of $1000. Social issues that arise include the according of the canines the rights of a person. It has been seen on various occasions the canines attacking the suspects and injuring them and on an extreme case killing him. The training given to the canines therefore needs to be modified so that such cases are prevented in the future. References American Police Canine Association. Supreme Guidance. Robinson Bryan, ‘Federal Laws Now Protects Canine Cops’, ABC News network, August 9, 2014. Read More