AR-News: (MN - US) Appeals Court sides with man bit by Minnetonka police dog

[Snugglezzz at aol.com]

Appeals Court sides with man bit by Minnetonka police dog<IMG  SRC="http://www.twincities.com/images/common/spacer.gif" WIDTH="1" HEIGHT="5" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="43">
Associated Press
<IMG  SRC="http://www.twincities.com/images/common/spacer.gif" WIDTH="1" HEIGHT="1" BORDER="0" DATASIZE="43">

ST. PAUL - A federal appeals court has ruled that a Twin Cities police K-9 
unit should send fleeing suspects a clear message: Beware of dog.

The case involves an Eagan man who contends his civil rights were violated 
after he was bitten by a Minnetonka police dog while trying to hide from police 
in a dark, marshy field five years ago.

He says an artery in his leg was punctured in the attack and that police 
should have let him know the dog was trained to bite first, rather than bark. The 
8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, after a federal district court judge 
first dismissed the case.

"We see no reason why in this case a rational jury would be precluded from 
finding that the officers could have placed themselves out of harm's way and 
given a loud verbal warning that a police dog was present and trained to seize by 
force," the ruling said.

Police officials contend officers would be put at risk by letting suspects 
know when a dog was being used in a search.

The bark vs. bite issue is being debated across the country, particularly in 
cities where police departments use dogs trained to "bite and hold," rather 
than "find and bark."

Minnetonka and other Twin Cities department have dogs trained to bite and 
hold.

Accusations of civil-rights violations from suspects bitten by police dogs 
have forced more than a dozen police departments, including departments in 
Detroit and Los Angeles, and New Jersey state troopers to retrain dogs in their K-9 
units.

"The problem is that a dog can't discriminate between someone who is 
surrendering and someone who is not," said Kay Nord Hunt, a Minneapolis attorney 
representing Jeffrey M. Kuha, the man who was bitten. "The problem is in the 
training. A dog's bark can be just as effective as its bite."

With Tuesday's ruling, Kuha and his attorneys can pursue a claim against the 
city of Minnetonka in a federal trial. A federal district court judge had 
previously dismissed his lawsuit, saying Kuha failed to show that the bite was 
excessive force.

But the appeals court overruled that decision.

"We agree officer safety is paramount but disagree that a verbal warning will 
put officers at increased risk," the judges wrote.

The city of Minnetonka, though, contends that it does have a policy of 
warning suspects, but it is mainly used in building searches.

"This wasn't as if the dog was let loose. He was still on a lead and he was 
searching a dark field," said Paul Reuvers, an attorney representing the city 
of Minnetonka. "The officer had no idea why the suspect ran it indicated 
something serious."

Kuha was stopped by a Minnetonka police officer during the early hours of 
Sept. 23, 1999. He had been drinking with friends and was driving home.

According to the decision, he got out of his car and ran into a nearby marshy 
field in order to avoid arrest. His lawyer said he feared a drunken-driving 
arrest because it might endanger his chances of becoming a pilot.

While fleeing, Kuha said he had to swim through water and took his clothes 
off because they were uncomfortable. He eventually stopped running and sat on a 
hill where the dog located him and bit him, the decision said.





 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/attachments/20040502/e45138dc/attachment.html