An April ruling by the Washington Court of Appeals gave the go-ahead sign to an ACLU-W lawsuit challenging policies for the use of police dogs by the Seattle Police Department. The court rejected a claim that the suit be dismissed on grounds that police are immune from suit under state and federal law.
"We are very pleased by the appeals court action. It means that if we can establish the facts alleged in the suit, we will be able to show that the police have violated the constitutional rights of individuals attacked by police dogs," said ACLU-W Legal Program Director Julya Hampton.
In 1992 the ACLU-W filed a class action lawsuit in King County Superior Court against the City of Seattle and certain Seattle Police Department officials and officers. The suit alleges that Police Department dog handlers use excessive force against nonviolent misdemeanor and felony suspects. The dogs are trained to attack and bite suspects, regardless of what they are doing, a policy which sometimes causes serious injuries to people who present no public safety risk.
The suit seeks an order enjoining current Seattle Police Department policies and requiring police officers to use dogs to attack and bite suspects only when there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical injury to police or third parties. It further seeks damages for several individuals who suffered injuries when attacked by police dog seven though they did not present any public safety risk.
Sammeth, Ted Spearman, and Fred Diamondstone are handling the case.
The City of Los Angeles recently settled for $3.7 million the claims from a similar lawsuit brought by the ACLU and several other organizations which had challenged the police departments use of canines. Under new guidelines implemented in response to the suit, Los Angeles Police Department dogs are trained to first bark, not bite, when they locate a suspect; officers are required to give a verbal warning before dogs are turned loose; and the dogs wear electronic collars that allow handlers to shock the dogs if they are unable to restrain them with verbal commands.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.