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.
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.