More than three years after changing training and deployment methods in order to reduce unnecessary police dog bites, the Prince George's County police canine unit has succeeded in dramatically reducing the number of such bites, according to an independent analysis.
However, the report also found that some police commanders are confused about when police dogs can be used and that internal investigations of police dog biting incidents are incomplete. The report recommended that every canine officer be taken off the street for retraining.
Prince George's Police Chief Melvin C. High, who was sworn in three months ago, said in a recent interview that he plans to implement some of the recommendations contained in the 51-page report written by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a Washington-based law enforcement research group.
"What we're in the process of doing is defining, redefining and redoing the standard operating procedures for our canine unit," High said. "Some of those recommendations that have been made will be part of that. The canine unit is an important unit. They do good work. What we have to do is manage that work so they are effective and acceptable."
High declined to be more specific.
Former police chief Gerald M. Wilson commissioned the study a year ago, after a county police canine officer was acquitted by a circuit court judge of charges that he released his canine on an unresisting burglary suspect. The county paid PERF $77,313.
In commissioning the study, Wilson noted that the canine unit had been accused of using excessive force in recent years.
Since 1999, the county has paid more than $2 million in civil jury awards and settlements in lawsuits involving police dog attacks. In December 2001, former canine officer Stephanie C. Mohr was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for releasing her police dog on an unarmed homeless man. The Mohr case was a byproduct of an FBI probe launched in the spring of 1999 into whether the canine unit engaged in a pattern of excessive force. That investigation is continuing.
About the time the FBI investigation began, in April 1999, The Washington Post reported that dozens of people had suffered serious injuries as a result of county police dog attacks.
In May 1999, former county executive Wayne K. Curry and former police chief John S. Farrell announced sweeping training and deployment changes in the canine unit. The changes were designed to reduce unnecessary police dog bites, Curry and Farrell said.
Among the changes: A switch from the "find and bite" method, in which police dogs are trained to bite whomever they find, to a "guard and bark" approach, in which the dogs are taught to keep suspects at bay by barking loudly, biting only if a suspect flees or attacks.
Officials also tightened up the circumstances under which police dogs would be used, saying they would no longer be used to find people suspected of petty crimes.
The number of sergeants in the unit was increased from three to five, to ensure a supervisor would be on duty to authorize the use of a canine. In addition, officials said each biting incident would be investigated by canine unit supervisors and other top officials.
The PERF report is the first independent analysis measuring the success of the training and deployment changes in the canine unit.
The report said county police have succeeded in reducing dog bites.
In 2001, county police canines inflicted 18 bites, according to the report. By late August of last year, county police dogs had bitten people eight times, the report said. County police said most of the bites were small punctures or skin indentations, the report said.
In contrast, during a seven-year period from the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, county police dogs bit more than 800 people, according to internal police records.
The decreasing frequency of bites "suggests the department's efforts at reducing bites are meeting with success," the report said.
But the report found other issues in which the canine unit needed improvement. Among them:
•Investigations.
Internal investigations of biting incidents "do not appear sufficiently thorough," the report said. "For example, photographs of the bite are not taken and medical records are not included in the investigation. The [person] bitten does not give a formal statement that is recorded on audiotape or videotape, nor does it appear that witnesses are routinely identified and interviewed."
Statements of the canine handler are not audiotaped or videotaped, and the sergeant conducting the investigation is usually the same one who authorized the use of the dog, the report said.
One canine officer said some officers are not candid during internal reviews because they fear being dismissed.
The report recommends that interviews of dog-bite victims should be recorded, all witnesses should be interviewed, and dog bites should be photographed.
•Deployment policy.
Although deployment policy changes were phased in beginning in 1999, many police supervisors remained confused about the circumstances under which the dogs should be used, the study said.
The report cited an incident last year in which an armed man threatened employees at a large clothing store. SWAT officers preparing to enter the store expected a police dog would be released; the canine officer told them the dog could be deployed only on a leash because civilians might be in the store.
Before this incident, SWAT officers were not aware of the new policy guidelines, the report said.
"Since the more senior officers usually were uninformed on new policies, the canine section members were often placed in the unenviable position of advising they could not do what the senior officer expected," the report said.
The report recommends that every section of the police department be made aware of changes in canine policies through regular updates or special broadcasts.
•Training and policies.
Of the 19 officers currently in the canine unit, 11 have been in the section for three years or less, the report said.
When the department switched to the "guard and bark" method, 10 officers transferred to other assignments, the report said.
"The study team heard several examples of situations where handlers conducted training exercises on their own time," the report said.
The report recommends that every canine officer be taken off the street for one to two months for retraining. Half the officers in the unit should be retrained at a time, so the other officers could continue to provide canine services.
During retraining, the canine unit's mission and goals would be clarified, and legal issues, tactics and policies would be reviewed.
This "drastic measure" is necessary to restore the unit's sense of direction and bring the level of handler control of the dogs to an acceptable level, the report said.
"The organization's culture has likely allowed situations to deteriorate to the point that substantive change comes only when external pressures come to bear after a series of incidents that undermine confidence in the ability of the police to operate within the boundaries of professional conduct," the report 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.