'They bite to kill.' Circleville police mauling shows why use of dogs excessive| attorney

Patrick Buelna is a civil rights attorney in Oakland, Calif. He recently won a $21 million verdict in a federal jury trial against the Fremont (California) Police Department in the killing of Elena "Ebbie" Mondragon, who was 16 years old and in her first trimester of pregnancy.

Last week's shocking video of Circleville K-9 police officer Ryan Speakman releasing his dog on a surrendering Black man exposes a type of excessive force which usually seems to result in questions of when and how police use this weapon. Yes, a police dog is a deadly weapon.

The real question, though, should be whether using police dogs to bite and hold people suspected of crimes is even constitutional.

More: Civil rights attorney Ben Crump to represent K9 victim Jadarrius Rose

Gov. Mike DeWine called for more training for all police dogs and their handlers statewide after video of the July 4 arrest of Jadarrius Rose surfaced.

Yet, speaking as a civil rights attorney who has handled many police dog mauling cases, it’s doubtful that more training on top of training will do much to stop people from being traumatized, maimed, or even killed, by these potentially lethal weapons, because they are animals that respond to millenniums of predator-prey instinct.

They bite to kill their prey, not to restrain.

Change will only come once it’s made clear that, when it comes to siccing attack dogs on the public, it’s an unconstitutional use of force. There are two key Fourth Amendment violations to consider.

Unreasonable seizure and excessive force

K-9 handlers have limited control over when a dog ceases its attack.

Once a dog is set upon someone, the handler cannot command it to stop biting instantaneously. Often, the officer needs to physically grab the animal and pull it off the person.

This delay violates the rights of the individual, especially if they have already surrendered, because the U.S. Constitution promises all citizens the right to be free from excessive force — and force applied by an uncontrollable animal used by law enforcement is not an exception.

An unconstitutional and abusive use of force

The established training procedure for officers requires their dogs to continue biting a compliant individual until a cover officer arrives or the person is handcuffed.

Until then, the K-9 — and the handler — are expected to let the dog keep biting. Consider the same scenario with an officer wielding a baton. The law would never permit them to continue beating a compliant person.

This disparity demonstrates an unconstitutional and abusive use of force.

On July 4, Rose had already surrendered when Speakman set the dog on him.

It’s reported that the bite lasted at least 20 seconds. The 23-year-old’s rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated during every one of those seconds.

While I recognize the valid contributions of K-9 units in certain circumstances, such as locating drugs, missing, injured or dead people, or even crime suspects, it's crucial to consider that every tool of law enforcement must be held to the constitutional standards of reasonable force.

The uncontrollable and extended use of force by a K-9 is clearly not in line with these standards.

After all, there is no training that could make a dog instantly obey a command to cease attacking, the way an officer can simply decide to stop tasing, punching or hitting a person with a baton.

And there is no exception under the Constitution for dogs.

Courts have widely held that their bites are the equivalent of a baton hit or Taser deployment, so how could we ever justify an officer allowing a K-9 attack to continue on a person who has surrendered?

Too often, K-9s abet an officer’s abuse of force, as the nation saw this week.

And, as reported in the 2021 Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation by the Marshall Project, AL.com and IndyStar, unarmed, nonviolent suspects are frequently targeted and severely injured by K-9 units, with a higher proportion of Black suspects suffering life-altering injuries.

The investigation found that thousands of people are sent to emergency rooms each year because of K-9 bites.

As Ohio’s former attorney general, DeWine surely recognizes the injustice committed against Rose in violation of the Constitution.

Let’s stop kidding ourselves that these weapons can be controlled or restrained. It is unfair to the dogs, and their victims, to expect from them an ability to control something they cannot.

Explicitly prohibiting the use of police dogs to capture people suspected of crimes is the only way to resolve this Constitutional issue and to prevent unconstitutional maulings. It would be the best way to send a clear message about prioritizing citizens’ rights and safety that can help restore trust in law enforcement.

Patrick Buelna is a civil rights attorney in Oakland, Calif. He recently won a $21 million verdict in a federal jury trial against the Fremont (California) Police Department in the killing of Elena "Ebbie" Mondragon, who was 16 years old and in her first trimester of pregnancy.

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Mauling of Black man in Ohio shows why use of police dogs is excessive force| Opinion