On a sunny day in St. Cloud, Florida, police officers gathered, like storm clouds, around an upscale residential neighborhood. They were heavily armed, quick response teams waiting around every corner; helicopter on overwatch. K9 at the ready. They were prepared for anything. Everyone involved had been briefed on the operation. It was go-time. They converged on their suspect with clock-like precision. But why were they there? They were about to foil a terrorism plot? Armed and dangerous fugitive? Escaped serial killer?
Or was it an innocent guy in his home who wasn’t under arrest, and they just had some questions for him about a bar fight earlier in the day?
Derrick Williams was fast asleep in the apartment he had been living in for about a month (which was leased by a friend/Uncle) when he heard a commotion outside his bedroom. It was the Chesterfield County (Virginia) Police Department, who had just opened the front door and sent in a police K9 to find him and violently attack him. But it was a mistake. He had done nothing wrong. His friend/Uncle’s ex-girlfriend had come by earlier to collect some belongings, saw him asleep in the apartment, and called 911, believing he was an intruder of some sort. Instead of realizing that Derrick was not an intruder, they just went full send with their attack K9, to bite first, and ask questions later. Now a lawsuit has been filed. But the cops are asking for qualified immunity, claiming they did nothing wrong.
DJ was driving to the store to get feed for his numerous farm animals. He was driving his crappy little “farm car” that did not have a valid inspection sticker. He was pulled over for that reason by the Martinsburg (WV) Police Department. Instead of being issued a warning or citation for the inspection issue, within seconds he ended up being arrested. Despite having committed no crime, other than the inspection sticker violation, he ended up being taken to jail in handcuffs and charged for being a drug dealer. All charges were subsequently dropped. A lawsuit was filed.
This video was submitted by a guy who was pulled over in Pflugerville, Texas for an allegedly broken tail light. For 45 minutes, a police officer asked the man questions entirely unrelated to the reason for the stop. Apparently this officer received some sort of interdiction type “training,” and he concluded he was able to find drug smugglers otherwise disguised as law abiding citizens. Meanwhile, the drug sniffing dog was en route, and after it arrived, the dog smelt nothing.
Here’s the man’s explanation about his experience:
A passenger and I were driving within the speed limit on Pfleugerville parkway. At 14:24 officer Z. Tatum #436 did a u-turn and got behind my vehicle. He remained behind me through three stoplights and engaged his emergency lights at 14:32. He approached the passenger side of my vehicle and explained the reason for the stop was that my third, center, brake light wasn’t functioning and he intended to give me a written warning for that. He collected my drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance, then returned to his cruiser. At 14:35 he returned to the driver’s side and asked me to exit my vehicle. I asked why, and he said “I just want to talk to you”. At this point officer Adkins #391 and another unidentified officer were on the scene. Officer Tatum explained that he had called a neighboring jurisdiction and had requested a K9 officer to report to the scene. He repeatedly asked if there were drugs in the car, by name, and each time, I honestly answered that there were no drugs in the car. I also offered that there were no weapons in the car and voluntarily surrendered my pocket knife, placing it on the roof of the car.
I asked officer Tatum what reasonable suspicion he had that there were drugs in the vehicle but he only gave me vague responses. I asked about the legality of extending the stop beyond the scope of writing the warning for the infraction that was the purpose of the stop, and he insisted that it was within his authority to do so. I know it is not in his authority to do so, and extending the stop was a violation of my fourth amendment protections. I asked again about what reasonable suspicion he had and he responded with “I’m trained up and have been to a few classes” and that my behavior somehow indicated something to him. The K-9 unit, Round Rock officer Garmong #5160 didn’t arrive on scene until 15:11. They arrived at my vehicle at 15:13 after a brief conversation with the Pflugerville officers, did an open air sniff of the car, circling it four times as well as into the open passenger window, and returned to their vehicle at 15:18 without indication or further incident. After finally printing the written warning, officer Tatum handed it to me and I was released to return to my vehicle at 15:20. However, officer Tatum had not returned my driver’s license, and I had to go pick it up at The station later.
His timeline is as follows:
14:24 officer makes u-turn to get behind me. 14:25 stoplight 14:27 stoplight 14:31 stoplight, left turn 14:32 lights, contact 14:35 officer returns to unit 14:38:02 returns to my car 14:38:30 I exit car second unit on scene, 3rd officer on scene 15:11 K-9 unit arrives 15:13 K-9 at car 15:15 K-9 returns to unit 15:18 K-9 unit leaves 15:20:30 I return to my car.
In April we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Marshall County, as well as Deputy Jason Johnson for a vicious K9 attack against our client, Kandi Wood, that took place during her arrest for a probation violation. They filed a motion to dismiss all claims and asserted qualified immunity. The Court just ruled, depriving the deputy of qualified immunity and ordering the lawsuit forward, including the Monell (pattern/practice/policy) claim against the county for their K9 policy.
This never-before-seen footage shows my client being attacked by a police K9 in Moundsville, Marshall County, West Virginia. Cops were looking to arrest her on a probation violation. She was scared and hiding under some clothes. The K9 was used, not only to search and find her, but to punish her by violently biting and attacking her. Today we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit.
When a K9 is deployed on a citizen, that individual is “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Assuming the seizure itself was lawful, the issue is whether the seizure may be “unreasonable” due to being an excessive level of force. The deployment itself of a police K9 during the course of a seizure may be unreasonable, depending on the circumstances. Courts look to the Graham Factors: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect is actively resisting or evading, and most importantly, whether the suspect poses an immediate safety threat to the officer, or others.
Here’s the police report:
Kandi Wood was severely injured on arm due to the K9 attack:
Repeatedly over the years, the Courts have held generally that the use of serious or violent force, i.e., disproportionate force) in arresting or seizing an individual that has surrendered, or who is not actively resisting or attempting to flee, and who does not present a danger to others, is an unreasonable excessive force violation.
The Fourth Circuit has also held that sending a police dog into a home that contained a burglary suspect, without warning, resulting in severe injuries to the homeowner, was an excessive force violation. Vathekan v. Prince George’s County (4th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, doing so where the suspect was surrounded by police officers is itself unreasonable and excessive, even where a warning is given. (Kopf v. Wing (4th Cir. 1991).
The 7th Circuit has denied qualified immunity to a police officer where he failed to call off a police dog that was mauling a “non-resisting (or at least passively resisting) suspect.” Becker v. Elfreich (7th Cir. 2016). That Court also denied qualified immunity to an officer who commanded a dog to attack a suspect who was already complying with orders, and where there were multiple backup officers present. Alicea v. Thomas (7th Cir. 2016).
The Fourth Circuit cited that last case in 2017 as providing “fair warning” to police officers that they will lose qualified immunity where an officer deploys a police dog against a suspect was was “not in active flight at the time he was discovered,” but was “standing still, arms raised….” Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr. (4th Cir. 2017).
Where K9s are deployed, a warning should be given, along with an opportunity to surrender, where possible. Deploying K9s on suspects who have been already subdued, surrounded, or who are not actively resisting or evading arrest, is also likely excessive force, with or without a warning. Deploying K9s on suspects who pose no immediate threat is generally going to be unreasonable. K9s should only be deployed where there exists a serious immediate safety threat in a tense, fast-moving situation, where there’s some actual reason for doing so.
Help END Qualified Immunity. DONATE to the Institute for Justice:
New footage showing dash cam video of the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Department using a K9 to make an arrest. Here’s the footage:
When a K9 is deployed on a citizen, that individual is “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Assuming the seizure itself was lawful, the issue is whether the seizure may be “unreasonable” due to being an excessive level of force. The deployment itself of a police K9 during the course of a seizure may be unreasonable, depending on the circumstances.
Courts look to the Graham Factors: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect is actively resisting or evading, and most importantly, whether the suspect poses an immediate safety threat to the officer, or others.
The Fourth Circuit held, as early as 1995, that the improper deployment of a police dog that mauls a suspect constitutes excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, deploying a dog against a suspected bank robber in a narrow alleyway without warning and a fair opportunity to surrender was unreasonable and excessive. Furthermore, doing so where the suspect was surrounded by police officers is itself unreasonable and excessive, even where a warning is given. (Kopf v. Wing (4th Cir. 1991).The Fourth Circuit has also held that sending a police dog into a home that contained a burglary suspect, without warning, resulting in severe injuries to the homeowner, was an excessive force violation. Vathekan v. Prince George’s County (4th Cir. 1998).
Repeatedly over the years, the Court has held generally that the use of serious or violent force, i.e., disproportionate force) in arresting or seizing an individual that has surrendered, or who is not actively resisting or attempting to flee, and who does not present a danger to others, is an unreasonable excessive force violation.
The 7th Circuit has denied qualified immunity to a police officer where he failed to call off a police dog that was mauling a “non-resisting (or at least passively resisting) suspect.” Becker v. Elfreich (7th Cir. 2016). That Court also denied qualified immunity to an officer who commanded a dog to attack a suspect who was already complying with orders, and where there were multiple backup officers present. Alicea v. Thomas (7th Cir. 2016).
The Fourth Circuit cited that last case in 2017 as providing “fair warning” to police officers that they will lose qualified immunity where an officer deploys a police dog against a suspect was was “not in active flight at the time he was discovered,” but was “standing still, arms raised….” Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr. (4th Cir. 2017). The Court also cited a 6th Circuit case where officers deployed a police dog to apprehend a suspect that had given police no indication that he presented a danger to others, and was not actively resisting but “lying face down with his arms at his side.” Campbell v. City of Springboro (6th Cir. 2012).
The Fourth Circuit has also cited an 11th Circuit case denying qualified immunity where the officer ordered his K9 to attack a suspect that had previously surrendered and complied with the officer’s order to lie on the ground. Priester v. City of Riviera (11th Cir. 2000).
Generally speaking: Where K9s are deployed, a warning should be given, along with an opportunity to surrender, where possible. Deploying K9s on suspects who have been already subdued, surrounded, or who are not actively resisting or evading arrest, is also likely excessive force, with or without a warning. Deploying K9s on suspects who pose no immediate threat is generally going to be unreasonable. K9s should only be deployed where there exists a serious immediate safety threat in a tense, fast-moving situation, where there’s some actual reason for doing so.
