After a lengthy court battle, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals finally ruled on a case involving bite and hold. The decision reaffirms those of us that train for real life situations that have real life consequences. Those that are interested can view the opinion at FindLaw, look for number 00-2498, JARRETT v MCCLELLAND. There has been many discussions on the virtue of "bark and hold". As a trainer for working police, I refused to even consider it's application in real life police work. I was extremely glad to see this court do the right thing. Let the sportsters have thier bark hold, for real life situations, I want something that has teeth in it.

DFrost

I read the ruling last night. It was a very positive outcome. As it's a case close to home, we were glad it came out this way.

However, I have a meeting w/ 2 different Dept in the next few weeks that want to change their programs over to B/H because the National Police Chiefs Association, believes the dogs should be B/H. Hope this helps clear the air for them and they leave their units well enough alone.

I don’t see this as a landmark decision for the Bite & Hold method of training Police K9. Regardless of how the suspect lied, the police were chasing him, on-leash to begin with, through a residential neighborhood. After locating the suspect, gave 3 clear verbal warnings, and the suspect ran again. Whether the dog is trained for Find & Bark or Find & Bite really doesn’t matter in this case. I would expect either trained dog to take him; justifiably. “Sportsters” train dogs, that have 42 teeth, for real life too. But this case should not be confused with finding a suspect hiding motionless under a bush or car.
Congratulation K9 Shadow for taking a real bite out of crime.........

Just finished reading the decision and am in complete agreement with it and your comments Mr. Frost!!

From the court's decision:
"...While a supervisor may indeed be held liable for failure to adequately train or supervise, see, e.g., Aponte Matos, 135 F.3d at 192 (noting that a supervisor may be held liable for failure to discipline a "miscreant officer"), Jarrett's failure to train argument essentially boils down to a complaint with the "bite and hold" policy in Yarmouth. He does not allege that Officer McClelland was improperly trained under this policy. In fact, all the evidence supports the conclusion that Officer McClelland was exceptionally well-trained. The uncontradicted testimony was that Officer McClelland and Shadow were one of the highest-rated K-9 teams in the nation. They had even been recognized internationally. Rather than attacking the substantial training that Officer McClelland and Shadow received, Jarrett essentially alleges that Chief Chapman was deliberately indifferent because he allowed the "bite and hold" policy in Yarmouth to stand. This argument is no different than claiming that Chief Chapman is liable because he promulgated a "bite and hold" policy, and, as such, Chief Chapman is entitled to qualified immunity."

Let's hear it for excellent training, following policy, and clear reasoning on the part of the Court of Appeals.

Alan,

I had to recheck my post, but I didn't think I stated it was a landmark decision. It was, however, a decision with some impact on training and future canine training programs. There are a considerable number of departments that, because of this and similar cases, contemplated the bark and hold. Spurred, of course, by the usual liberal diatribe in support of the poor fleeing perpatrator. Bark and hold in real life is so fraught with the potential for disaster that it is a bit scary. The decision validates what most police trainers have been saying for years. Train, train, train. Document, document, document. Develop real life policies, designed to protect those you serve, and those that serve. The first rule of business for me will always be: I come home when the shift is over.

DFrost

DFrost,
And when you retire you want a home to come home to. Qualified immunity does not justify Find & Bite to me. You are absolutely right when it comes to training, documentation, and department policies.