A more detailed account of the raid that generated the lawsuit ...
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.21.05/raid-0551.html

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.22.99/bikers-9929.html

Looks like the case was more about Fourth Amendment issues concerning reasonable search & seizure than about the dogs. The dogs just made for a catchy headline. I suspect the various agencies would have had to pay out even if the dogs had never been shot.

In 30 yrs. of law enforcement, I've made more than a couple high risk s/w entries. I believed that my safety and that of team members and of the general public was always the primary concern. I also know that the news media is an unreliable source of factual information, so I won't make a judgment of the operation based on news accounts. What I do find really disturbing is the group photograph - a defense attorney's dream. It really tends to undermine the officers' arguments that they conducted themselves in a thoroughly professional manner. And I think a jury would think that way as well. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Trent ,
My issue here has never been about the money . It's been about the officer safety issue regarding how these dogs were dealt with . My guess is now these SWAT teams will be exposing themselves to more danger because of the knee jerk reaction to these lawsuits . Just what the bikers and other gangbangers running an illegal operation out of there houses or clubs were hoping for .

I spent sometime working court security when I was a Deputy Sheriff guarding courtrooms and juries during deliberations . I've heard and seen some really stupid s#!> . I don't have near the faith in the court system you have .
____________________________________________________________

Those articles are perfect examples of the media jumping on an emotional angle . They are also good examples on clever writting in order to get a more emotional response to generate more attention thus generating more customers .

In the first article they make the biker couple seem like just your plan old middle class couple sleeping in there bed . No reference to them being members of a biker gang . They used these dogs to guard there property and knew what could happen to them when they got them . Why aren't the people on the list here criticizing the police also criticizing the gangbangers that put these dogs in such dangerous positions . They are the one's at fault here not the police who had to deal with them .

Then in the next article they state they are members but the article's trying to spin the gang as a law abiding group with a few badseeds .

Holy S*&% ! Many of the group's top members have been imprisoned for crimes related to the gang . Many more members have also been imprisoned for all sorts of crimes . Many being murders , kidnappings , rape , on and on . They are considered a criminal organization because of all the crimes they have committed that relate back to benefiting their gang .

They are violent , smart , well armed and well organized . That's what makes them so dangerous . They know how to use the legal system , employ high priced lawyers , media (sell themselves as victims , do high exposure Public Relations stunts to generate sympathy), etc. . They also prepare for law enforcement activities against them . They fortify there houses , check them for listening devices , do counter survalience , amongst other things .

These lawsuits were about a lot more then the dogs and I agree the pictures were stupid and certainly didn't help their case .

Jim, I completely agree with you. My old GSD, Zorba DID protect me in a nasty situation. Because of that, I would NEVER put him in the situation these people put their dogs in. I didn't go to walk-up $$ tellers at night, or walk by scary people at night, because I knew my dog, as great as he was, was not SUPERMAN & never wanted to put him in a situation where he could have been shot, knived or whatever. I will never understand MACHO people (civilians) who purposely do stupid things just because they have a big dog. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Also, once, when I got pulled over (speeding), I asked the officer to not apporach the car (aggressive dog) & I got out. Nothing was said to me about the dog, I was just trying to protect my dog becasue I knew if he tried to bite, the officer might have had to do something. I really try to obey the rules of the road, but if I do get pulled over again, is there a better way for me to approach the situation? My dog really did protect me once when I was stopped at a light. I was minding my own business when some guy tried to yank open my door. Zorba was lying on the seat next to me so I guess the guy didn't see him. Zorba came over me at him, & the guy turned and ran away. I still feel lucky the guy didn't have a gun & shoot my dog! For this reason, I don't crate my dogs in car, but use those dog harness type seat belts.

I'd always wondered what happens in a situation where a cop pulls u over when u have a PPD firing up at the sirens n blue lights n guy approaching your vehicle in the dark.... my dog wouldn't shut up in that situation... I'd HAVE to exit the vehicle to hear the officer tell me what the heck I did wrong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Exactly! Once out of the car I too, could hear. In fact, if they ever wanted to search my car,(all they would ever find is a lot of dog hair <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />, I could take the dog out, he wasn't crazy, & was well trained. I just felt a little supid (at the time) waving my hands out the window saying "don't approach, dog might bite) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Jim, I almost NEVER agree with the 9th Circuit, but I think you need to read the court's opinion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0216329p.pdf

I respectfully disagree with your opinion, and here's why. The facts you cite in your response would be compelling ones if they had been present in this case. They were not. No bars on the windows; no evidence of steel doors. The homes invaded did not belong to suspects in any crime; the evidence sought was meager, weak, and easily obtainable by other methods.

You state that "these bikers" have been responsible for gruesome crimes, and you're right. But these plaintiffs (the ones at the house when the warrant was executed, and the one who wasn't home when the warrant was executed) are not responsible for those crimes, and "kitchen-sinking" these issues is part of what gets departments in this kind of trouble in the first place.

You also said:

 Quote:

In this case they won because the court fell into the trap of a knee jerk reaction to seeing an animal killed . They totally missed who was really responsible and that's the suspects that put these dogs in that position for that purpose .

That accusation is wholly without merit. There's no "knee jerk" in that opinion; it's based on the court's reasoned belief that the officers in this case failed to develop any plan other than to shoot the dogs, notwithstanding the fact that they had a week to develop such a plan. Likewise, your argument that stealth/speed were the mission critical factors is also invalid. In at least one of the houses, they killed the dogs after entry. In either case, they had 7 days to develop a plan more sophisticated than "poking the dog through the fence". The court noted that the plan developed basically excluded any possibility other than killing the dogs.

Aside from that, if putting a dog in a yard to keep unwanted people out is either a criminal offense or one that, in your mind, builds toward probable cause, then you've probably got issues with alot of folks on this board. I would think that the HA have enemies other than LEO's in the line of duty, and I'm equally certain that you won't bemoan a mastiff taking a chunk out of some felon jumping that fence to steal something. Isn't that why we all train our dogs? To bite the snot out of someone trying to hurt us or ours?

Another point of contention:

 Quote:

Frank the officers didn't shot the dogs to kill them . They shot the dogs to stop a threat .

C'mon man. I know if I'm in the stack and am surprised by a dog and need to eliminate that threat, I would shoot the dog to kill it dead as you-know-what. I think you would too, and calling it something else doesn't change that at all.

On this we agree:

 Quote:

Most SWAT teams I know of try to come up with a plan to deal with dogs on high risk wts. without harming them . Most of the time we are successful in dealing with them without harming them . Sometimes we are not and it is very difficult to deal with dogs when the suspects owning them are counting on the Officers dealing with these dogs .

Most teams would; most teams do. That's part of the reason why the court said this team was in the wrong. They didn't. They just kind of hoped that the dogs wouldn't be a problem, and reasoned that if they were, they'd shoot 'em. As we're fond of saying in the Corps, "Hope ain't a command strategy".

As for the award amount, it looks like the defendants had plenty of chance to settle and didn't. Instead, they pressed a BAD case, and lost their shirts. Now they have to pay $530 grand for all the lawyers that worked the case for 8 YEARS, during which time they could have offered settlement again. In addition, it's not clear that the entire award was based on the dogs alone; maybe part of it was the fact that they TORE THE DRIVEWAY OUT, among other things. Me, I'd just use a camera (especially given the fact that all they were there to find was evidence of gang affiliation, which could have come in the form of photos or other minimally-intrusive methods). Sounds unreasonable to me. In any event, one of the first things I learned as a trial lawyer was that you don't gripe the outcome of a case you didn't have to try, especially if you had a heads-up that you'd get your a$$ handed to you by the judge or jury.

I've been on this board awhile now; I think those who know me in this forum would agree that I am very LE-oriented, and was working in LE when I joined this board. But I think the lead was wrong in this case, and that his leadership tainted the rest of his team. From the court's opinion, it looks like some of the other officers on deck that day agree.

Edit (the "edit function didn't work, so please regard this separate post as my edit):

This part came out wrong:

 Quote:

Aside from that, if putting a dog in a yard to keep unwanted people out is either a criminal offense or one that, in your mind, builds toward probable cause, then you've probably got issues with alot of folks on this board.

I'm not trying to pit you against onyone else on the board or say you have issues with anyone. Not waht I meant, and reading it now my words look that way. Only trying to say that putting a mean dog in your yard is no offense. Sorry for any confusion, and meant no disrespect by it.

Iain stated;

 Quote:

I respectfully disagree with your opinion, and here's why. The facts you cite in your response would be compelling ones if they had been present in this case. They were not. No bars on the windows; no evidence of steel doors. The homes invaded did not belong to suspects in any crime; the evidence sought was meager, weak, and easily obtainable by other methods.

The point I was trying to get across was they do things to impeded police . I never said they use all these devices together all the time . I never said all these devices were present at the house in question .
What was present (according to the link you provided) were SOME of the devices , A tall chainlink fence and multiple guard dogs .

Iain stated;

 Quote:

You state that "these bikers" have been responsible for gruesome crimes, and you're right. But these plaintiffs (the ones at the house when the warrant was executed, and the one who wasn't home when the warrant was executed) are not responsible for those crimes, and "kitchen-sinking" these issues is part of what gets departments in this kind of trouble in the first place.

Yes , they were not responsible for the murder in question . But they belong to an organization well known for committing violent crimes . They joined this club knowing this . If they had joined for purely social reasons , like they often claim , there are plenty of legit biker organizations to do this with . Even though they weren't reasponsible for the murder in question they were members of this violent organization and they both had previous WEAPONS arrests in the past . To me someone with a criminal past like that who pledged membership into such a group , is an obvious risk to officer safety when taking action (executing the search warrant) against one of it's members believed to be involved in a murder . In fact one of these outstanding citizens actually had a gun propped up against a wall (according to the link you provided ).

These are members of a violent organization who have pledge alliance with their brother members . They take this serious and will and have gone to violent extremes to protect their members and the organization .


Iain stated;

 Quote:

That accusation is wholly without merit. There's no "knee jerk" in that opinion; it's based on the court's reasoned belief that the officers in this case failed to develop any plan other than to shoot the dogs, notwithstanding the fact that they had a week to develop such a plan. Likewise, your argument that stealth/speed were the mission critical factors is also invalid. In at least one of the houses, they killed the dogs after entry. In either case, they had 7 days to develop a plan more sophisticated than "poking the dog through the fence". The court noted that the plan developed basically excluded any possibility other than killing the dogs.

What plan involving something other then shooting the dogs would of enabled them to get in without slowing them down ?

I've seen the following mentioned ;

Snares , very difficult to do with a large dog guarding it's property . Low success rate in completing quickly or without unneccesarily exposing the team member to other potential threats .

Pepper spray or similiar . Effective on pets not dogs in high drive protecting their property .

Tazers , short range , not to accurate on moving target , only effective when activated and they only stay activated in 5 second cycles .

IMO , there is no messing around when dealing with subjects that pose such a high level of threat . I can't think of any other options that don't carry with it a potential for delaying the fast execution of that warrant . Delays could cost loss of HUMAN life (badguy and goodguy) . To me they had a plan and options were limited on dealing with these dog . Doesn't matter if you have 7 or 30 days .

Your link helped further my belief it was a knee jerk reaction . They actually quote the emotions of the female at the warrant upon seeing her dogs shot . This from someone who knew high risk search warrants were a certain risk when being involved in a violent criminal organization (she's the wife of a member who has a history of weapons charges) . In fact they prepared for such an event by getting a tall chainlink fence and multiple guard dogs .

Iain stated ;

 Quote:

Aside from that, if putting a dog in a yard to keep unwanted people out is either a criminal offense or one that, in your mind, builds toward probable cause, then you've probably got issues with alot of folks on this board. I would think that the HA have enemies other than LEO's in the line of duty, and I'm equally certain that you won't bemoan a mastiff taking a chunk out of some felon jumping that fence to steal something. Isn't that why we all train our dogs? To bite the snot out of someone trying to hurt us or ours?

I know you weren't trying to start anything by this . I never said it was a criminal offense . But it is a common tactic used to hinder law enforcement by criminals that puts police officers at risk .
I don't have a problem with law abiding citizens having dogs protect their property and well being . These people don't pose a threat to the lives of police officers .
I sure part of the reason criminals use guard dogs is to protect them from other criminals not just law enforcement . But it doesn't take away from the fact that their use of these dogs are a threat to law enforcement and they . The fact that they are using them for protection against other criminals tells me they know they are putting these dogs at great risk .

Iain stated;

 Quote:

Another point of contention:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank the officers didn't shot the dogs to kill them . They shot the dogs to stop a threat .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



C'mon man. I know if I'm in the stack and am surprised by a dog and need to eliminate that threat, I would shoot the dog to kill it dead as you-know-what. I think you would too, and calling it something else doesn't change that at all.

That may be how you would do it , but I can tell you that's not what has happened here . Yes usually the dog is dispatched quickly , other times they have not been but posed no further threat at that time so the team moved on to complete the objective .
You don't know me or how I would do things . I would deal with my "area of responsibility " and deal with the threats that presented themselves in it . Once I stopped the threat I would move on . For many reasons finishing the dog off when not necessary wastes time , possible needed ammo , is dangerous (unnecessary rounds down range) and takes me away from dealing with my area of responsiblity thus endangering the rest of the team .

I don't care much about the rest of the lawsuit . Don't care about the money our how they took evidence .

I care about the safety of SWAT team members in that area and their families because they may now have to take more risks to deal with dogs in these types of very dangerous circumstances .

I'd like to add that this is just my opinion based upon my experiances with these types of groups .

I'm lucky that my job in the stack is as a K9 handler being protected by the others in the stack . My only stack time comes in training so I know the job and rely on respect my team members and will do what I can to keep them safe .

Once again I feel this is an emotional issue as it relates to dogs and 1 that puts law enforcement at risk .