While looking for info on another topic - dogs/choking/tennis balls - I came across a recent Snopes article that referred to an incident in Maryland where a K9 was used to catch and detain an illegal alien/burglary suspect who bolted while being detained and questioned by patrol officers. My question is not about the specifics of this case or about what this K9 officer did or didn't do, but about K9 policy.

Snopes article

I wasn't aware (according to the charged officer involved) that "police guidelines call for using force (including police dogs) only for self-defense or to protect others" and that this would preclude the use of the dog to apprehend someone fleeing or evading. So are the dog and handler supposed to stand there while another officer chases the suspect? That's not the way they do it on "Cops" is it? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Do we have to tie down one of the dog's legs so he won't have an advantage? What's wrong here, the Maryland agencies policy? As a former LEO. I'd expect to see something like this come out of California.

K9 Policies differ from department to department . In court when force is used by a Police Officer or a Police K9 they look at the use of force as it pertains to GRAHAM V CONNER (not a K9 case).

In Graham V. Conner they look at 3 things .

#1 The severity of the crime .

#2 Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of Police Officers or others .

#3 and, if the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight .

Most Police K9 use of force policies I know of are close to Graham V Conner in wording and they may actually be more or less restrictive based on how each department interprets Graham V. Conner .

If I remember right about the case you mentioned I think the jury believed the prosecutions case that the K9 handler sent the dog on a person that was not resisting arrest . I'm sure someone else will correct me if I'm wrong .