Utah POST K-9 Program: Patrol Dog Course Workbook [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Course Workbook Revised 23 March 2019

Student: Agency: Dates:

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Table of Contents

(This chapter is currently in revision) Chapter 01

Table of Contents

Chapter 02

Student Roster

Chapter 03

Adjunct Staff

Chapter 04

Orientation

Chapter 05

Course Syllabus/Schedule

Chapter 06

K-9 Program Validation

Chapter 07

History of the K-9 Program in Utah

Chapter 08

Performance Objectives

Chapter 09

K-9 Physiology - Psychology

Chapter 10

Patrol Dog Selection Test

Chapter 11

Electronic Collars

Chapter 12

Patrol Dog Handler Safety Issues - Survival Skills

Chapter 13

Patrol Dog Deployments

Chapter 14

K-9 Reports

Chapter 15

K-9 Threat Elements

Chapter 16

K-9 Agitator Training

Chapter 17

Emergency First Aid

Chapter 18

Daily Care and Maintenance

Chapter 19

Courtroom Testimony

Chapter 20

Patrol Dog Case Law

Chapter 21

Other Legal Issues

Chapter 22

Chain of Certification

Chapter 23

Use of Force Issues

Chapter 23

Patrol Dog Training Modules

Chapter 25

Tracking

Chapter 26

Model Policy: International Association of Chiefs of Police

Chapter 27

Chapter Review Questions

Chapter 28

Blank Training Records

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 1 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Updates in this edition This edition of the Patrol Dog Manual has a major advancement within. For the first time, the science upon which the POST K-9 Program is based is presented in a comprehensive, yet reader-friendly format in Chapter 6. Students may now receive further validation that the POST K-9 Program is founded in bona fide scientific principles that have been proven to be high quality and efficient. As the student begins to understand that the POST K-9 Program attempts to imitate nature as it develops canine behavior into highly-structured and highly efficient law enforcement applications, there is now a wealth of zoological ideology to support that premise. The science has always been there, just not plainly visible to the student in written form.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 1 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Student Roster Date - Date Students

1.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

2.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

3.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

4.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

5.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

6.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

7.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

8.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

9.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

10.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

11.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

Revised 23 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 2 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program 12.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

13.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

14.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

15.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

16.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

17.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

18.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

19.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

20.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

21.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

22.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

23.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

24.

Name, Agency, Enrolled as Agency Address (W) ___-___-____,(M) ___-___-____, email X

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 23 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 2 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 23 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 2 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Adjunct Staff Tim Adams, Duchesne County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement since 2014, K-9 since 2017 Tim and K-9 Helix were called to track a subject who bailed out of a vehicle and fled through the field. As K-9 Helix tracked, she stopped and indicated on a large quantity of drugs hidden along the escape route. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narco, Explo Narco, Explo

Ryan Bauer, Utah Highway Patrol Law Enforcement since 1991, K-9 since 1997 Ryan and K-9 Bayo conducted a K-9 Sniff Test on a UHaul truck on I-15. When K-9 Bayo climbed all the way back and indicated on a mattress stuffed with 500 lbs. of Marijuana. The next day DEA in San Diego phoned Ryan and told him to watch out for this very truck. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Jodi Becker, UDWR, Retired Law Enforcement since 1987, K-9 since 1992 Jodi and K-9 Bridger were involved in a $21,0000 cash seizure on Easter 2006 in which Bridger was responsible for the forfeiture. Jodi is on temporary assignment as a Bomb Dog Handler in Iraq at the American Embassy. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Narcotics, Wildlife Narcotics, Wildlife

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Tommy Caygle, Salt Lake City Police Department Law Enforcement since 2011, K-9 since 2013 K-9 Havoc sniffed a vehicle on a traffic stop and indicated at three separate locations of the exterior. When the vehicle interior was searched, drugs were found at each of the three spots where K-9 Havoc indicated. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics, SWAT Patrol, Narcotics, SWAT

Steven Colburn, Loveland Police Department Law Enforcement since 2011, K-9 since 2013 Steven and K-9 Kyro were on their first deployment after initial certification. It was a K-9 Sniff on a vehicle and K-9 Kyro indicated in the engine. A partition of the radiator was full of Methamphetamine. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics, PSAR, SWAT Patrol, Narcotics, PSAR, SWAT

Lane Critser, Utah County Sheriff Office, Ret. Law Enforcement since 1992,

K-9 since 1988

Lane & Danno were assigned to the Major Crimes Unit when K-9 Danno indicated in a bathroom on the baseplate. The primary search produced nothing, but believing in his dog, Lane tore the wall out and found 8 kilos of Heroin. Certified to Instruct: Patrol, Narco, Explo, SWAT Certified to Judge: Patrol, Narco, Explo, SWAT

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Brian Cullen, Lehi Police Department Law Enforcement since 2012, K-9 since 2014. Brian and Kuli were requested to sniff a truck subsequent to a traffic stop. Kuli indicated on a tire attached to the undercarriage of the vehicle. When a search of the tire interior occurred, 67 lbs. of Methamphetamine was contained inside. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Narcotics, Patrol Narcotics

Derek Dalton, Saratoga Springs Police Department Law Enforcement since 2010, K-9 since 2014. Derek and K-9 Rico deployed on a car sniff. K-9 Rico attempted to scratch and bite his way through the undercarriage. When K-9 Rico was allowed into the vehicle, he indicated on a hidden compartment under the rear passenger area floorboard, directly above where he had indicated from the undercarriage. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Narcotics, Patrol Narcotics, Patrol

Tyrel Dalton, Weber County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement since 2008, K-9 since 2013. Tyrel and K-9 Diko were called to conduct a K-9 Sniff Test on a vehicle. K-9 Diko dragged Tyrel up to the car and indicated immediately on the driver side window. Inside the vehicle, Diko indicated on a shoebox full of Marijuana. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Narcotics, Patrol Narcotics, Patrol

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Mike Daugherty, Woods Cross Police Department Law Enforcement since 1994, K-9 since 1999. Mike and K-9 Dirk were called to conduct a K-9 Sniff Test on a van. K-9 Dirk gave a strong indication on the exterior. When Dirk was put inside the van, he keyed on the ceiling, in which 100+ lbs of Marijuana was found. Certified to Instruct: Narcotics, Explosives, Patrol Certified to Judge: Narcotics, Explosives, Patrol Robert Day, Aurora Police Department, Retired Law Enforcement since 1982, K-9 since 2001. Bob and K-9 Rico were called to sniff a residence after Narcs had tossed it and couldn’t find the drugs they knew were there. K-9 Rico indicated on the floor inside a small closet where a trap door was found under the carpet, leading to 100+ lbs of Marijuana being seized. Certified to Instruct: Narcotics, Explosives, Patrol Certified to Judge: Narcotics, Explosives, Patrol Ken Eatchel, Cottonwood Heights Police Dept, Ret. Law Enforcement since 1996, K-9 since 1998. K-9 Handler in US sniff, narcotics, case went all the Court and was won

v. Tueller, a traffic stop w/ K-9 firearm, & currency located. This way to 10th Circuit Federal Appeals by the police.

Certified to Instruct: Narcotics, Patrol, Explosives Certified to Judge: Narcotics, Explosives, Patrol

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual David Exstrom, Aurora Police Department, Colorado Law Enforcement since 1996

K-9 since 1997

David and his K-9 Flash were deployed during a SWAT operation involving a Suicide by Cop incident. The negotiator convinced the perpetrator to drop his firearm and he did so. If he were to reach for it again, K-9 Flash would be deployed. The incident went off perfectly as planned. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narco, Explo Dogs Patrol, Narco, Explo Dogs

Jeff Franklin, NSW Multi-Purpose K-9 Group Law Enforcement since 1994, K-9 since 1996, NSW since 2005

Jeff began his law enforcement career at Louisville PD in Kentucky. After an extremely successful K-9 career there, he retired and assumed a position with Naval Special Warfare K-9 Program. He has been there ever since and continues to assist in their training functions. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, SWAT, NSW Dogs Patrol, SWAT, NSW Dogs

Blake Gardner, Emery County Sheriff’s Office, Ret. Law Enforcement since 1979.

K-9 since 1992.

Blake has done it all. He has interdicted more drugs in Utah with his K-9's than any other K-9 Handler. One of his K-9s named Enzo even indicated on a DC-9 cargo plane full of drugs in the middle of the desert. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Narcotics Narcotics

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Jim Gentry, Aurora Police Department Law Enforcement since 1980.

K-9 since 1984.

Jim and K-9 Beertja have been involved in numerous high-visibility and high-risk narcotics investigations, including cartel interdiction with huge volumes of drugs. He is one of the bona fide go-to guys in the Drug Dog community nationwide. Certified to Instruct: Patrol, Narcotics, Explosives Certified to Judge: Patrol, Narcotics, Explosives

Kent Hatch, Ephraim Police Department Law Enforcement since 2010.

K-9 since 2012.

Kent and K-9 Boy were assisting AP&P on a K-9 Sniff Test in the residence of a parolee. K-9 Boy indicated on a Hide-a-Key hidden under a desk drawer. The key found inside led to a cedar chest where the parolee’s stash was hidden. The key was found to have only residual odor on it. Certified to Instruct: Patrol, Narcotics Certified to Judge: Patrol, Narcotics, Greer Haymond, Utah County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement since 2008.

K-9 since 2015.

Greer and K-9 Rusty were called out to assist the Task Force by conducting a K-9 Sniff Test on a truck. K-9 Rusty jumped into the back of the truck and indicated on a container. Almost two lbs of Methamphetamine was found inside the container. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Mark Jarvis, Unified Police Department Law Enforcement since 1998.

K-9 since 2004.

Mark & K-9 Dak have been deployed on multiple occasions behind Narcs who have been unable to locate (known to be there) hidden compartments in residences. K-9 Dak also recently located 47lbs of Marijuana at a UHP traffic stop. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narco, Explo, PSAR, SWAT Patrol, Narco, Explo, PSAR, SWAT

Mike Johnson, Salt Lake City Police Department, Ret. Law Enforcement since 1991.

K-9 since 2002.

Mike retired after a highly successful career with K9 Jango, a dual purpose canine. Mike is now the Bomb Dog Program Manager for a large international security firm. He continues to train handlers both nationally and internationally from law enforcement, military, and the civilian sector. Cert to Instruct: Patrol, SWAT, Narco, Explo, PSAR Certified to Judge: Patrol, SWAT, Narc, Explo, PSAR Michael Jones, West Jordan Police Department Law Enforcement since 2009, K-9 since 2012 Michael and K-9 Kaos were called on to conduct a K-9 Sniff Test for UHP on I-80 one night. Kaos indicated on the vehicle and 50 lbs. of Marijuana was found in the trunk. Certified to Instruct: Patrol, Narcotics Certified to Judge:

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Mike Jones, Utah Task Force Five Fire Fighter since 2004,

K-9 since 2010.

Mike Jones is primarily a Bomb Dog Handler, but is quite gifted in Detector Dog training in general. He offers valuable insight into Narcotics detection due to his “no margin for error” explosives investigation function. Certified to Instruct: Narcotics, Explosives, PSAR Certified to Judge: Narcotics, Explosives, PSAR Jackie Knudsen, Larimer County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement since 2001,

K-9 since 2004.

Jackie and K-9 Grendel conducted a K-9 Sniff Test on a vehicle at a traffic stop on I-25. K-9 Grendel indicated on the passenger door. Beneath the passenger seat a bag containing a kilo of cocaine was found. This seizure led to a major trafficking case in the Norther Colorado area. Certified to Instruct: Patrol, Narcotics Certified to Judge: Patrol, Narcotics

Levi Lewis, Lehi Police Department Law Enforcement since 2010, K-9 since 2011. Levi and K-9 Onyx were dispatched to assist in a Felony Search Warrant at a residence. K-9 Onyx was deployed throughout the entire house and found drug stashes on all three floors, including inside a bed mattress, in a heater vent, in a backpack, and in the refrigerator. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Art Lopez, Utah Valley University Law Enforcement since 1994, K-9 since 2003. Art and K-9 Zorro were asked to conduct a sniff on a series of storage units at a rental storage facility. Art deployed Zorro and the dog sniffed along until he made a solid indication on a particular unit. Inside the unit was a 2 lb. block of Heroin that was surrounded by smashed garlic pieces. Certified to Instruct: Patrol, Narco, Explo, SWAT Certified to Judge: Patrol, Narco, Explo, SWAT

Craig Mancuso, Henderson Police Department Law Enforcement since 2002, K-9 since 2007 Craig and K-9 Vinny responded to a residential warrant service that had already been thoroughly hand-searched by investigators. K-9 Vinny discovered a large cavity in a false wall that contained a huge volume of heroin, illicit currency, and guns. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Jeff Meyer, Denver Police Department Law Enforcement since 1989, K-9 since 1997 Jeff and K-9 Hershey are currently functioning as a city-wide roving Bomb Dog Handler for the Denver Police Department. He has had considerable success there locating firearms and other related evidence at crime scenes, etc. He also is quite active providing bomb sniffs at athletic events, major concerts, etc. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narco, Explo Patrol, Narco, Explo

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Rob Nixon, Utah Highway Patrol, Retired Law Enforcement since 2000, K-9 since 2004 Rob has handled multiple K-9's for the Utah Highway Patrol. His latest dog Ranger, has been successful in making numerous finds of smuggled narcotics and drugtainted currency. Rob is the K-9 Sergeant of the UHP K-9 Program. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Jory Provstgaard, Utah County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement since 1997, K-9 since 2013 Jory and K-9 Maakoa were involved in a vehicle K-9 Sniff Test in which K-9 Maakoa indicated on the exterior of the vehicle. A search of the vehicle interior yielded 1-1/2 lbs Methamphetamine and several firearms. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics, Wildlife Patrol, Narcotics, Wildlife

Steve Salas, Utah Highway Patrol Law Enforcement since 1998, K-9 since 2004 Steve and his K-9 partners have been been involved in numerous large volume drug interdictions. His testimony in federal court has created multiple favorable case law rulings. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Kevin Sheldahl, Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement since 1999, K-9 since 2004. Kevin is one of those “Go To” guys who has “Been There and Done That.” He is the K-9 Instructor for the New Mexico Police Academy and is a Teaching Judge for that State. He has participated in international K-9 competitions and is a true “Encyclopedia of Knowledge in regards to all things K-9. Cert to Instruct: Cert to Judge:

Patrol, Narco, Explo, Cadaver, SWAT Patrol, Narco, Explo, Cadaver, SWAT

Erika Smith, Sandy Police Department Law Enforcement since 1999, K-9 since 2004. Erika and K-9 Nitro searched for and located a gun in an officer involved shooting. The Bomb Dog sniff occurred along the route the subject fled and then ditched his weapon. Nitro alerted on a six foot wood fence and upon entering the yard, Nitro found and indicated on the gun. Certified to Instruct: Patrol, Narcotics, Explosives Certified to Judge: Patrol, Narcotics, Explosives Thomas Smith, West Jordan Police Department Law Enforcement since 2000, K-9 since 2007. Tom & K-9 Kuffs were deployed to sniff a vehicle after it was impounded. K-9 Kuffs indicated on the gearshift area. A compartment with a large quantity of drugs and paraphernalia were found inside. A wide-ranging investigation followed. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narco, Explo, PSAR Patrol, Narco, Explo, PSAR

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Jason Thomas, Iron County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement since 1998, K-9 since 2004. Jason and K-9 Gino made a traffic stop on which K-9 Gino indicated on the exterior of the vehicle. When K-9 Gino entered the Ford Expedition, he indicated on a trap door of a hidden compartment that contained 20 lbs of Methamphetamine. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Todd Zahlmann, West Jordan Police Department Law Enforcement since 2006, K-9 since 2010. Todd and K-9 Lobo assisted DEA to sniff a suspected smuggling vehicle. K-9 Lobo indicated on the vehicle near the rear wheel wells. When the vehicle chassis panels were removed, a total of 57 lbs. of Meth was found inside. Certified to Instruct: Certified to Judge:

Patrol, Narcotics Patrol, Narcotics

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 3 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Orientation Welcome to the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program. It is established to provide you with a balance of state-of-the-art technology and constitutionally-conservative practices. There are numerous Police K-9 training/deployment philosophies throughout the United States. The Utah POST administration evaluated this in establishing a curriculum. The basic course presented here is for Patrol Dogs/Handlers. The curriculum corresponds to internationally-accepted standards, with unique supplemental skills necessary in the American culture. Options are available for agencies with higher intensity/volume of Patrol Dog needs, as well as those agencies that may deploy less often. Each skill level consists of the following skills: tracking/trailing suspects/victims, criminal evidence recovery with a passive indication that does not contaminate its evidentiary value, obedience/agility, and criminal apprehension. Of particular value is the fact that we are able to teach the dogs to discriminate between a fleeing or hostile suspect and a surrendering suspect or innocent person. In other words, a K-9 is taught to discriminate the level of force to apply when subduing or detaining an individual. Two common philosophies of Patrol dog training/deployment exist in America: FIND & BITE and FIND & BARK. Both skills may be taught here, at the Handler’s option, to the same dog. In addition to Patrol Dog and Handler training, POST offers advanced training for Service Dog Instructors and Judges. An Instructor acquires specific knowledge and develops skills necessary to train Service Dogs and Handlers from entry level to certification. A Judge acquires knowledge and skill in the evaluation process for certification of "Streetworthiness." Simply stated, the K-9 is the “Tool,” the Handler is the “Operator,” the Instructor is the “Mechanic,” and the Judge is the “Inspector.” Utah POST is operated by legislated funds and other designated monies. No fee is assessed to In-State officers. A tuition/service fee of $1875.00 is assessed for each Out-of-State officer for the entire training period. Payment is due by the first day of class. Patrol Dog courses are normally 9-weeks duration. Hotel/Motel accommodations are available close to the Police Academy or Dormitory facilities are available at a military installation named Camp Williams (801) 253-5401. A vendor-operated cafeteria is available at the POST complex and may be contacted by calling (801) 965-4625. Cafeteria access is Monday breakfast to Friday lunch; students residing over the weekends must provide their own meals Friday dinner through Sunday dinner. K-9s can be housed at the POST kennel facility at no charge, first-come-first-served, but the student provides his/her own dog food and food bowls. The K-9 program is designed to offer the most efficient and cost-effective training in the allotted time. The courses are quite intensive due to the short duration and quantity of information to be learned. To best serve the student/agency, POST emphasizes training the Handler how to train the Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

dog. In this way the graduating Handler becomes independent upon leaving the course and may complete the dog's training at home if it does not complete the regimen during the training course. Additionally, the Handler is trained on the procedures to maintain the graduating dog's proficiency even after leaving POST. POST offers comprehensive training for its students. This may be followed up with an examination and corresponding certification for graduates. Participation in the K-9 program is voluntary in Utah - there are no mandated courses or certifications. An Instructor and/or Judge student may attend with or without a dog. Of course, to be certified as a Handler a student must exhibit handling skills with a dog. Certifications are effectual as follows: K-9s for 12 months; Handlers for duration of their assignment; Instructors for 36 months; and Judges for 60 months. Some officers have received K-9 training or certification at facilities other than Utah POST. If an officer seeks re-certification or to receive credit for prior training, s/he may submit documentation so POST may evaluate the possibility of waiving a portion of a training course. The minimum amount of time a student is allowed to participate in any course is 40 hours, regardless of the extent of prior training.

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Training Course Application Participation in any of the following K-9 training courses requires that the student is a full-time paid law enforcement officer. There is no tuition for in-state students. A vendor-operated cafeteria is available at the POST complex. An on-site kennel facility is provided for student dogs at no charge. All dogs must be vaccinated for rabies, distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis, parainfluenza, parvovirus, coronavirus, kennel cough, should be receiving heartworm preventative, and have a parasite examination prior to enrollment. Dogs with stable temperaments that tolerate strangers and children are favored in this program. Dogs with overly aggressive tendencies are discouraged. Patrol Dog Courses Please bring the following with you to class: (1)duty gear including uniform; (2)full-body bitesuit if available; (3)agitation muzzle if available; (4)undercover sleeves if available; (5)50 - .22 or .38 caliber blanks with handgun; (6)other apprehension equipment if available; (7)obedience training equipment if available; (8)tracking leash if available; (9)seasonal clothing for rugged training and sturdy footgear; (10)towels and toiletries; (11)dog food; (12)signed waiver of liability; (13)seasonal jogging gear for OPTIONAL daily 2-3 mile run. Detector Dog Courses Please bring the following with you to class: (1)duty gear including uniform; (2)substances to be trained on if available; (3)airtight substance storage containers and also training aids if available; (4)fifty bills of uncirculated currency which has been handled only by bank personnel; (5)seasonal clothing for rugged training and sturdy footgear; (6)towels and toiletries; (7)dog food; (8)signed waiver of liability; (9)seasonal jogging gear for optional daily 2-3 mile run. Accommodations The Utah Police Academy often has sleeping accommodations for officers in the K-9 Program. K-9's are not allowed in the Police Academy complex, however, and may be kept at the K-9 Program Kennel. The main telephone number at the Utah Police Academy is 801-256-2300. The Hotels/Motels listed below (alphabetical order) are very close to the Utah Police Academy and have been used by students attending training courses here. 1.

Budgetel Inn, 2229 West City Center Court, West Valley City, UT 84119 Telephone 800-428-3438

2.

Country Inn & Suites, 3422 S Decker Lake Drive, West Valley City, UT 84119 Telephone 800-456-4000

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

3.

Crystal Inn, 2254 West City Center, West Valley City, UT 84119 Telephone 888-977-9400

4.

Extended Stay America, 2310 W. City Center Court, West Valley City, UT 84119 Telephone 800-398-7829

5.

Hampton Inn - Murray, 606 West 4500 South, Murray, UT 84123 Telephone 800-426-7866

6.

Quality Inn, 4465 South Century Drive, Murray, UT 84201 Telephone 800-228-5151

7.

Rodeway Inn and Suites, 3540 S 2200 W, West Valley City, UT 84119 Telephone 800-228-2000 Sleep Inn, 3440 South 2200 West, West Valley City, UT 84119 Telephone 800-627-5337

8. 9.

Utah National Guard facility, CAMP WILLIAMS, Telephone 801-253-5401 or 801-253-5410

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Application for Course Enrollment Name _____________________________________________________________________ dob

_____________________________________________________________________

SSN

_________________________ Email _____________________________________

Dept _____________________________________________________________________ Addr _____________________________________________________________________ Phone Work____________________________Home_________________________________ Phone Mobile__________________________Pager________________________________ Supv _____________________________________________________________________ Phone Work____________________________Pager/Mobile_________________________ Emergency Contact _________________________________________________________ Emergency Phone

1___________________2_________________3__________________

Name/Type of Dog __________________________________________________________ Prior Training/Certification ______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Dates Attending ___________________________________________________________ Kennel [

]Yes

[

]No

Circle Class Enrolling In:

Dates:

_____________________________________

Patrol

Narco

Circle the Skill Level Desired:

Handler

Explo

Wildlife

Instructor

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Cadaver

Judge

Ch. 4 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

WAIVER OF LIABILITY FOR K-9 PROGRAM Full Name _______________________________________________________________ Address

_______________________________________________________________

Telephone _______________________________________________________________ Emergency Contact _______________________________________________________ Telephone ______________________________Relationship_____________________ I, the undersigned, hereby hold harmless and waive any claim for damages against Peace Officer Standards and Training for any injury I may directly or indirectly sustain as a result of an accident that occurs without any legal fault on the part of any of the persons or entities just identified, in the course of my participation in any part or phase of the training, instruction, evaluation, or competition of K-9s in the Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program. ______________________________________________ __________________________ Applicant Date (Sign upon arrival at POST via Notary Public) STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE The above was SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______________

day

of ________________________________, 2003.

My Commission Expires ___________________________________________________

__________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC

__________________________________________ Residing at Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Immunization Record

Participation in any of the Utah POST K-9 training courses requires that the canine to be trained is up to date on the following immunizations. Fill in the dates, as they are listed below, to verify that all inoculations are current. Immunization/Preventative Date Received

Date Due

Veterinarian

Rabies

_______________ _______________ _______________

Distemper

_______________ _______________ _______________

Hepatitis

_______________ _______________ _______________

Leptospirosis9optional)

_______________ _______________ _______________

Parainfluenza

_______________ _______________ _______________

Parvovirus

_______________ _______________ _______________

Bordatella

_______________ _______________ _______________

Coronavirus

_______________ _______________ _______________

Heartworm Preventative

_______________ _______________ _______________

Roundworm (de-wormed)

_______________ _______________ _______________

Hookworm (de-wormed)

_______________ _______________ _______________

Whipworm (de-wormed)

_______________ _______________ _______________

Tapeworm (de-wormed)

_______________ _______________ _______________

I hereby affirm that the Immunization and Preventative information listed above is accurate and that all Immunizations and Preventatives are current and in effect.

____________________________________ Veterinarian Signature

__________________________________ Date

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

TRAINING COURSE CRITIQUE NAME:

_________________________________________________________________

COURSE TITLE/SESSION: COURSE DATE(S):

Patrol Dog Course

_______________________________________________________

INSTRUCTOR(S): _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ THE COURSE 1.

How would you rate the overall course? Excellent _____ Good _____ Fair _____ Poor _____ Comments:

________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

2.

How would you rate the content of this course in terms of its value to you? Excellent _____ Good _____ Fair _____ Poor _____ Comments:

3.

________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

What topical area(s) covered in the course were of the most benefit to you and why? Comments: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

4.

What were the strong points of the course? Comments:

________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

5.

What were the weak areas of the course? Comments:

________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

THE INSTRUCTOR(S) 6.

Was/were the instructor(s) prepared? Yes _____ No _____ Partially _____

7.

Did the instructor(s) have adequate materials? Yes _____ No _____ Partially _____

8.

Did the instructor(s) follow a lesson plan? Yes _____ No _____ Partially _____

9.

What were the strong points of the instructor(s)?

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 10. Can you offer any suggestions to help the instructor(s) improve? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 11. Please offer any other comments or suggestions you may have regarding the instructor or the overall course. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

Revised 24 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 4 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Training Course Syllabus (This chapter is currently in revision)

The POST K-9 training program is divided into four phases. Phase 1

Classroom presentations of the technology associated with Patrol Dogs. This will be accomplished within week #1.

Phase 2

Field training to develop the skills associated with Patrol Dogs. will be accomplished within weeks #2-5.

Phase 3

Reality-Based training to prepare the Handler and Dog for the rigors of deployment. This will be accomplished in weeks #6-8, and includes an objective evaluation of the Handler and Dog to determine streetworthiness.

Phase 4

Certification examination of Handler and Dog.

This

Handler:

The Handler performance shall be evaluated “generally” throughout the course and “critically” during the RealityBased training. The standard for passing is a consensus of training staff that the Handler shows suitable potential for successful deployment. Finally, a 100 question written examination will be administered on Monday of week #8, in order to evaluate the Handler’s Knowledge-Base (80% minimum passing score).

Dog:

The Dog’s performance shall be evaluated “generally” throughout the course and “critically” during the RealityBased training. The standard for passing is a consensus of training staff that the Dog shows suitable potential for successful deployment. Finally, an examination of the Dog’s performance during a series of Reality-Based scenarios shall be administered on Tuesday of week #8.

The training course objectives are established on a weekly basis. Each week’s expectations are outlined below. Week #1 Objectives: By the end of Week #1, the Student shall be introduced to the following information, technology, and skills: 1.

Patrol Dog Selection Procedures;

2.

Agitator Skills;

3.

History and Evolution of Police Dogs;

4.

K-9 Psychology;

5.

Report Writing;

6.

Types of Deployments;

7.

Officer Safety Issues;

8.

Electronic Collars in Training/Deployment;

9.

Patrol Dog Performance Objectives;

10.

Patrol Dog Training Modules;

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

11.

Courtroom Testimony;

12.

Training & Deployment Equipment;

13.

Introduction to Case Law & Liability;

14.

Introduction to Veterinary & Daily Care;

Week #2 By the end of Week #2 the Student shall be introduced to the following information, technology, and demonstrate the following: 1.

Laying a beginning level training track without turns, deploying the Dog accordingly, over all terrains

2.

Performing obedience behaviors with the Dog on a short leash, exhibiting all skills, making leash corrections as needed, with the assistance of a 3rd party giving mild electronic stimulations simultaneously

3.

Understanding and performing Agitator fundamentals, using muzzle, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit

4.

Performing Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouching-kneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open OR Performing other capture skill as chosen by the Student

5.

Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

6.

Introduce Multiple-Suspects, the Release and commands via utilization of multiple Agitators

the Over-Ride

Week #3 Objectives: By the end of Week #3, the Student shall be introduced to the following information and technology and demonstrate the following skills: 1.

Laying a training track of increasing difficulty with wide-arc turns, deploying the Dog accordingly, over all terrains

2.

Performing obedience behaviors with the Dog on a short leash, exhibiting all skills, making leash corrections as needed, with the assistance of a 3rd party giving mild electronic stimulations simultaneously, offering the Handler a few opportunities to experience Handler-controlled stimulations as the appropriate skill develops

3.

Understanding and performing more technical Agitator movements, using muzzle, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit

4.

Performing Detain training on a 30-50' line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouching-kneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

OR Performing other capture skill as chosen by the Student 5.

Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

6.

Progressing training for Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators

7.

Introducing controlled directional searching via the use of a 6' leash

8.

Introducing the Verbal Release as an isolated behavior via a “hands-on” release to associate the verbal command with the behavior

Week #4 Objectives: By the end of Week #4, the Student shall be introduced to the following information and technology and demonstrate the following skills: 1.

Laying a training track of increasing difficulty with multiple close-angle turns, introduce evidence on the track in a coercive manner, introduce a victim or suspect at the end, deploying the Dog accordingly, over all terrains

2.

Performing obedience behaviors with the Dog on a short leash, exhibiting all skills, making leash corrections as needed, Handler or 3rd party mild electronic stimulations, introduce “conflict” into the obedience session involving gunfire, agitators, obstacles

3.

Understanding and performing more technical Agitator movements, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit

4.

Performing Detain training on a 30-50' line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouching-kneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area, the line being loose yet remaining on the dog as a safety line OR Performing other capture skill as chosen by the Student

5.

Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

6.

Progressing training for Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators, at this point the agitator is merely walking away and not “agitating”

7.

Progressing with a controlled directional search via the use of a 30-50' leash and/or electronic collar

8.

Performing a reliable Verbal Release, meaning the disconnect aspect, but not expecting a position such as down/guard or heel/guard

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program 9.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Introducing “hidden suspects” via a short leash, meaning that a search command is given and the find is made in an easily controlled situation

Week #5 Objectives: By the end of Week #5, the Student shall be introduced to the following information and technology and demonstrate the following skills: 1.

Laying a training track of increasing difficulty with multiple close-angle turns, evidence present and passive indication enforced, victim, or suspect at the end, deploying the Dog accordingly, over all terrains; formal evidence search in a coercive manner and passive is indication enforced

2.

Performing all obedience behaviors with the Dog on a short leash, making leash corrections as needed, Handler controlled electronic stimulations, no intentional distractions or conflict, allowing the handler to refine e-collar skills

3.

Understanding and performing more technical Agitator movements, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit

4.

Performing Detain training with a 30-50' line attached but not used, the Agitator in all positions, in all environments, the Dog is controlled via the electronic collar ... performing all aspects of apprehension training, but focusing on Area Search, Building Search and Open Area Capture, introduce and explain the “Shots Fired” scenario (formerly Critical Skills), utilizing “cleared” weapons or “red” guns OR Performing other capture skill as chosen by the Student

5.

Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

6.

Progressing training for Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators, at this point the agitator is not moving when the Dog is deployed with the over-ride command

7.

Progressing with a controlled directional search via the use of a 30-50' leash and/or electronic collar and the dog is displaying a reliable Indication

8.

Performing a reliable Verbal Release, including assuming either a Heel or Sit or Down position when on Guard

9.

Progressing with “hidden suspects” via a long leash, exhibiting the appropriate control via the e-collar

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Week #6 Objectives: By the end of Week #6 the Student/Dog shall be introduced to numerous real-world deployments through Reality-Based training; each day a particular task is scheduled but the actual schedule is subject to change due to weather, training site availability or other circumstances 1.

Monday * K-9 Involved Gun Battles * Flashlight-Guided Deployments

2.

Tuesday * Yard-to-Yard Searches * Open Area Search

3.

Wednesday * Crawl Spaces + Attics * Vehicle Deployments, including Vehicle Clearing/Extraction

4.

Thursday * High Finds * Handler Down Crisis

Week #7

Objectives: By the end of Week #7 the Student/Dog shall be introduced to numerous real-world deployments through Reality-Based training; each day a particular task is scheduled but the actual schedule is subject to change due to weather, training site availability or other circumstances. 1.

Monday * Target Identification * Passive Subject Captures

2.

Tuesday * Visual Barricades (subjects covered with blankets, etc.) * Cell Extractions * Incidents involving Tactical Release

3.

Wednesday * Bicyclist, etc. Captures * Dragline Apprehensions in various environments * Incidents involving Emergency Release

4.

Thursday * Complete all documents required for completing the course and have them reviewed for accuracy * Classroom review for Handler written examination

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Week #8 Objectives: By the end of Week #8 the Student/Dog shall have been evaluated and their individual/combined performance rated according to the level of knowledge and skill development, to determine their readiness to be assigned to actual deployments. 1.

Monday ... administer the Handler written examination; conduct any needed “makeup” evaluations, if none then a continuation of Reality-Based scenarios.

2.

Tuesday ... administer the Practical Assessment via a series of Reality-Based scenarios; conduct any needed “makeup” evaluations, if no makeups are necessary then a continuation of Reality-Based scenarios.

2.

Wednesday ... If circumstances allow, a “Day in the Life of a K-9 Handler” real-world scenario will take place; if not, whatever incomplete documentation or evaluations will take place.

3.

Thursday ... Graduation Ceremony at 1100 hrs.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 1 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-0900

0900-1000 1000-1100

1100-1200

1200-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Introduction of students. Introduction of course curriculum. *Report “Science of the POST K-9 Program” due mid-term Orientation to POST facilities (rules ref fecal matter, K-9's in vehicles at POST, etc.). Verification of student documents. Check students’ equipment. POST K-9 Training Policy/Procedures/Practices. a. Maintain control of K-9 at all times. b. Keep dog on leash in parking lots. c. Stay alert for joggers on track. d. Maintain ventilation for K-9's in vehicles. e. Perform a “Muzzle-Check” on muzzled dogs. f. Don’t give excess water after training dog. g. Drinks allowed in classroom with Instructor permission Lecture: Patrol Dogs as a Use of Force. An introduction to the various Use of Force issues regarding the application of a Patrol Dog in the law enforcement profession. Lecture: Patrol Dog Selection Procedures. An introduction to the various procedures used to select Patrol Dog candidates. Field: Patrol Dog Selection Procedures. An introduction to the field application of the Patrol Dog Selection Tests, also an opportunity for the POST K-9 Program staff to establish training plans for the individual dogs. Lecture: Training & Deployment Equipment. A presentation regarding the most common pieces of equipment utilized by Patrol Dog Handlers and Trainers.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 1 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1100

1100-1200

1200-1500

1500-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Lecture: Agitator Training. An introduction to agitation equipment, skills, and safety issues. Field: Agitator Orientation. An introduction to practical experience related to Patrol Dog agitation. Lecture: History/Evolution of Police Dogs. An introduction to historical facts and the progression of Patrol Dogs in Utah and across America. Lecture: Patrol Dog Psychology. A comprehensive presentation of the canine psyche and various law enforcement related behaviors. Lecture: Intro to Veterinary & Daily Care A presentation on various issues surrounding the veterinary needs and daily care of a Patrol Dog.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 1 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1100

1100-1300 1300-1500

1500-1600

1600-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Lecture: Report Writing & K-9 related records. A presentation of the various documents related to Patrol Dog training and deployment. Lecture: Patrol Dog Deployments, Types, etc. A presentation of the most common types of Patrol Dog deployments. Lecture: Officer Safety Issues. A presentation of the various issues related to Patrol Dog Handler safety and survival skills. Lecture: Patrol Dog Selection. A discussion of administrative issues which extend beyond the actual hands-on selection procedures. Lecture: Courtroom Testimony. A presentation of the skills associated with testifying in courtroom procedures.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 1 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1200

1200-1600

1600-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Lecture: Electronic Collars in Training/Deployment. A presentation regarding the unique issues surrounding electronic collars used in the law enforcement environment. Lecture: Patrol Dog Performance Objectives. A presentation in which the student is informed of the actual skills associated with a certified Patrol Dog and Handler. Lecture: Patrol Dog Training Modules. A presentation which identifies each of the individual training modules associated with a Patrol Dog. Lecture: Intro to Case Law & Liability A presentation on the various court rulings associated with Patrol Dog Deployment and K-9 Unit Management.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 2 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300 1300-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. Multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 2 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300 1300-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. Multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 2 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300 1300-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. Multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 2 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300 1300-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. Multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 3 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300

1300-1400

1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. introduce automatic sit and sit on command e. introduce down on command f. multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve c. increase tension Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling b. introduce moderate to loud yelling, both fearful and combative Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 3 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300

1300-1400

1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. introduce automatic sit and sit on command e. introduce down on command f. Multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve c. increase tension Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling b. introduce moderate to loud yelling, both fearful and combative Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 3 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300

1300-1400

1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. introduce automatic sit and sit on command e. introduce down on command f. Multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve c. increase tension Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling b. introduce moderate to loud yelling, both fearful and combative Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 3 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1100

1100-1300

1300-1400

1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Onleash Group Heeling field training a. Dog on side opposite from sidearm b. correct with leash hand, pet with free hand, praise with voice c. move at different speeds, make right/left/about turns d. introduce automatic sit and sit on command e. introduce down on command f. Multiple sessions of 3-5 minutes duration each Pain Compliance field training a. dragging and swinging b. bitesuit, exposed sleeve, hidden sleeve c. increase tension Pain Tolerance field training a. brandishing weapon, swinging above Dog’s head w/o contact, no yelling b. introduce moderate to loud yelling, both fearful and combative Detaining field training a. heel onleash to 6' distance (heel command) b. place dog in position (stand/sit/down) c. give deployment command in coercive voice d. enforce position with voice commands & leash corrections e. Suspect escalates, Dog engages f. drive-building liftoff, Handler giving deployment command in coercive voice tone g. as Dog comes off, initiate chase without further physical contact with Suspect h. during chase, peel away and praise Dog *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 4 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1400

1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Obedience/Agility a. follow currently established training plan b. increase realism of Heeling movements c. carefully utilize electronic stimulation in conjunction with leash corrections d. utilize available obstacles for Agility Apprehension field training a. Detaining according to current training plan b. Release according to current training plan c. Refocus according to current training plan d. Integrate Announcements more realistically e. Integrate Suspect escalations realistically f. Continue drive-building liftoff *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a long line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Introduce Electronic Collar

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 4 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1300

1300-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Obedience/Agility a. follow currently established training plan b. increase realism of Heeling movements c. carefully utilize electronic stimulation in conjunction with leash corrections d. utilize available obstacles for Agility Apprehension field training a. Detaining according to current training plan b. Release according to current training plan c. Refocus according to current training plan d. Integrate Announcements more realistically e. Integrate Suspect escalations realistically f. Continue drive-building liftoff *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Introduce Electronic Collar

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 4 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1300

1300-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Obedience/Agility a. follow currently established training plan b. increase realism of Heeling movements c. carefully utilize electronic stimulation in conjunction with leash corrections d. utilize available obstacles for Agility Gunfire & Agitators (no-bite) a. random shots fired during playful Heeling b. increase stimulation of agitator w/o gunfire Apprehension field training a. Detaining according to current training plan b. Release according to current training plan c. Refocus according to current training plan d. Integrate Announcements more realistically e. Integrate Suspect escalations realistically f. Continue drive-building liftoff *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Introduce Electronic Collar

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 4 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1300

1300-1400

1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Obedience/Agility a. follow currently established training plan b. increase realism of Heeling movements c. carefully utilize electronic stimulation in conjunction with leash corrections d. utilize available obstacles for Agility Gunfire & Agitators (no-bite) a. random shots fired during playful Heeling b. increase stimulation of agitator w/o gunfire c. increase stimulation of agitator w/ gunfire Apprehension field training a. Detaining according to current training plan b. Release according to current training plan c. Refocus according to current training plan d. Integrate Announcements more realistically e. Integrate Suspect escalations realistically f. Continue drive-building liftoff *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Introduce Electronic Collar

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 5 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Obedience a. progress in complexity and exactness Apprehension a. introduce Field Interviews and Handler Defense *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 5 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1000

1000-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking a. follow currently established training plan b. increase length, age, difficulty as instructed Evidence Search a. follow currently established training plan b. increase difficulty as instructed Obedience a. introduce Transport as a Heeling exercise Apprehension a. progress toward street performance *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 5 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s):

______________________________________________________

Time of Day 0800-1100

Training Task Tracking - Evidence Search a. continue progressing toward street performance

1100-1300

Obedience a. integrate formal and street obedience b. integrate drawing and firing movements Apprehension a. integrate modular training into street performance with all previously learned behaviors

1300-1800

*Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 25

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 5 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1100 1100-1300 1300-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Tracking - Evidence Search a. continue progressing toward street performance Obedience a. integrate formal and street obedience b. integrate drawing and firing movements Apprehension a. integrate modular training into street performance with all previously learned behaviors *Understanding and performing Agitator functions, using muzzle, hidden sleeve, and bitesuit *Perform Detain training on a short line with the Agitator in positions from standing-crouchingkneeling-prone in all environments barricaded-open area *Preparing the Dog for actual deployment by giving it the impression this is not a game, i.e., Schutzhund or KNPV, that an Agitator is a “formidable opponent” and “armed suspect” by supplementing Handler corrections with Agitator corrections *Helping the K-9 understand Multiple-Suspects, the Release and the Over-Ride commands via utilization of multiple Agitators ONLY IF THE DOG HAS SUFFICIENT PRIOR TRAINING TO ACCEPT IT.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 26

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 6 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Day in the Life:

K-9 Involved Gun Battles

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 27

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 6 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1400

______________________________________________________ Training Task Day in the Life:

Yard-to-Yard Searches

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 28

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 6 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s):

______________________________________________________

Time of Day 0800-1400

Training Task Day in the Life:

1400-1800

Day in the Life:

Crawl Spaces + Attics

Vehicle Deployments, including Vehicle Clearing/Extraction

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 29

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 6 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s):

______________________________________________________

Time of Day 0800-1400

Training Task Day in the Life:

Handler Down Crisis

1400-1800

Day in the Life:

High Finds

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 30

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 7 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s):

______________________________________________________

Time of Day 0800-1400

Training Task Target Identification

1400-1800

Passive Subject Captures

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 31

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 7 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s):

______________________________________________________

Time of Day 0800-1400

Training Task Visual Barricades

1400-1800

Cell Extractions

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 32

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 7 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s):

______________________________________________________

Time of Day 0800-1400

Training Task Bicyclist, etc. Apprehensions

1400-1800

Dragline Apprehensions in various environments

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 33

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 7 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s):

______________________________________________________

Time of Day 0800-1400

Training Task Incidents involving Tactical Release

1400-1800

Incidents involving Emergency Release

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 34

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 8 Day 1: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Final Written Examination * All questions multiple-choice or True-False * True-False questions also have “DNA” options * DO NOT MARK ANY DNA OPTION! * Erase changed answers thoroughly

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 35

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 8 Day 2: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task K-9 Certification Exam * Handlers shall wear Departmental uniforms * The evaluation process is “Role-Playing” * Bring all duty-gear, plus eye-protection * Photos/Video allowed * Make certain all documents are completed with names, department address, etc.

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 36

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 8 Day 3: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0800-1300 1300-1400 1400-1800

______________________________________________________ Training Task Interaction with veteran Patrol Dog Handlers/Dogs in reality-based scenarios, if possibloe Lunch Interaction with veteran Patrol Dog Handlers/Dogs in Ride-Along situations, if possible

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 37

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Patrol Dog Training Course Schedule

Module 8 Day 4: Training Supervisor:

(Date) Wendell Nope 801-209-5790 (Cell)

(POST)

Adjunct Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Instructors:

(Names)

Apprentice Judges:

(Names)

Training Location(s): Time of Day 0900-1100 1100-

______________________________________________________ Training Task K-9 Graduation ceremony Class Finished

Revised 26 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 38

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Chapter 6: Validation of the POST K-9 Program Purpose

This chapter was created as a means of validating the credibility and reliability to the POST K-9 Program as a resource for training and certification.

Contents

The contents of this chapter consist of the following documents. 1.

Utah POST K-9 Program Audit, performed by Dr. Charles Mesloh, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Northern Michigan University, 11 January 2019.

2.

Utah POST K-9 Program Audit, performed by Dr. Terry Fleck (1963-2019), Law Enforcement Canine Expert, 13 January 2019.

3.

An Examination of the Scientific Principles Employed by the Utah POST K-9 Program: The Scientific Nexus to the Policies, Practices, and Techniques Utilized in the K-9 Program, Scientific Paper submitted to the University of Utah on 14 February 2019, Reviewed 19 February 2019, Prepared by Sgt. Wendell Nope.

4.

A Comparative Analysis of K-9 Performance: Utah Patrol Dogs vs. Western USA Patrol Dogs, Conducted by Sgt. Wendell Nope, Utah Police Academy K-9 Program, 29 September 2020.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Page left blank on purpose.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Analysis of Utah P.O.S.T. Narcotic K9 Program Prepared by:

Charlie Mesloh, Ph.D. Professor Department of Criminal Justice and Loss Prevention

Northern Michigan University January 11, 2019

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

On November 26, 2018, I was contacted by Sgt Wendell Nope of the Utah Department of Public Safety and asked to conduct an evaluation of the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K9 Program in response to a recent

court

decision

certification process.

(U.S.

v

Esteban)

which

cast

doubt

upon

its

In this evaluation, I have conducted a comparison

between the certification processes of Utah POST and the best practices of the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) which was a significant component of the Esteban Decision. Further, I have examined the certification processes of the largest detector

dog

associations:

United

States

Police

Canine

Association

(USPCA), North American Police Work Dog Association (NAPWDA) and National Narcotic Detector Dog Association (NNDDA).

Finally, I have reviewed the

POST Narcotics Detector Dog Manual, other related POST K-9 documents, training/certification videos, and personally interviewed Sgt. Wendell Nope to gain detailed insight into the POST K-9 operation.

Opinions My opinions are based upon the totality of my knowledge, skill, education, experience, specialized training and the information I have reviewed. opinions

My personal and professional experience from which I base my are

the

sum

of

practical,

street-level

enforcement

practitioner, as well as that of the scholar and researcher.

of

the

I have made

hundreds of arrests in a wide range of charges as a sworn law enforcement officer and K9 handler.

As a police administrator, I have overseen the

training of personnel and authored their policies and procedures. Within the academic and research community, I have conducted research funded by the National Institute of Justice and examined the impact of agency Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

policies on the application of justice and use of force in the community. This provides me with a unique perspective from which the basis of my opinions is provided with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Qualifications To summarize my qualifications, I am currently a professor of Criminal Justice at Northern Michigan University after having served as a department head as well as the Dean of my college.

My areas of expertise are police

canines, use of force, less lethal weapons, and police standards and practices. I have spent ten years conducting research on police dogs, less lethal weapons and use of force which has been funded (approximately $1.5 million) by the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Munitions

I have also been certified as a TASER Instructor, Less Lethal

Instructor,

Instructor,

Chemical

Impact Agent

Weapons

Instructor,

Instructor,

FN303

Diversionary

Instructor,

Device

Pepperball

Instructor, Chemical Munitions Instructor, Handcuff Instructor, K9 Team Instructor, Defensive Tactics Instructor and a Use of Force Simulator Master Instructor. I have published extensively in these areas and have received federal grant funding for their research.

My curriculum vita illustrates the

degree to which I have influenced the literature and research in these fields after a fifteen-year career as a law enforcement officer, K9 handler,

agency

training

officer

and

administrator

additional fifteen years as an academic and researcher. I

have

held

memberships

within

the

large

followed

by

an

During that time,

national

police

canine

associations (USPCA, NAPWDA & NPCA) as well as being a member of the Scientific Working Group for Dogs and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program (SWGDOG).

Patrol Dog Training Manual

I have ten years of experience as a sworn law enforcement canine

handler and certified annually through Criminal Justice Standards and Training (Florida Department of Law Enforcement).

I have also been

certified as a canine team instructor by the State of Florida.

Analysis My analysis was based upon the written directives that have been documented by SWGDOG, Utah POST, USPCA, NAPWDA and NNDDA in the policies, procedures and written guidelines. The inherent problem with conducting an analysis based solely on written policy is that it discounts unwritten standards, practices or customs that may be in place.

Any identified

deficiencies may be spurious as the organization(s) may have concluded that the concept was such common knowledge or common sense that it did not require

documentation

to

the

level

of

a

SWGDOG

best

practice.

Consequently, these findings should not be viewed as a criticism of any organization’s standards. SWGDOG identifies five different performance categories (shown below) which are then broken into specific performance measures. 1) Initial Training 2) Canine Team Assessment 3) Canine Team Certification 4) Maintenance Training 5) Record Keeping and Document Management I have examined Utah POST and several of the largest national police canine associations in comparison with each of SWGDOG’s best practices in the following matrixes. became

immediately

I have chosen to display them out of order as it

obvious

that

none

of

the

national

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

associations’ Ch. 5 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

guidelines addressed either the initial training (SWGDOG #1), maintenance training (SWGDOG #4) or record keeping and document management (SWGDOG #5) and are shown in tables 1, 2, and 3.

It appears that these associations

focus solely upon the assessment and certification of their dog teams.

I

would assume that with dog teams solely certified through one of these organizations, it would be necessary to look toward the individual agency policy to determine what issues were addressed in these areas. In the case of Utah POST, they are in complete compliance with all of the best practices proposed by SWGDOG #1, #4, & #5.

Their documentation in

these areas is stand-alone and does not default to agency policy. However, my review of several agency policies in the State of Utah does specifically default back to POST making them the final word in the area of police canine standards for this state.

TABLE 1: INITIAL TRAINING SWGDOG

POST K9

USPCA

NAPWDA

NNDDA

1.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

1.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

1.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

1.4.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

1.5.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

1.6.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

1.7.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

1.8.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

TABLE 2: MAINTENANCE TRAINING SWGDOG

POST K9

USPCA

NAPWDA

NNDDA

4.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.4.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.5.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.6.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.7.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.8.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.1.9.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.2.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

4.4.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

TABLE 3: RECORD KEEPING AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SWGDOG

POST K9

USPCA

NAPWDA

NNDDA

5.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.1.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.1.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.1.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.4.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.5.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.6.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

5.2.7.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.8.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.9.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.10.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.11.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.12.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.2.13.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.4.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.5.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.6.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.7.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.8.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.3.9.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.3.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.4.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.5.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.6.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.7.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.8.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.9.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.10.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.4.11.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.5.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

5.6.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.7.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.8.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.9.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.10.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.11.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.11.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.12.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

5.12.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

In

examining

the

twenty

(20)

recommended

SWGDOG

canine

team

assessments best practices across the different associations, only Utah POST is in 100% compliance in all categories (see table 4).

All of the

organizations under review choose to utilize odor recognition and a comprehensive single-blind assessment as recommended under SWGDOG best practices (2.3.1 / 2.3.2). A double-blind assessment is a potential option but it is not required to remain in compliance with the SWGDOG best practices. However, USPCA, NAPWDA, & NNDDA lack complete compliance in the same field: “the handler shall not know the number or placement of the target objects” (SWGDOG 2.3.2.2). For all three organizations, the handler does not know the placement of the target objects but is aware of the number. Due to the nature of these organizations scoring for certification, K9 handlers would be aware of the number of targets during a specific search. Utah POST specifically addresses this issue and handlers are not informed as

to

the

number

of

targets

when

they

conduct

a

search

during

certification.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

TABLE 4: CANINE TEAM ASSESSMENT SWGDOG

POST K9

USPCA

NAPWDA

NNDDA

2.1.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.2.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.1

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.1.1.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.1.2.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.1.3.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.2.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.2.1.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.2.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

2.3.2.3.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.2.4.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.3.3.

Uses

Uses

Uses

Uses

2.3.1./2.3.2.

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

Uses

Uses

Uses

Uses

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

Uses

Uses

Uses

Uses

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

Uses

Uses

Uses

Uses

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.3.1./2.3.2

2.4.1.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.4.2.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.4.3.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.4.4.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

2.4.5.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2.3.3.1.

2.3.3.2.

2.3.3.3.

In

examining

the

thirteen

(13)

recommended

SWGDOG

canine

team

certification best practices, only Utah POST is in 100% compliance in all categories (see table 5). The other organizations do not specifically Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

addresses these specific issues in their written standards although it is likely that they are actually meeting at least some of these best practices during their certification processes. However, as stated earlier, this assessment was based solely on the written standards for each organization under review. TABLE 5: CANINE TEAM CERTIFICATION SWGDOG

POST K9

USPCA

NAPWDA

NNDDA

3.1.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

3.1.1.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

3.1.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

3.1.3.

Compliant

Not

Compliant

Not

3.1.3.1.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Not

3.1.3.2.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Not

3.1.3.2.1

Compliant

Not

Compliant

Not

3.1.3.2.2.

Compliant

Not

Compliant

Not

3.1.4.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

3.1.5.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

3.2.1.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

3.2.2.

Compliant

Not

Not

Not

3.2.3.

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Conclusions The standards of the United States Police Canine Association, North American Police Work Dog Association and the National Narcotic Detector Dog Association have been recognized and accepted by courts across the United States. After reviewing the State of Utah’s POST’s standards for narcotics detector dogs, I have found that they are robust and exceed the standards set

by

these

national

police

dog

associations

in

almost

every

way.

Additionally, Utah POST’s K9 standards are in 100% compliance in every Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

category with SWGDOG’s best practices. I submit that I am qualified to conduct the analysis that I have done in this evaluation and to render opinions and draw the conclusions herein stated by the sum total of my knowledge, skills, abilities, education, and specialized training in my professional areas of interest.

Charlie Mesloh [signature]

Charlie Mesloh, MPA, PhD. Professor Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies College of Health Sciences and Professional Studies Northern Michigan University

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Appendix A: Dr. Charlie Mesloh C.V. CURRICULUM VITAE Charlie Mesloh PERSONAL DATA Office Address

Criminal Justice Department Northern Michigan University 1401 Presque Isle Ave Marquette, MI 49855 Phone (906) 227-2401 Cell (239) 229-3462 Email: [email protected]

EDUCATION August 2003

Ph.D. Public Affairs, University of Central Florida Dissertation: An Examination of Police Canine Use of Force in the State of Florida.

August 2000

M.P.A. Public Administration, University Thesis: Collaborative Learning: Factors in Student Satisfaction.

August 1987

Florida Gulf Coast An

Examination

of

B.A. Criminal Justice, University of Florida

EMPLOYMENT 2017 – Present

Professor Criminal Justice Department Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan

2015-2017

Interim Dean Professor College of Health Sciences and Professional Studies Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan

2013-2015

Department Head Professor Criminal Justice Department Northern Michigan University, Marquette, Michigan

2012-2013

Program Leader Professor Department of Justice Studies Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida

2006-2012

Director, Weapons and Equipment Research Institute Associate Professor

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

2004-2006

Assistant Professor Department of Justice Studies Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida

2003-2004

Assistant Professor Department of Justice Studies Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida

2002-2003

Administrative Services Coordinator UCF Police Department University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

2000-2002

Graduate Teaching Assistant Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida

1999-2000

Graduate Research Assistant Division of Public Administration Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida

1991-1994

Owner/Instructor Island Martial Arts Academy, Venice, Florida

1987-1999

Law Enforcement Officer / K9 Handler Venice Police Department, Venice, Florida

AWARDS

[See original document]

TEACHING EXPERIENCE [See original document] RESEARCH

[See original document]

SERVICE ACTIVITIES

[See original document]

LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING [See original document]

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Declaration of Terry Fleck

In Support of The Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program I, Terry Fleck, declare as follows: 1.

I am subject matter expert (SME) in law enforcement canine legalities and canine tactics. I am the author of the Canine Legal Update and Opinions for supervisors & administrators plus patrol, narcotic & contraband, explosive, tracking, search & rescue and accelerant dogs. I track and update the canine industry on current case law, legal trends and tactics.

2.

I have been a Deputy Sheriff II / Canine Handler (retired) in South Lake Tahoe, California. I was in California law enforcement for 28 years. I was a police dog handler for 21 years and I trained and handled three police dogs, patrol dogs cross-trained for search and rescue, narcotic detection, evidence recovery, cadaver recovery, avalanche recovery and tracking / trailing.

3.

I have been training police canine teams for 37 years.

4.

I have a combination of comprehensive field comprehensive education in law enforcement canine.

5.

I have a Doctorate Degree of Education in Criminal Justice. My dissertation addressed Police Service Dogs, Asset or Liability? In addition, I have over 15,000 hours of additional education in canine

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

experience and

Ch. 5 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

behavior and other law enforcement canine topics. 6.

I have taught Canine Legal Update and Opinions Seminars throughout the United States and Canada. I have taught over 29,000 canine handlers, supervisors, administrators, agency attorneys, prosecuting attorneys and risk managers nationwide. My classes focused on canine legalities, the prevention of canine litigation and canine tactics.

7.

I am an expert witness in Federal and State Courts, qualifying as a subject matter expert in law enforcement canine.

8.

I was an originating member of the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG), a federally funded entity, whose mission was to develop canine industry “best practices” and standardization of canine terminology. I was a SME in SWGDOG for ten (10) years, while the canine best practices and standardized terminology were established. a.

SWGDOG’s background. SWGDOG is a partnership of local, state, federal and international agencies including private vendors, law enforcement and first responders. SWGDOG consists of 55 subject matter experts with varying expertise, such as canine behaviorists, canine veterinarians, canine olfaction experts, specific canine disciplines experts, such as narcotics and explosives detection, and academic chemists. SWGDOG anticipates that establishing consensus based “best practices” for the use of detection teams will provide many benefits to local law enforcement and homeland security. Improving the consistency and performance of deployed teams and optimizing their combination with electronic detection devices, will improve interdiction efforts as well as courtroom acceptance. SWGDOG is considered as the “best practices” of law enforcement K-9. SWGDOG is not affiliated with any canine program, such as Utah POST.

9.

As a law enforcement canine subject matter expert (SME), I review canine programs throughout the United States. I have been contacted twice to review the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program, once in 2013 and again in 2018 / 2019.

10.

In 2013, I reviewed the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program, in response to United States v. Medina, U.S. District Court District of Utah, 18 F. Supp. 3d 1276. Part of that review was a written review of Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program, in light of the U.S. v. Medina case. My observations in 2013 were: a.

Utah is a very progressive State in the field of law enforcement K-9. There are nineteen (19) States that have a POST (or similar agency) K-9 standard. Out of those nineteen States, Utah is the only State that has:

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

1.

A full time POST staff instructor functioning as the K-9 Training Supervisor;

2.

A State K-9 Program that provides initial and continuing training for Patrol, Narcotics, Cadaver, Explosives, SWAT, Search/Rescue, and Tracking/Trailing Dogs;

3.

A State K-9 Program that provides initial and continuing training for K-9 Unit Managers;

4.

A state government certification for Patrol, Narcotics, Cadaver, Explosives, SWAT, Search/Rescue, or Tracking/Trailing Dogs;

5.

A State canine career field progression system of Handler, Instructor, and Judge;

6.

Courses that are eight (8) weeks (320 hours) in duration;

7.

A State K-9 training facility that includes classrooms, indoor and outdoor K-9 deployment areas, dormitory rooms and an on-site kennel;

8.

Training that is provided for free, with no tuition required for Utah peace officers;

9.

Ongoing K-9 course announcements on Utah POST's web site, such as Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program K-9 Courses.

b.

In addition to Utah being the only State to be this progressive, I have personally attended Utah POST K-9 training over the past several years. The training is always current, teaching new and current K-9 legalities and K-9 tactics. 2013 was a historical year in K-9, with the SCOTUS deciding two K-9 cases. In those cases, Florida v. Harris ruled on K-9 reliability and Florida v. Jardines ruled on K-9 residence sniffs. Utah POST immediately updated their training to reflect these two SCOTUS decisions.

c.

In comparing Utah POST K-9 standards and certification to SWGDOG’s best practices, Utah POST was 98% in compliance with SWGDOG’s best practices (as of 2013).

d.

The State of Utah POST K-9 standard and certification is also progressive. It is a bona fide standard and a bona fide certification. In fact, that standard and certification has been recognized, adopted, and is used by other U.S. agencies, such as: 1.

State of Nebraska;

2.

State of Kansas;

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

11.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

3.

State of Arkansas;

4.

State of Texas (Parks and Wildlife Department);

5.

State of South Dakota;

6.

State of Iowa;

7.

State of Oklahoma;

8.

State of Ohio;

9.

City of Jacksonville, Florida;

10.

City of Denver, Colorado;

11.

City of Albuquerque, New Mexico;

12.

City of Dallas, Texas;

13.

City of Fort Worth, Texas;

14.

City of Las Vegas, Nevada;

15.

City of Louisville, Kentucky;

16.

City of Springfield, Missouri.

In 2018 / 2019, I again reviewed the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program, in response to United States v. Esteban, United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211294 – December 22, 2017. Part of that review was a written review of Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program, in light of the U.S. v. Esteban case. My observations in 2018 / 2019 were: a.

As SWGDOG is considered the national “best practice” of law enforcement detection canines, I compared the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program to SWGDOG’s “best practices”.

b.

I reviewed a research project that was conducted by Sgt Wendell Nope, of the Utah Peace Officers Standards and Training K-9 Program, in November 2018. That project compared the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) “best practices” and the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program. Sgt. Nope compared over one hundred of SWGDOG’s best practices to Utah POST.

c.

There were one hundred and thirteen (113) comparisons conducted by Sgt. Nope.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program d.

In one hundred and ten (110) of the comparisons, the study showed that Utah POST was in compliance with SWGDOG’s best practices.

e.

In only two of the comparisons, Utah Post was found partially in compliance with SWGDOG’s best practices. Those two comparisons showed that:

f.

1)

Utah POST did not record the location and environmental conditions of the certification, and

2)

that the handler knows the number of target objects, but not the placement of the target objects.

Only one comparison showed Utah POST was not in compliance with SWGDOG’s best practices. That comparison showed that: 1)

g.

h.

12.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Utah POST did not record the location of the certification. (Note that this is a duplicate of e.1 above.)

In December 2018, the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program was reviewed in-house, and revised to address the two deficiencies in their program (listed here in e. and f.). The revised program now complies 100% with SWGDOG’s “best practices”, by changing: 1)

Utah POST will now record the location and environmental conditions of the certification, and

2)

The handler will not know the number of target objects.

In summary, in comparing the Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) “best practices” to the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program, now reveals that Utah POST is 100% in compliance with SWGDOG’s best practices.

In 2018 / 2019, in further review of the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) K-9 Program, in response to United States v. Esteban, I note: a.

Testing 1.

Initial Testing. The Utah POST K-9 Program conducts an initial test of the K-9 and Handler at the end of each training course. The Utah POST K-9 Program adheres to the SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice 3.2.3. and employs a combination of a "Comprehensive Assessment" and an "Odor Recognition Assessment" as recommended by SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice 3.2.3. The Utah POST K-9 Program provides government-issued certificates for K-9's that successfully pass that evaluation. The documents

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

associated with that testing are maintained according to SWGDOG Record Keeping Best Practices 5.4.5. A notable point is that the Utah POST K-9 Program does not accept any false indications in its certification evaluation, which exceeds SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practices 3.1.3.2.1. and 3.1.3.2.2. 2.

Repeated Testing. The Utah POST K-9 Program provides government-issued certificates for K-9's that are valid for 12 months, in accordance with SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practices 3.1. When that 12 month date comes, the certificate becomes invalid. A subsequent certification evaluation is required to become re-certified. That evaluation is conducted according to the SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice 3.2.3. and employs a combination of a "Comprehensive Assessment" and an "Odor Recognition Assessment" as recommended by SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice 3.2.3. A notable point is that the Utah POST K-9 Program does not accept any false indications in its certification evaluation, which exceeds SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practices 3.1.3.2.1. and 3.1.3.2.2. The Utah POST K-9 Program then provides a new government-issued certificate for K-9's that successfully pass that evaluation. The documents associated with the re-certification testing are maintained according to SWGDOG Record Keeping Best Practices 5.4.5.

3.

Double-blind and single-blind. The SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice 3.2.3 states: The certification shall be comprised of a comprehensive assessment together with either an odor recognition assessment or a double-blind assessment, or both. The Utah POST K-9 Program evaluation is conducted according to the SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice 3.2.3. and employs a combination of a “Comprehensive Assessment" and an "Odor Recognition Assessment". For narcotics canine teams, the SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice SC8 2.5 states: Certification for narcotic detection dogs should be comprised of a comprehensive assessment, which includes elements of odor recognition as outlined in SWGDOG General Guidelines. Comprehensive assessment. SC8 2.5.2.3. The evaluating official shall know the desired outcome of the search. Odor recognition assessment. SC8 2.5.1.3. The evaluating official shall know the desired outcome of the search. The Utah POST K-9 Program narcotics evaluation is conducted according to the SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Practice SC8 2.5, and employs a combination of a "Comprehensive Assessment" and an "Odor Recognition Assessment". Both are conducted in compliance with the SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practice SC8 2.5.1.3 and SC8 2.5.2.3, which are conducted single-blind, with the evaluating official knowing the desired outcome of the search. As stated in 3.2.3, double-blind assessment is an option; however it is not mandated by SWGDOG for certifying a canine team. 4.

Randomized. The Utah POST K-9 Program randomizes the location where target odors are hidden within certification scenarios. Effective December 2018, the program will now use a random number generator as mentioned in the Esteban ruling. Each certification search area will be divided into six (6) zones. A roll of the dice, or other means, will determine the location of the hide in that numbered zone.

5.

Trained Final Response, also known as the final Indication. The Utah POST K-9 program trains that every K-9 should "Indicate" when it pinpoints the location of a target odor. Indication behavior is synonymous with the term Trained Final Response. As stated in the Detector Dog Manual under the chapter entitled Performance Objectives item 2.2. "... An Indication is behavior which is easily perceived by the Handler or an unskilled person."

6.

False Alerts. The Utah POST K-9 Program adheres to the definition promulgated by SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practices 3.1.3.1., "A false alert is defined as an alert in the absence of the target odor." False Alerts are failures that should be resolved via remedial training. A notable point is that the Utah POST K-9 Program does not accept any false indications in its certification evaluation, which exceeds SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practices 3.1.3.2.1. and 3.1.3.2.2. Utah POST is unique in this practice, and sets a high standard, setting a high bar in certification.

7.

K-9 officers do not certify or re-certify each other. The Utah POST K-9 Program has a specific and well-organized training curriculum for "Police Dog Judges." Only knowledgeable, experienced, and credentialed subject matter experts in the Utah POST K-9 Program are allowed to conduct certifications. Effective January 2019, police dog judges will not certify other police dog judges’ K-9 team(s).

8.

False indications. accept any false

The Utah POST K-9 Program does not indications in its certification

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

evaluation, which exceeds SWGDOG Canine Team Certification Best Practices 3.1.3.2.1. and 3.1.3.2.2. Utah POST is unique in this practice, and sets a high standard, setting a high bar in certification. 13.

Summary. a.

The Utah POST K-9 Program is a bona fide training institution and certifying entity.

b.

The Utah POST K-9 Program is 100% in compliance with SWGDOG’s “best practices”.

c.

The Utah program is a role model for other States’ K-9 programs.

d.

The Utah program is well-respected and recognized as a K-9 industry leader.

e.

Utah POST is unique, as it does not accept any false indications in its certification evaluation. As such, this high standard sets a high bar in certification. On an actual field deployment, if a K-9 has a false indication, the handler will then search, or obtain a search warrant to search, the item that the dog falsely indicated to. Therefore, a false indication is problematic and implicates the Fourth Amendment. The Utah program realizes this fact, and as such, does not allow any false indications in their certification.

f.

The Utah program is the only program in the United States that has this high level of comprehensive K-9 standards and certification. No other State is as comprehensive as the Utah program.

g.

The Utah program is the only State with a full time POST staff instructor functioning as the K-9 Training Supervisor.

Dated:

January 13, 2019

Printed name:

Terry Fleck, Ed.D.

Signature: Terry (Electronic )

Fleck, EdD.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

An Examination of the Scientific Principles Employed by the Utah POST K-9 Program The Scientific Nexus to the Policies, Practices, and Techniques Utilized in the K-9 Program

Prepared by Sgt. Wendell Nope K-9 Program Training Supervisor 13 February 2019 Submitted to the University of Utah for Professional Review 14 February 2019 Declared Factual and Accurate 19 February 2019

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 25

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

The Science and Technology of the Utah POST K-9 Program Agencies within the State of Utah have utilized Police Dogs for many years. Salt Lake City Police Department is recognized as establishing the first organized K-9 Unit in 1954. Since that time, the population of Police Dogs in Utah has grown to over 200 active K-9's spread across the State. The POST K-9 Program was initiated in 1989 and was based upon principles developed by numerous scientists in the fields of Zoology, Ethology, and Cynology. To aid in the understanding of the science and technology of Police Dogs in Utah, a brief history of the origin of modern Police Dogs is presented below. In 1889, the London Police Department brought in two Bloodhounds from a well-known breeder to try to follow the trail of Jack the Ripper. Immediately upon their arrival in London they were brought to the last location where a murder had occurred. Although the dogs were unsuccessful in locating Jack the Ripper from that incident, the killings stopped for the entire period of time the Bloodhounds were present in the city. This is the first known case of the psychological deterrent of Police Dogs. [Scarborough Magazine interview with Edwin Brough 1901]. Bloodhounds Barnaby & Burgho in London to find Jack the Ripper.

Just before the turn of the century, police officers in Europe were experiencing an increased amount of hostility from persons they had to deal with in both civil and criminal matters. An imaginative Belgian police commissioner, E. Van Wesemael, is credited for presenting the idea for dogs to accompany the officers. At approximately the same time, officers in Germany recognized the potential benefits of dogs in law enforcement and started multiple programs there.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 26

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Very shortly after the small-scale Ghent K-9 Program, the German police built a large-scale Police Dog training facility in the area now known as North Rhine-Westphalia. It was the first official Police Dog training center in the world. This facility, known as the Landespolizeischule fuer Diensthundfuehrer (State Police School for Service [Police] Dog Handlers) still exists today and is actually the source of technology for the Utah POST K-9 Program. Shortly after the North Rhine-Westphalia school was established, a national training facility was built near Berlin, in the area of Gruenheide. The first director of the national facility was the renown Colonel Konrad Most, a famous name in the Police Dog world. The national facility was recognized worldwide in 1929 when it published a series of experiments known as the Karlshorster Versuche (Karlshorster Experiments) which dealt with tracking behavior. See Patrol Dog Manual Chapter 24 for more details on this experiment. Within just a few years, One of 37 Ghent Police Department K-9 Teams in 1899. other European countries integrated Police Dogs into their arsenal of law enforcement and military tools. Police Dog technology continued to evolve in Europe, with increasing efficiency until a point at which Detector Dogs (narcotics, explosives, etc.) became increasingly common. During and after the two world wars, the European approach to K-9 deployments was noticed by foreign governments, including the United States of America. Of particular note is the fact that no American received comprehensive training in the European This WW-1 Sentry Dog alerted the soldiers it smelled enemy soldiers long before the enemy approached their method until 1981. In 1981, this position. science was introduced into the ranks of American law enforcement by way of Deputy Wendell Nope of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office. Deputy Nope attended and graduated from all five levels of European Method training: (1)Handler, (2)Department Instructor, (3)School Instructor, (4)Judge, and (5)Teaching Judge. The technology has been established in Utah since 1989. Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 27

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

The technology for training Police Dogs was developed using the science of Zoology, the sub-science of Ethology, and the sub-sub-science of Cynology. By 1954, the educational technology and also the deployment technology were organized by European law enforcement agencies nearly identically as is observed in the Utah POST K-9 Program today. When Zoological/Ethological/Cynological concepts are used to train Police Dogs, the following result is achieved. “When the Handler treats the dog in this manner, the dog understands almost immediately what the Handler is trying to communicate. It is as if the human Handler assimilates himself into the canine world. The Handler’s actions are understood easier, faster, and are more deeply imbedded into the dog’s memory.” . . . “Using Cynology to train a Police Dog means that the Handler acts as the ‘Pack Leader’ and not as a ‘Master’ to the ‘Slave’ dog. The Handler does his This Detector Dog stares at the source of a target best to imitate the behavior of a pack odor, believing it is “stalking” prey. leader in the wild, and not use human psychology to interact with the dog. The Handler interacts much as if he were another dog himself.” [Major Scott Stephenson, Emirates Forensics Conference and Exhibition, 9-11 April 2018].

This Detector Dog has been trained that the odor of narcotics is a new form of prey. He has hunted for and found that odor and is attempting to dig the prey out of its hiding place. The digging behavior is identified as an “Indication” by law enforcement personnel.

The source of the odor of the new form of prey (narcotics) is located inside the storage unit inside a large suitcase. The US currency was examined scientifically and found to be permeated with the odor or narcotics. Further investigation validated that this large volume of currency (260K) was being used in drug transactions.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 28

Utah POST K-9 Program

Scientific Background:

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Zoology, not Comparative Psychology

The Utah POST K-9 Program is founded in long-established and extremely successful dog training practices that have been utilized for almost 100 years. Employing dogs in law enforcement and the military originated in Europe, using a Zoological science approach, which came to be commonly known as the European K-9 Method. The European K-9 Method, as it is sometimes called today, is distinctly different from the American K-9 Method. This is due to the fact that the Europeans, from the very beginning, utilized the science now identified as “Ethology” which is a subcategory of Zoology, in their training protocol. Ethology is the science of animal behavior, with emphasis on “behavior” and “genetics.” Ethology has a sub-category entitled “Cynology” which is specific to canine behavior. In America, the common K-9 training method is primarily based on Comparative Psychology, not Ethology. These two branches of science are alike in that they both study canines, but are different in their approach, protocols, methods, and goals. These two K-9 training methods are akin to “Fords” and “BMW’s”, in that both are successful protocols to achieve skillful K-9's. Nonetheless, Comparative Psychology focuses on the mental aspects of canines, while Ethology focuses on behavior and genetics. The main purpose of this chapter is to: 1. assist the student in recognizing that the POST K-9 Program uses bona fide science in its practices, is credible, is reliable, and is a competent training institution; 2. assist the student to recognize the differences between Ethology and Comparative Psychology, in regards to Police K-9's, and to understand why Utah POST chooses to use Ethology science to train K-9's; and 3. assist the student to recognize noted scientists and behaviorists who had meaningful input into the development of Police Dog training curricula that is utilized by the Utah POST K-9 Program.

This modern-day Police Dog has been trained to detect each footstep in the sequence of steps along the path of a fleeing person (simulated prey). Its high “Tracking Drive” compels it to sniff intensely for each footstep. Only a high drive dog will succeed.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 29

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Different Sciences and their Relationships Biology The natural science that studies life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution. Zoology The branch of Biology that studies the animal kingdom, including the structure, embryology, evolution, classification, habits, and distribution of all animals (including humans), both living and extinct, and how they interact with their ecosystems. Ethology The branch of Zoology that studies animal behaviour, usually with a combination of laboratory and field science, and viewing behaviour as an evolutionarily adaptive trait. Cynology The branch of Ethology that studies anything related to the behavior of domestic dogs. It includes such subjects as the evolution of the dog, its -anatomy, physiology, and dog behavior.

Ornithology The branch of Zoology/Ethology that studies bird physiology, their behavior, and habitats.

This Ethiopian Wolf stalks a ground squirrel, awaiting the moment when the squirrel is exposed enough to pounce on.

Primatology The branch of Ethology that studies the primate order of mammals — other than recent humans (Homo sapiens). It includes physiology, behavior, field studies, and evolution.

This Utah POST dog-in-training stalks simulated prey (drugs), awaiting the moment the prey object (training aid) is exposed enough to pounce on.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 30

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Scientific Treatise #1 A Preface on the Treatise on Ethology v. Psychology by Daniel S. Lehrman, Ph.D. (Preface by Sgt. Wendell Nope)

This preface has been compiled for reference applications by students of the Utah POST K9 Program. Perhaps the most educational and plain language explanation of the differences between Ethology and Psychology is provided by Dr. Daniel S. Lehrman, Ph.D. in his Treatise presented at the conference known as the Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry Volume IV: The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Convention and Scientific Program of the Society of Biological Psychiatry, Atlantic City, N. J., June 9–11, 1961. Dr. Lehman’s Resume Dr. Lehrman was an American Naturalist, Animal Psychologist, Ornithologist and Comparative Psychologist. Dr. Lehrman was notable for his contributions to the study of animal behavior ... and an influential educator. The National Academies of Science said that Dr. Lehrman "influenced a whole generation of students in animal behavior in this country and abroad". Dr. Lehrman was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the founder and director (until his death in 1972) of the Institute of Animal Behavior at Rutgers University, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a founder of Society for Behavioral Neuroendocrinology, a member of the Society of Experimental Psychologists, a founder of a series Advances in the Study of Behavior and its editor until his death, and a recipient of the Research Career Award from the National Institute of Mental Health. [Excerpts of Dr. Lehrman’s Resume’]. Dr. Lehrman published his Treatise on the differences between Ethology and Psychology that is reprinted below. Issues unrelated to Police Dogs are not included. Within Dr. Lehman’s Treatise there will be highlighted text. These highlights are intended to identify to the reader clear and distinct points that validate the Utah POST K-9 Program canine training protocol.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 31

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Treatise #1 Text Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry © Plenum Press Inc. 1962 Chapter 11: Ethology and Psychology The study of animal behavior has, in recent years, developed along two different lines representing, for the most part, the activities of two different groups of scientists, formulating problems in somewhat different ways, and deriving their interest in animal behavior from somewhat different sources. Psychologists use the term "Comparative Psychology" to designate those of their number, mostly in the United States, whose primary interest is in the study of the behavior of animals, rather than that of human beings. "Ethology" is the term used primarily by zoologists to designate those of their number, mostly in Europe, whose primary interest is in the study of the behavior of animals, rather than in the other aspects of their biology. While it is not possible to make absolutely sharp distinctions between these two groups of workers, with their respective activities, it is the purpose of this paper to describe the general characteristics of Ethology and to point out some simi1arities and differences between it and Comparative Psychology. The Background of Ethology Present-day Ethology has its roots in the interest in animal behavior which was displayed early in this century by a number of naturalists ... and other amateur and professional zoologists whose interest in living animals led them to their study of naturally-occurring behavior patterns .... Many of these disparate types of observers and students of animal behavior found a sharp focus, during the 1930s, in the work of Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen. In a series of theoretical papers, Lorenz [2] provided an account of various aspects of instinctive behavior, and a schematic theory of instinctive behavior .... These ideas attracted a great deal of attention, and became a focus for the development of intensive and varied work on many aspects of animal behavior, and indeed for the very existence of the groups of scientists who recognize themselves as belonging to a common discipline which can be denoted by the term "Ethology.” Meanwhile, Tinbergen published a number of papers based on studies of the behavior of various animals in their natural environment, with a more experimental approach than Lorenz's early papers, but with a similar general orientation. A paper jointly written by Lorenz and Tinbergen [3] in 1938, presenting an experimental demonstration, mostly by Tinbergen, of the theoretical ideas which had been expounded by Lorenz during the preceding years, may be regarded as an important event in the modern history of Ethology. Today, Ethological work flourishes in a number of European universities and research institutes. In England, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge both have substantial groups of workers on Ethological problems in their Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 32

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

zoology departments. In the Netherlands, work on animal behavior is a major part of the effort of the zoology departments of Groningen and Leiden. In Germany, the universities of Freiburg, Gottingen, and others, and several laboratories of the Max Planck Institute, are centers of Ethological work. Survey of Behavior Repertoires in Nature One of the most interesting and characteristic trends in Ethological work has been the incorporation into the scientific literature of detailed descriptive studies of the over-all behavior patterns of a wide variety of species of animals .... Observations of behavior in the field often suggest problems for more detailed analysis, which might not appear at all to the worker who merely keeps animals in cages in the laboratory .... Even when studies are being carried out entirely in the field, lack of knowledge of the over-all behavior pattern may often lead to misinterpretations and blind spots in the analysis of any particular part of the pattern .... In any of these cases, attempts to analyze the origin and the dynamics of either of the types of behavior would necessarily be unsuccessful in the hands of an observer who did not know enough about the pattern of the animal's behavior to recognize the similar elements of different behaviors of the same species. A further point is that the behavior ... of animals in captivity may often be different from animals in the wild because some of the conditions necessary for parts of the naturally occurring behavior pattern may be lacking in the cage situation. In such cases, analyses of behavior based solely on the behavior of captive animals may represent important distortions of the actual ways in which the animals relate to their natural environment [7]. For all of these reasons, Ethologists characteristically regard thorough study of the natural behavior patterns of a species, either in nature or in an artificially provided environment which is as close to the natural one as possible, as an indispensable prerequisite to the analysis of any part of the behavior. Behavior and Evolution The study of the naturally occurring behavior patterns of animals has made clear that different species of animals, even closely related ones, differ in the details of their behavior just as consistently and reliably as they differ in the details of their structure. Indeed, one of the major tendencies of Ethological work has been the study of the evolution and "comparative anatomy" of behavior, and studies of the role which behavioral mechanisms have played in evolution. Numerous studies have shown that analysis of the similarities and differences in the social behavior patterns of different kinds of animals Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 33

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

may be just as useful as studies of their structure in determining the degree of phylogenetic relationship between species. Indeed, in some cases behavior may be a better indicator of evolutionary relationship than any simple set of structural characteristics .... In some cases, behavior characteristics have actually taxonomists in defining specific relationships ....

been

used

by

The interest of Ethologists in the variation of behavior patterns from species to species is thus rooted in a biological conception of behavior as being part of the nature of the species, developed through evolution, and of the fact that behavioral mechanisms actually play a role in the dynamics of evolution. Experimentation in the Field and Laboratory Experimental work in Ethology is characterized by the fact that the problems selected for experimental analysis are, in general, those suggested by observation of the animal's natural behavior pattern. No attempt will be made here to discuss the types of theory of behavior toward the elaboration of which such experiments are directed, but merely to give some idea of the type of behavior characteristically studied by Ethologists, and the characteristic method used. ... Artificial models resembling the "natural" object of a behavior have been widely used by Ethologists as a means of investigating the stimuli in the natural environment which normally elicit various parts of an animal's behavior pattern. Studies of the variations in the form and intensity of "instinctive" behavior patterns under different conditions of elicitation have been used as background for the development of Lorenz's characteristic theory of instinctive behavior .... ... These cursory remarks about a variety of types of Ethological experimentation were not intended to be an exhaustive survey, but merely to indicate that the kinds of experiments characteristically performed by Ethological workers are suggested by, and directed toward the explanation of, the naturally occurring species-specific behavior patterns. Ethology and Psychology This brief description of the mood and method of Ethology makes clear a major difference between "Ethology" and what is usually called "Comparative Psychology" in the United States. The principal emphasis of Ethological work is upon the behavior of the animal, considered as a part of nature, which the investigator wishes to understand. The research is oriented primarily toward gaining understanding of the origin and nature of the Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 34

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

behavior patterns which characterize an animal's normal life in its normal environment. [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. By contrast, most work in animal psychology in this country is not based upon the researcher's interest in the animal as an object of investigation, but rather on the use of an animal, such as the laboratory rat, as a tool for the investigation of a problem which the investigator considers to be a problem of "general" psychology, rather than an aspect of the life of the rat. Indeed, there is an unspoken assumption in much of "rat psychology" that the justification for the work, and our conception of its significance, depend upon the extent to which we think the behavior of the animal being used in the experiment is representative of the behavior of animals in general, including human beings. A trivial but illuminating consequence of this difference in attitude is to be found in the fact that the titles of papers in American psychological journals often fail to state what species of animal was the experimental subject - an omission which one would not find in an Ethological journal! [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. American Comparative Psychology is now a highly developed science, from the technical point of view. Its graduate students are trained in all pertinent statistical techniques, are educated to high and rigid standards of experimental procedure, are exposed to the problems of scientific philosophy and method, and in general are introduced into a discipline of considerable sophistication. A good deal of Ethological work is still in what might be called an earlier stage of systematic description, extended use of anecdotal evidence, and casual admixture of experimental demonstrations in essentially descriptive projects. This is not, of course, the only content of Ethological work, as will be clear from my earlier remarks, but the continuous contact of Ethological work with the problems of naturally occurring species - specific behavior patterns is reflected in the continuing concern with descriptive studies of the behavior of animals in nature. Ethology is a rapidly changing and growing field of work which gives an impression of great vitality. One ought not to overestimate the sharpness of the differences between "Ethologists" and "Comparative Psychologists.” The term and the concept of "Ethology" originally developed within a small group of workers all fairly intimately associated with each other and all consciously and actively identified with the set of theoretical ideas originated by Lorenz and Tinbergen during the 1930s and the 1940s. At that time it would have been quite proper to say that an Ethologist was somebody who believed in Lorenz's theory of instinct. Trends toward the differentiation of groups of ideas among European Ethologists (e.g., Hinde [17]), as well as increasing communication and mutual exchange of influences between and among Ethologists and Comparative Psychologists, now make such definitions, and such sharp distinctions, seem archaic and unnecessary. In addition, it must be pointed out that many of the characteristics I have described as being specific to Ethology have also, from time to time, been found among American Psychologists who are in no way influenced by the European trends described in this lecture. The files of such journals as the "Journal of Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 35

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Animal Behavior," "Journal of Comparative Neurology," and the early "Journal of Comparative Psychology" contain ample evidence that such psychologists as Watson, Lashley, Yerkes, and others were truly concerned about the analysis of the characteristic behavior patterns of animals, viewed as problems in their own right. More recently, the work of Schneirla and his students has constituted a trend in American Comparative Psychology which pays careful attention to the problems of evolution, and of the biological adaptiveness of behavior, and which expresses concern for the physiological basis of behavior and for the ways in which behavior expresses the biological nature of the species [18]. These trends are expressed in a different way in the work of Schneirla and that of the European Ethologists, but the difference certainly does not consist of any less concern on the part of the Comparative Psychologist than on that of the Ethologist for the problems of evolutionary biology or of the analysis of the naturally occurring patterns of animal behavior. During recent years, attendance of American students of behavior at the international conferences of Ethology, held at various European universities, has provided a means of communication and of mutual modification of attitudes which will make possible constructive changes in many areas. There has been a growing American interest in the work of European Ethologists and a growing openness on the part of European Ethologists to consideration of problems raised by American work. Some differences in viewpoint and in language stem from the fact that most Comparative Psychologists are primarily interested in the Comparative Psychology of learning, while most Ethologists are primarily interested in species-specific behavior patterns which do not appear to owe anything to the kind of learning studied by psychologists watching rats in mazes. [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. No attempts have been made in these remarks to consider actual attitudes or ideas of either Ethologists or Comparative Psychologists. I have merely tried to suggest the general background, mood, and interest of Ethological workers in such a way as to make plain the main characteristics of this trend and some of the ways in which it differs from traditional American ways of studying animal behavior. References 1.

Roe, A., and Simpson, G. G., eds.: University Press, New Haven, 1958.

Behavior and Evolution, Yale

2.

Lorenz, K. Z.: Ueber die Bildung des Instinktbegriffes, Naturwissenschaften 25:289, 307, 324, 1937.

3.

Lorenz, K. Z., and Tinbergen, N.: Taxis und Instinkthandlung in der Eirollbewegung der Graugans, I., Z. Tierpsychol. 2:1, 1938.

4.

Tinbergen, N.: An objectivistic study of the innate behaviour of animals. Bibl. biotheor., Leiden, D 1:39, 1942.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 36

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

5.

Tinbergen, N.:

The Herring Gull's World, Collins, London, 1953.

6.

Baerends, G. P.: Fortpflanzungsverhalten und Orientierung der Grabwespe Ammophila campestris Jr., Tijdschr. Ent. 84:68, 1941.

7.

Hediger, H.:

8.

Lorenz, K. Z.: Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung, Zool. Anz. 12 (Suppl. Vol.): 69, 1939.

9.

Mayr, E., and Bond, C. R.: Notes on the generic classification of the swallows, Hirundmidae, Ibis 85:334, 1943.

10.

Adriaanse, M. S. C.: Ammophila campestris Latr. und Ammophilaadriaansei Wilcke. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Verhaltensforschung, Behaviour 1:1,1947.

11.

Mayr, E.: Systematics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, New York, 1942.

12.

Hinde, R. A.: Behaviour and speciation vertebrates, Bio I. Rev. 34:85, 1959.

13.

Dobzhansky, T.: Genetics and the University Press, New York, 1951.

14.

Tinbergen, N., and Perdeck: On the stimulus situation releasing the begging response in the newly hatched herring gull chick (Larus argentatus argentatus Pont.), Behaviour 3:1, 1950.

15.

Prechtl, H. F. R.: Zur Physiologie der angeborenen ausloesenden Mechanismen, I. Quantitative Untersuchungen ueber die Sperrbewegung junger Singvoegel, Behaviour 5:32, 1953.

16.

Holst, E. von, and St. Paul., U.: Naturwissenschaften 47:409, 1960.

17.

Hinde, R. A.: Changes in responsiveness to a constant stimulus, Brit. J. Anim. Behaviour 2:41, 1954.

18.

SchneIrla, T. C.: Levels in the psychological capacities of animals. in Sellars, R. W., ed., Philosophy for the Future, Macmillan, New York, 1949, pp. 243-286.

Wild Animals in Captivity, Butterworths, London, 1950.

Origin

in of

birds

and lower

Species, Columbia

Yom Wirkungsgefuege der Triebe,

[Conclusion of Dr. Lehrman’s Ethology and Psychology Treatise]

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 37

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

This was all very Technical ... what does it mean in Common Language? (Commentary by Sgt. Wendell Nope, Utah POST K-9 Program) Ethology is the scientific basis used in training by the Utah POST K-9 Program. Ethology was developed in Europe and is primarily used there to study animal behavior. One goal of Cynology, the subcategory of Ethology that deals specifically with dogs, is to create dog training techniques that imitate nature as much as possible. By using such techniques, a dog will learn quickly and the learned behavior will be deeply imbedded in the dog’s memory. When a specimen having strong instincts to work is chosen, then close-to-nature training techniques are used, a dynamic and highlyefficient canine performance is achieved. A common phrase among Cynologists is “adapt the training to fit the dog.” Comparative Psychology is the scientific basis used in training by most American government entities and also most university-based canine researchers. Most Comparative Psychology applications are not based upon interest in the “genetic quality” of the individual dog prior to the research. Rather, the goal is often to determine the general use of the dog as a tool for the investigation of a problem which the investigator considers to be a problem of "general" psychology, or in other words the genetic quality of the individual dog is not normally a critical issue to the research.

These two wolves engage in combat, perceiving each other to be an “equal threat level” and causing “Fight Drive” a.k.a. “Combat Drive” to be manifested. Fight Drive has no “death association” and so the combat will cease upon the surrender of the loser.

This SWAT Dog has learned to be a member of a unique “Pack” and is poised to engage in combat with a human combatant (a simulated terrorist) who has sought refuge in a building. This is a complex sequence of behavior that exemplifies high Hunting Drive and high Fight Drive.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 38

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Scientific Treatise #2 A Preface on the Treatise on Working Dog Character by Stewart J. Hilliard, Ph.D. (Preface by Sgt. Wendell Nope) This preface has been compiled for reference applications by Utah POST K-9 Program students. The intent is to establish that the K-9 Psychology protocol employed by the K-9 Program is based in decades of scientific research and more than 100 years of successful practical application. Lastly, the intent is to show that this protocol precedes the discovery of Classical Conditioning, the psychological protocol used throughout the USA by members of the American scientific community. Dr. Stewart Hilliard, Ph.D. could possibly be the most “experienced” working dog expert in the United States of America. His canine efforts take place at the U.S. Department of Defense Military Working Dog Program located at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. [Stewart Hilliard Ph.D., Chief of Military Working Dog Consignment, Lackland Air Force Base, Lackland AFB, TX email [email protected]]. This facility has a standing population of approximately 400 working dogs at any given time. As one population completes their training, they are shipped out to U.S. military installations around the world and a new population enters the Military Working Dog training program. The turnover of dogs coming through this facility is unmatched anywhere in the USA. The actual number of dogs certainly exceeds 100,000 since the creation of the Program in 1958. This level of “experience,” along with his academic credentials, give him more than ample credibility to address the issue of Working Dog Character (a.k.a. K-9 Psychology). Dr. Hilliard was a Research Fellow in Military Working Dog Studies with the Department of Defense Military Working Dog Veterinary Service at from 1997 to 2000, and he is currently the Program Manager for the DOD MWD Breeding Program there. Dr. Hilliard began training working dogs in 1980 in Denver, Colorado, when he became involved first in competitive working dogs and then in the training of Police Dogs. Over the years, he has also taught working dog training seminars for sport dog clubs and law enforcement agencies all over the United States, and has even been invited to teach in Canada, Australia, and Brazil. In 1983, he received his B.A. in Psychology at the University of Colorado at Denver, and his Ph.D. in 1997 in Behavioral Neuroscience at the Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 39

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

University of Texas in Austin. This Treatise represents his scholarly interpretation of the European K-9 Method commonly referred to as “Working Dog Character.” The Utah POST K-9 Program utilizes the European K-9 Method in its training program. The canine psychology utilized by the K-9 Program is nearly identical to that taught by the German Police to Sgt. Wendell Nope during a seven month course of training at the German Police Dog School located in Stukenbrock, Germany. The particular Instincts, Drives, and Character Traits utilized are specific to law enforcement canines, whereas Dr. Hilliard presents a more generalized representation of the behaviors within the Working Dog Character protocol. Within Dr. Hilliard’s Treatise there will be highlighted text. These highlights are intended to identify to the reader clear and distinct validation of the Utah POST K-9 Program canine training protocol. The highlighted color markings are not part of the original Treatise and are present herein for educational value. The Treatise may be viewed in its original published form in the book identified as: Hilliard, S. J. Character (1986). In S. Barwig & A. Mays (Eds.), The German Shepherd Book (pp. 66 81). Wheat Ridge, CO: Hoflin Publishing Ltd. Glossary of Researchers and Technical Terms in the Working Dog Character Treatise [Glossary created by Sgt. Wendell Nope for Student Reference] There are numerous people in the scientific community mentioned in this Treatise. There are also numerous technical terms referred to. The list below presents each of these terms and names in the order they are encountered in the Treatise. Presenting this list is intended to assist the reader to grasp the impact of each scientific researcher or technical term referred to in the text.

This “Alpha Wolf” dominates an insubordinate pack member to maintain his authoritative position whenever a challenge to his authority occurs. The subordinate wolf is seldom injured unless it refuses to submit. This wolf can be seen to submit.

The Handler (pack leader) dominates her K-9 when it challenges her. She attempts to imitate the behavior of a wild canine in a similar situation. She does not injure the K-9, but rather, only dominates it until it submits to her superior strength and control.

Once the K-9 submits by relaxing its body posture, the Handler lets the K-9 up and repeats the command of which the K-9 originally protested. In virtually every case, the K-9 will now respond obediently, as seen in this photo. The Handler then praises the K-9's obedience.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 40

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

1.

Captain Max von Stephanitz. A German dog breeder who is credited with having developed the German Shepherd Dog breed as it is currently known, setting guidelines for the breed standard, and he was the first president of the German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany (Verein fuer Deutsche Schaeferhunde, a.k.a. “SV”).

2.

Ivan P. Pavlov. A Russian physiologist known primarily for his work in classical conditioning. Pavlov won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1904 for his study of “conditioned reflex” exhibited by dogs when they learn that a certain response to a certain stimulus will produce a certain result. His experiments showed that “learning” can be observed objectively.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 41

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Humphrey and Warner. Elliot Humphrey and Lucien Warner were world renown in the 1940's for their efforts to produce a strain of German Shepherd Dogs which combined working ability and beauty of conformation. They authored the book entitled Working Dogs which is often referred to in scientific circles even today. It is Humphrey and Warner who created the verbiage that offers a layman’s explanation of Cynologists vs. Psychologists, to wit: “The professional psychologist, with a dog or two in his laboratory, and perhaps a dog or two in his home, cannot expect to gain the insight into canine nature that comes to men who raise and train dogs by the score. Trainer, breeder, and psychologist have much to learn from one another, and perhaps it is the psychologist who has the most to learn.” [Working Dogs, p.148].

4.

Rudolf and Rudolfine Menzel. Husband and wife team of canine researchers who published in the 1930's a renown Treatise on “Canine vs. Human Combat” that is still referenced in scientific circles today.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 42

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

5.

Schutzhund (pronounced Shoots-hoond). A complex dog training protocol developed by the German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany (SV) in the early 1900's which consists of tracking, obedience, and dog/human combat exercises. It was created to establish a performance requirement for breeding specimens of the German Shepherd Dog breed and has now evolved into a worldwide competitive multi-breed dog sport.

6.

Colonel Konrad Most. World famous German dog trainer in the early 1900's who carried out original research into training dogs for military and police functions. He has been called the father of modern dog training. His 1910 book entitled Training Dogs: A Manual emphasized using instinctive behavior such as “drives” to train the desired behaviors. His book demonstrated an understanding of the principles of operant conditioning almost thirty years before they were formally outlined by B. F. Skinner. The basic principles of Most's methods are still used in police and military settings.

7.

Cynology (pronounced Sy-nol-o-gee). The science of canine behavior. Those who refer to themselves as "cynologists", may formally or informally study such things as veterinary science, dog breeding, breed development, dog behavior and training, and the literature and history of dogs. In the English language, it is sometimes used to denote serious zoological approach to the study of dogs.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 43

Utah POST K-9 Program 8.

Ethology. The scientific and objective study of animal behavior, usually with a focus on behavior under natural conditions, and viewing behavior as an evolutionarily adaptive trait. Perhaps the most well-known modern-day Ethologist is Dr. Jane Goodall and, although her study was with apes (Primatology), her method of study was Ethology, the same science utilized by the Utah POST K-9 Program.

9.

Zoology. The scientific study of the behavior, structure, physiology, genetics, classification, and distribution of animals.

10.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Konrad Lorenz. An Austrian zoologist and ethologist. He shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with two colleagues. He is often regarded as one of the founders of modern ethology, the study of animal behavior. He collaborated in the development of “ethology” as a separate sub-discipline of biology. Cynology is the canine sub-category of ethology.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 44

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

12.

Herbert Spencer. A British biologist who promulgated an evolutionary concept akin to “survival of the fittest” as the realistic progressive of the world and not just the animal kingdom.

13.

B. F. Skinner. Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1958-1974. He was an advocate of Pleasure and Pain (as explained in the K-9 Psychology chapter). He practiced operant conditioning and wrote a well-known book entitled Schedules of Reinforcement (1957). Contemporary academia considers Skinner a pioneer of modern behaviorism.

14.

Teleonomy. A form of artificial evolution. “Selective Breeding” is artificial evolution. The concept that an animal species (dog) will adapt its body structure and mentality (drives, etc.) as it is selectively placed in a new environment. For example, over generations of causing dogs to focus on the Show Ring and not on Trials, working qualities will decrease and show qualities will increase. The validation of this concept is easily recognized in the German Shepherd Dog and Doberman Pinscher breeds.

German Shepherd Dog circa 1899.

German Shepherd Dog circa 2000.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 45

Utah POST K-9 Program 15.

Endogenous. Something that has an internal cause or origin. An example is a dog with high drive to hunt. That high drive is endogenous. It is not uncommon among well-bred specimens that this hunting and pointing behavior is not “trained,” but rather, is exhibited without any training at all.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

The “Drive” to hunt for (K-9 Sniff Test) and point (K-9 Indication) a bird (target odor) is Endogenous.

16.

Wallace Craig. An American experimental psychologist and behavior scientist. He provided a conceptual framework for the study of behavior organization and is regarded as one of the founders of ethology in America. He encouraged a view of behavior as an integrated process with evolutionary, motivational, experiential, social and ecological degrees of freedom. This integrative perspective helped shape modern behavioral science.

17.

Robert Hinde. World renown British zoologist who played an important role in integrating ethology (the scientific study of behavior patterns in animals) with other fields, such as psychology.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 46

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Treatise #2 Text Character by Stewart J. Hilliard, Ph.D. Foreword The following chapter is a discussion of the terms used by dog breeders and trainers to discuss the behavior of working dogs. These terms and the theories that revolve around them are mainly used in Europe, where the working dog movement is very strong. When a European, especially a German, refers to his dog's emotional make-up, he will use the word "character." By this he means to describe all those psychological and nervous traits which an American attributes to "temperament." Accordingly, I call this European body of thought "working dog character theory," and will refer to it as such in the remainder of this piece. The chapter is divided into two parts. In the first I will discuss some of the problems with character theory in reference to the sciences of psychology and ethology, and explain why character theory should not be taken to be a scientific description of dog behavior. In the second I will discuss and outline my model of working dog character.

Part I Introduction Captain Max v. Stephanitz - "German Shepherd Dog breeding is working dog breeding." The German Shepherd Dog is a working animal, an exquisite tool whose beauty springs from its utility. The powerful head, the long proportion, and the fleeting gait which we so admire arise not from some aesthetic vision conceived by Max v. Stephanitz and the other pioneer breeders at the turn of the century, but as a natural consequence of their vision of the dog's function. As part and parcel of this fittedness for work came also a temperament, a consistency of behavior, which the German breeders came to label "character." In the present day, we have come dangerously close to forgetting the relationship between our German Shepherd’s form and its function. Contemporary breeders appear to have lost the idea of the functional aspects of various points of structure, and admire them only for some arbitrary notion of inherent beauty. It is as though the answer to the question "What is the function of the German Shepherd?" has become "Why, to trot around the ring!" The conformation ring is no longer an arena for the evaluation of physical fittedness for work, but an end in itself for which the dogs are exclusively bred. As in natural evolution, when sometimes an anatomical feature loses "contact" with the environmental pressure which Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 47

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

evolved it and takes on extreme, bizarre, and non-adaptive proportions, so also has the structure of our dogs lost its close relationship with utilitarian function and developed only in response to the pressure generated by our sometimes odd notions of beauty. It is hardly surprising that, in an era when form is divorced from function, character has also suffered. Working dog character is best developed and preserved in Western Europe because the working dog is a European tradition. The Old World pastoral sheepherding breeds of the 19th Century came of age in the cataclysm of World War I. In the mud and carnage of the Fields of Flanders these dogs found their roles in Red Cross, liaison, and sentry work, and they were first used as guides for the blind in the war-shattered cities of Europe to help restore some of the self-sufficiency of the thousands of shell-blinded young men. Even before the war, in the late 1800's, working dogs were used in police service (especially in Gent, Belgium), and by 1914, the eve of Europe's plunge into the long, dark night, they had begun to come into wider use. It was these roles which brought the German Shepherd, the Belgian Sheepdog, the Schnauzer, the Briard, and other breeds to the attention of the rapidly changing world, and would give them a new significance in the 20th Century. Because of the proven practicality of the working dog concept, and its successful application in peacetime as well as in war, and also because the original breed clubs (especially the SV, the German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany) believed in the utility of their dogs and took steps to preserve this utility, serious interest in the working dog developed. As early as the 1920's disciplined research into the theory of working dog character took place. Before this time, a significant amount of work in dog behavior was done, especially by the Russian scientists led by I. P. Pavlov. However, these early experiments were primarily exercises in psychology, perception and learning performed by the relatively new school as of experimental psychologists, who happened to choose the dog their experimental animal.* *Pavlov, who was actually a physiologist, won the Nobel Prize in 1904 for his studies of digestion. However, his work in the psychology of learning has proved far more enduring. Pavlov's studies of what is now called "Classical Conditioning" not only resulted in a theoretical model of learning which is still subject to intensive experimentation and study, constituting almost an obsession for dozens and dozens of research psychologists: They also formed the basis for modern experimental psychology and behaviorism. These researchers made extensive observations, of the learning and sensory capabilities of the dog. However, because they directed their work towards Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 48

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

the exploration and clarification of the general characteristics of the mind and mental processes, considerable initiative and ingenuity were required to take these findings and extend them to encompass the specific field of practical dog training. For this reason (and because a dog trainer must often attempt to go beyond dispassionate observation and make guesses as to what the dog is thinking and feeling) very few dog trainers of that day profited by the knowledge about the dog's learning and experience which was generated by the early experimental psychologists. This was the beginning of the partition between scientific research and practical training which is only today beginning to disintegrate. Traditionally, scientists have been scientists, dog trainers have been dog trainers, and very little learning has passed between them. This traditional antipathy was most prophetically expressed by Humphrey and Warner (1934). "The professional psychologist, with a dog or two in his laboratory, and perhaps a dog or two in his home, cannot expect to gain the insight into canine nature that comes to men who raise and train dogs by the score. Trainer, breeder, and psychologist have much to learn from one another, and perhaps it is the psychologist who has the most to learn."l For our purposes, the most important of the early researchers who dealt specifically with character in working dogs were the Drs. Rudolf and Rudolfine Menzel, a husband and wife team whose paper, published in approximately 1927 (the exact date is un- available), Basic Observations on the Schutzhund Character Test: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Execution, is still the basic work in this field. Other early workers were Colonel Konrad Most, who was head of the Canine Research Department of the German Army High Command from 1919 to 1937, and Elliott S. Humphrey and Dorothy H. Eustis, who founded their Fortunate Fields project in Switzerland in 1924. Joined by other researchers, breeders, and trainers, these pioneers defined the basic concepts, and terms such as "courage," "sharpness," and "willingness" began to take on a particular sense in working dog character theory. From an experimental psychologist's standpoint, these are anthropomorphic terms (Humphrey and Warner went so far as to admit the anthropomorphic nature of cynological terms, explaining that they "have been used to avoid the awkward circumlocution of behavioristic terminology"2). While highly capable researchers such as the Menzels and, more recently, Professor Dr. Joseph Bodingbauer of Austria (Character Analysis of the Young Dog (1969)) and Professor Dr. Seiferle of Switzerland (Instructions for Character Judges, date unavailable), have helped to objectify working dog character theory, the basics of the theory derive primarily from the observations of dog breeders and trainers, rather than scientific work in the laboratory. This is why words such as "courage," "sharpness," and "willingness" are used: These are not scientific terms, but concepts taken from human experience. Because often these concepts are extremely abstract and difficult to measure or evaluate in the actual dog itself, the discipline is in some respects closer to philosophy than to science. For instance, the Menzels’ original definition of courage, which is almost universally accepted, is based to an extent upon the ponderings of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. "Courage is the state of mind which causes an individual in a Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 49

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

collectivistic society to consciously face dangers."3 This in no way implies that the Menzels conducted their research or their evaluations unscientifically. On the contrary, it should illustrate the difficulty that has faced all researchers since the beginning, that of designing a quantitative or behaviorist means to measure what are essentially ideological concepts. We must recognize the artificiality of the terms of working dog character theory (indeed, the artificiality of any term describing mental processes or motivations). They are not natural entities. A dog is not made up of varying amounts of such elements as "drive" and "courage" and "willingness." Such terms are nothing more than labels with which we have arbitrarily tagged those factors which we, from the perspective of practical dog trainers, regard to be the important points of behavior. Character (and psychological) labels are man-made divisions or categories. These distinctions do not exist in the animal itself, for behavior is in actuality an incredibly complex whole, the value of which far exceeds the sum of its parts. As Konrad Lorenz asserts, "It is almost impossible to portray in words the functioning of a system in which every part is related to every other in such a way that each has a causal influence on the others."4 It is necessary for us to compartmentalize and divide behavior in order to discuss and understand it. However, we must keep in mind the inherent error in this system in which we attempt to separate into parts for study an entity consisting of countless interdependent and co-mingling areas. We should also recognize that working dog character theory is not supported by classical experimental behaviorist psychology. In fact, from a psychologist's standpoint, terms like "courage" and "willingness" are speculative and have very little to do with observable behavior. Experimental psychologists are usually behaviorists. Behaviorists avoid the interpretive approach and concentrate instead upon observable behavior, what the animal does. Rather than drawing conclusions about "why" the animal behaves, they attempt through meticulous use of the scientific method to describe in exact, often quantitative terms "how" the animal behaves. This is the essence of "black box" theory, in which the observer regards the animal as an immutably closed system with circuits going in (environmental stimuli) and circuits coming out (behavior). Any attempt to guess at the contents and workings of the box, to infer motivations or purposes, will lead to probable error. [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. Behaviorist psychologists are primarily concerned with the phenomena associated with learning. This is because, early in the history of behavioral sciences, a number of researchers came to the conclusion that higher mental and cognitive processes (especially learning) were similar in a wide variety of animals, and were analogous to those in man. As early as 1896, Herbert Spencer "expanded his viewpoint to rank psychic states from simple reflex behavior to volition (free will or choice) and suggested that they graded from one to the other and that the distinction among different Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 50

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

animals was quantitative and not qualitative."5 Thus, through an emphasis upon the study of learning in lower animals, much could be inferred about cognitive and learning processes in man. I. P. Pavlov, J. B. Watson, and B. F. Skinner were all a part of this tradition. One important result of their observations which has become a founding hypothesis of psychology is the "stimulus-response" theory. According to this theory, any stimulus is a change and the resulting behavior is an attempt to adapt to that change. This emphasis upon learning and stimulus-response produced a belief in an environmental scheme of the development of behavior. In short, psychologists believe that behavior is primarily due to learning and experience, rather than to heredity. In contrast, the discipline of ethology is first and foremost the study of the inherited basis of behavior. The central theme of ethology is that behavioral traits have evolutionary histories. In other words, behavior is adaptive (it is employed "to resolve the problems of survival and reproduction"6); it is subject to natural selection; it evolves in response to environmental pressures in precisely the same fashion as anatomical form. In order for behavior to evolve over the eons in the classical Darwinian scheme, it must possess a highly hereditary character. Thus, the ethologist believes that behavior is primarily due to inheritance rather than to learning and experience. The main impetus of ethology is towards exploration of the relationship between function and behavior, and the illumination of teleonomy (evolutionary cause and effect) by comparing and contrasting the behavior of different species of animals in their natural settings rather than in the laboratory. Ethology is not a new discipline, having its origins in Darwin's time, when it was "the interpretation of character through the study of gesture."7 However, the discipline in its modern form has been a long time in gaining acceptance. The award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1973 to three pioneering ethologists -- Karl von Frisch, Konrad Lorenz, and Niko Tinbergen -- signified that ethology had finally come of age in the scientific community. This new legitimacy is an important factor when evaluating working dog character theory, for character theory is closely allied to and supported by ethology, and the association brings to character theory the credibility which is generated by a confirmed science. This alliance is partly due to the fact that character theory and ethology share a common heritage in the theories of the very early naturalist behavioral scientists, who were primarily Europeans (ethology and devotion to working dogs are both European traditions, while experimental psychology has its homeland in America). Even more importantly, ethology and working dog character theory show certain similarities of approach which almost automatically place them in Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 51

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

the same camp. Working dog breeders must, by definition, believe that behavior is primarily influenced by heredity. Otherwise there is no aim in breeding better dogs. Working dog breeders must produce dogs which have strong desires or motivations to perform certain useful behaviors. Thus working dog theorists, like ethologists, are vitally interested in motivations. However, experimental behaviorist psychologists have raised strong objections to the basic principles of ethology and, indirectly, to the premises which character theory shares with ethology. This brings a horrible complexity to the situation. Psychology, an empirical science, contradicts ethology upon which character theory is based. In order truly to understand the relationship between the behavioral sciences and working dog character theory, endless review of each behavior pattern and all of the literature which discusses it is required. Even then, still, there are unresolved contradictions between the disciplines. Working dog character theory is a useful approach to working dog behavior; it has merit. However, one must understand its limitations or one has the misleading impression that character theory fully describes dog behavior. Rather than exhaustively review all of the ramifications of all of the objections to all of the terms of character theory, I will use one example, "drive," to illustrate the differences between psychology and ethology and the position of working dog character theory in this debate. Then, in Part II, we will examine character theory in isolation. Drives Psychologists liken the use of the term "drive" with the use of the other common and, in their view, equally misleading term "instinct." Instinct is an archaic term which was used by scientists in the 19th century to describe behavior which, according to the ethologist Konrad Lorenz, was "neither in need of nor accessible to a natural explanation."8 At this time, drive and instinct were essentially identical concepts and in working dog character theory they are still used interchangeably (prey drive = prey instinct), in spite of criticism by some ethologists of the term "instinct" when used in this broad sense, and strong disapproval of the use of either term by modern experimental psychologists. In the lexicon of modern ethology, instinct is not synonymous with drive. It is now used in a much more narrow sense, as a specific stereotyped behavior or motor pattern which is "released in complete form and without practice the first time that the animal of certain age and motivational state encounters the stimulus."9 By this proposition, drive is the agent which motivates instinctive behavioral patterns. The term "instinct" refers only to the motor pattern itself, rather than to underlying factors. Drives are commonly defined in several different manners.

In the context

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 52

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

of character theory, they are defined by W. Handel, a West German Chief of Police,* as "unconscious, biologically expedient impulsive events and endeavours to carry out vital functions."l0 *Handel bases his writings on Instructions for Character Judges (date unavailable) by the well-known Swiss cynologist Professor Dr. Seiferle, who is currently acknowledged as the official authority on the subject by the SV, the German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany. From a dog breeder's standpoint, this definition carries with it the implication that drives are inherited; that they can be preserved and passed on in a breeding program in the same way that erect ears can be preserved and passed on. In addition, this definition states that drives are adaptive (they serve "vital functions"), implying that they are subject to natural selection, and that the animal which expresses the most advantageous combination of drives is most likely to survive and reproduce himself.* *When we speak of dogs, we must realize that natural selection is no longer in effect. The animals are subject to another selection determined by the breeder's tastes and needs. However, this human selection has the same effect as the natural variety of preserving and strengthening some traits while weakening and eliminating others. The process of evolution in human hands is analogous to that in nature; only the result is different. In fact it is evident from examination of the definition above that the character theorist's view of drive conforms closely to the ethological model of behavior, and the expression "drive" is used by Konrad Lorenz, the most prominent of living ethologists, in precisely this sense, especially in his On Aggression (1963) and also the more formal and recent The Foundations of Ethology (1981). The two most important corollaries to the ethological concept of drive are the endogenous stimulation of behavior and the spontaneity of behavior. Examination of these two precepts will help to answer our question: "Given that a character theorist's idea of drive is essentially identical to that of an ethologist, is use of the term “drive” in character theory a valid approach?" If, as ethologists believe, behavior is primarily inherited, then the greater part of behavior must be generated internally, rather than being dependent upon environmental considerations. Konrad Lorenz uses the expression "endogenous"11 to describe the stimulation of behavior as a result of physiological changes within the body of the animal (remember the stimulus-response theory).

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 53

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

It follows that if the central nervous system is capable of generating behavior, then in some instances behavior must be independent of environmental factors or, to put it another way, spontaneous. There are a number of observations which support the ethological view of the endogenous stimulation of drive and behavior. Ingestive (eating) behavior is particularly well- suited to explanation in terms of drive because it is dependent to a great extent upon internal stimulation. For instance, sometimes in the presence of food a dog will eat, and at other times he will not. This is a demonstration of a "change in 12 responsiveness," which is another common definition of drive. We can argue that the stimulation causing eating is endogenous in that an animal caged with a constant food supply will, at times, remain completely unresponsive to it. Yet, at other times, without any change in the situation, he will suddenly begin to eat. This is because a great part of the motivation to eat is founded upon physical sensations which are the result of the depletion of food substances within the body of the animal. We, of course, recognize this phenomenon immediately and simply interpret it in terms of hunger or lack of hunger. The ethologist, however, sees this as a manifestation of drive. To him, the desire to eat is an inherited urge or compulsion directed toward the single act of eating. This act, called by Wallace Craig in 1918 the "consummatory" act, has the effect of depleting or "using up" drive so that, after eating, drive-motivated activity ceases for a time. Furthermore, the longer the period of time which passes without opportunity for the animal to engage in a consummatory behavior, the stronger the particular drive for that behavior becomes, and drive-motivated activity increases. This behavior we also easily recognize and call frustration. The most convincing experiments to support belief in the endogenous nature of behavior and the spontaneity of drives were performed by Wallace Craig, who observed that, as a result of depriving a male ring dove of the female he was courting, the male would begin to respond with courtship behavior to stimuli which began successively to resemble his mate less and less. Eventually this reached the point at which the deprived male directed his courtship activities to an empty corner of the cage which he alone occupied; the point at which eliciting stimuli might be said to be zero, and the behavior is essentially spontaneous. This is called "vacuum activity,"13 and Lorenz interpreted it to mean that, "After a longer passivity of an instinctive behavior pattern, in this case courtship, the threshold value of its eliciting stimuli sinks."l4 This is to say that as a result of frustration the threshold value, the level or amount of accumulated environmental stimulation required to "fire" or activate a particular drive-motivated behavior, is decreased. Thus the word "spontaneity" is used to describe the fact that sometimes threshold Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 54

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

values become negligible, and so-called instinctive or "stereotyped" behaviors are initiated seemingly in the absence of environmental changes. Craig observed a further phenomenon related to frustration and vacuum activity which he called "appetitive”15 behavior. According to Lorenz: "It was Wallace Craig who first drew attention to the fact that a motor pattern which the animal had not been able to discharge for some time not only causes threshold lowering and an increase of excitability, it actually creates an excitation of its own which activates the whole organism and causes the animal to search for releasing stimuli ... this undirected restlessness serves to increase the probability of the animal's meeting the stimulus configuration that can release the undischarged motor pattern."16 The evidence of threshold lowering, vacuum activity and appetitive behavior are important supporting arguments for the ethological conception of drives as inherited, spontaneous motivating agents which clamour for expression, revolting against suppression and "exploding"17 into activity when left unused. This view of drives is the central thesis of Konrad Lorenz' controversial book On Aggression (1963), in which he argues that aggression is drivemotivated behavior in the classical sense. Thus we find that working dog character theory, a body of thought which arose more from the observations and ruminations of dog trainers rather than from the methodical laboratory analysis of scientists, is supported by the painstakingly researched conclusions of the ethological scientists, represented by Nobel prize-winner Konrad Lorenz. However, ethology is not without its critics. Experimental behaviorist psychologists argue that the use of the term "drive" lacks scientific objectivity. Handel's definition, which we reviewed earlier, referred to drives as "biologically expedient impulsive events" and "endeavours to carry out vital functions." In a psychologist's estimation, this definition is somewhat subjective in that it also contains a statement of purpose, an interpretation of what drives are good for. Therefore, Handel's definition might be seen as teleological or circular. It implies that the cause of a drive is its adaptive value, that the function of a behavior is its explanation. As Hinde (1970) pointed out, "Drives often are not 'defined independently of the variations in behavior they are intended to explain.’ There may be much circularity, for example, in defining thirst as the tendency to drink.”18 The concept of “drive” obviously leaves an enormous realm of physiological causes and effects unexplained. Hickman, Hickman, and Hickman, in review of the science of ethology in their volume The Biology of Animals (1978) acknowledge the convenience of the notion of drive, but also contend that it is nonspecific and "is used Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 55

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

to embrace a variety of distantly related phenomena, having different neurophysiologic bases."19 This criticism is vitally important: behaviors such as eating, mating, fighting, and interacting socially are all explained by ethologists and working dog character theorists in terms of drive, yet they are all founded upon very different chemical processes. According to the experimental psychologist's premise, the stimulus-response theory, any behavior represents an attempt to adapt to a change. As we have already seen in the case of ingestive behavior (which conforms closely to the ethological model of drive-motivation), most of the stimulation or changes which result in ingestive behavior arise internally as a result of metabolism and the depletion of fuel materials. However, there are other types of behavior which rely upon entirely different causal factors. Dr. John Paul Scott, an eminent experimental psychologist who has indirectly contributed even more to the dog world than he has to the world of scientific research,* wrote the following in Animal Behavior (1958). "The evidence which we now have shows that internal changes and causes of behavior differ with each major behavioral system, sometimes in detail and sometimes in entirety. This means that an understanding of the internal causes of behavior must be based on the direct study of the particular behavior patterns involved and that it is unsafe to make generalizations from one system to another. What is called "emotion" or "drive" in one kind of behavior may be physiologically completely different from that found in another."20 *Scott was co-author and co-researcher with Dr. John L. Fuller on the now-famous Jackson Laboratory Bar Harbor Experiment on genetics and social behavior of the dog, begun in 1945. Scott points out that experiments with mice have demonstrated that the stimulation for aggressive behavior in this species is entirely external, or environmental in origin. While the hormone testosterone appears to have an important internal influence, it acts only as an agent which sensitizes the animal (during a specific critical development period) so that the sensations of pain caused by other mice or human handling will give rise to fighting behavior. Scott concludes with the statement, "Mice which have no opportunity to fight show no evidence of internal stimulation but remain peaceable."21 This observation, of course, directly contradicts one of the basic precepts of ethology. In this case, behavior is not endogenous. Aggression is not spontaneous, but depends upon external stimulation. Therefore, in J. P. Scott's belief, there is no drive for aggressive behavior, as Lorenz asserts very strongly in his On Aggression (1963), and as is taken absolutely for granted in working dog character theory. Scott states uncategorically, "There is no evidence for a hunger to fight."22 To conclude his argument, Scott reviews the "steam engine" metaphor which is the favorite model used by working dog theorists to describe drive. "We conclude that the mechanisms of internal stimulation (of behavior) are highly complex. The concepts of motivation and drive, while useful in Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 56

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

general description, are too simple to explain the actual facts. The idea that an animal has so much "drive," which can be measured like the pressure of steam in the boiler of an engine, is too simple to be useful. Instead we find that internal stimulation varies with the kind of behavior involved, with the physiological mechanism peculiar to the animal, and with the amount of external stimulation in the surrounding environment.23 Summary In summary, then, we find that working dog character theory is a body of hypotheses and terms which has arisen primarily as a result of the observations of dog breeders and trainers. This body of thought has been augmented by the careful study of such working dog theoreticians as Colonel K. Most, the Drs. Menzel, E. S. Humphrey and D. H. Eustis, Professor Dr. Seiferle, Professor Dr. Bodingbauer, and W. Handel. However, many of the terms of character theory are inexact, and it is difficult to reconcile them with the terms and concepts used by experimental behaviorist psychologists. Working dog character theory borrows heavily from the science of ethology, which is the comparative and evolutionary study of animal behavior. The most important shared concept is "drive," which is defined as an inherited motivation toward a biologic goal. Central to the ethological view of drive (as it is espoused by the Nobel prize-winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz) is the belief that drive-motivated behaviors are endogenous and have spontaneous properties. The documented facts of ingestive behavior support this view, as do the observations by Wallace Craig of the lowering of threshold potential in courtship behavior in doves. However, experimental psychologists take issue with the ethological use of the term "drive" because they believe that this term is non-explanatory, circular, and above all that it is used to encompass a wide range of very different physiological processes. In addition, the prominent psychologist J. P. Scott argues convincingly against the spontaneity of aggression. Scott asserts that there is no evidence in any species of a "drive" for aggressive behavior, and observes instead that aggression depends entirely upon external stimulation. Conclusion Thus we have a paradox. Ethology and psychology represent two differing views of a common subject. Rather than being violently opposed (as they were in an earlier era) the two disciplines are now merely different and, unfortunately, each body of knowledge is often isolated from the other (as is demonstrated by the frequent segregation of the departments at universities). Each discipline stands on its own research. They can even be seen to represent two differing "truths" pertaining to the same subject, behavior. I am reminded of the blind men and the elephant - each party gropes the subject from a different perspective and arrives at quite valid, if contradictory, conclusions. This is the difficulty in reconciling a term from working dog character theory, which is based upon ethology, with a term from experimental psychology. Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 57

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Although from a psychologist's perspective abstractions such as "courage," "hardness," and "drive" are anthropomorphic, inexact, and do not adequately describe dog behavior, we are justified in making these abstractions; both because they adequately describe our observations of specific phenomena in our very specific field of interest, the training of working dogs, and also because this process can be defended in a logical manner. John A. King, in his chapter in Comparative Psychology: An Evolutionary Analysis of Animal Behavior (1980), edited by M. Ray Denny, states that, "Abstract concepts like learning, emotion, and motivation can be derived by definition and convention from overt behavior ... these concepts are useful substitutes for lengthy descriptions of motor patterns. Information is quite readily conveyed by saying "a rat learned the maze in ten trials," rather than saying, "each time the rat ran through the maze the number of turns into blind alleys was reduced until at the end of ten trials no further wrong turns were made.""24 [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. Likewise, I believe that the expression "hardness, courage, and fighting drive pronounced" is an adequate substitute for "In the courage test, the dog ran down the field after the fleeing man, did not reduce speed when the man turned and threatened him, bit very hard and without hesitation upon the arm, and continued to bite hard under the stick and heavy threats." Continuing usage of the terms of working dog character theory is justified by the dictates of practicality. While character theory does not fully describe dog behavior, it does provide a lexicon, a vehicle for the discussion of the practical aspects of working dog training and breeding. Even though character theory does not explain "why" working dogs behave as they do, it serves admirably to discuss "how." [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. Psychology and ethology are similar to other sciences in that their purpose is to generate knowledge about the natural world. This should be their only bias. Working dog character theory reflects another bias, which is the abiding interest of the people who created it - a fascination for the properties which make a dog a superb implement and servant of man, and a lively practical interest in manipulating those properties so as to train him. If a certain coloring of anthropomorphic sentiment or regard has crept into their terminology it is only because, as a working dog, the animal exemplifies in that role many of those ideals which we hold to be good and fine, such as courageousness and spirit. While this coloring is a danger to objectivity, it is also the source of the tremendous interest in the working dog which drove individuals like Most, the Menzels, and countless others to generate the body of thought, and literature which discusses it, like this piece.

Part II Working dog character is constructed of basic elements which rest on the physical and psychological capabilities of the individual dog. In my model of character the basic elements are placed into two categories, traits and drives. Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 58

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Drives

According to W. Handel, "Drives are unconscious, biologically expedient impulsive events and endeavours to carry out vital functions."25 Drives are the most important aspect of the dog's character, because they are the motive force behind all of his actions. We easily recognize the existence of such fundamental and irresistable urges as the drive to eat, the sex drive, and the drive to avoid harm. Accompanying these are many other drives, greater and lesser, which help to constitute the species-typical behavior of the dog. One difficulty in defining and differentiating between the various drives is that it is often not clear to what level of behavior the term "drive" should be applied. For example, examine Fig. 1.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 59

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Figure #1 A hypothetical arrangement of observable behaviors. Agonism includes all those responses “which animals give when they are either inflicting injury or are in danger of being injured.” (J.P.Scott, Animal Behavior, pg.73).

1st Level

2nd Level

Third Level Chasing Biting

Fighting

Threatening Killing Etc Passive Defense Flight

Avoiding

Etc. Chasing Agonism

Biting Scenting

Preying

Killing Carrying Etc.

Submission

Inhibition Appeasement Etc.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 60

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

From this figure we can see that the decision to assign a "fighting" drive, rather than "chasing," "biting," and "threatening" drives is almost wholly an arbitrary one. Indeed, the diagram itself is highly arbitrary, for I could continue to sub-divide parts of motor patterns until I arrived at the level of individual muscle groups, and then single muscle cells and neurons. Konrad Lorenz believes that there is an autonomous drive associated with any discrete motor pattern. However, in order to differentiate between, for instance, "threatening" drive and the major systems of adaptive urges he calls the former a "tool" drive.26 So, the question that concerns us is, "At what level does an urge attain the status of a "major" drive?" For our purposes, the work which we perform with the dogs provides reasonably distinct guidelines as to what level of behavior we should concern ourselves with. For example, for us the distinction between biting and killing-shake urges is unimportant. However, it is vitally important to our training methods that we recognize and define in our terminology a difference between defensive and prey urges. Accordingly, in the main we will make our distinctions at the second level of Fig. #1. However, in another instance it is important for working dog trainers to be able to evaluate and speak of a particular dog's desire and ability for tracking and trailing (scenting). So, here I make another arbitrary distinction, raising a tool drive from the third level to the status of a major drive. Handel goes so far as to make a distinction at the fourth level, separating olfactory (scenting) drive into tracking and air-scenting drives because in his work as a police service dog trainer this distinction is important. Also, it should be evident that many of the drives stipulated here overlap significantly, and that at any one time the dog may be driven by several urges. See Fig. #2.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 61

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Figure #2 A hypothetical arrangement of drives and behaviors showing relationships and overlapping of drives. Tracking

Olfactory Drive

Trailing Generalized Olfactory Searching

Hunting Drive

Random, Purposive Searching

Visual contact with Prey

Chase Response

Killing, Shaking

Biting, Carrying Guarding

Prey Drive Retrieving Drive

Social Drive

Use of a Prey Object as a Social Catalyst

Retrieving Drive

Play, retrieving, and hunting drives are all in the same constellation of urges, and who is to say that the urge to chase a ball is significantly different from the urge which sends the dog down the field after a fleeing man, or after a rabbit? Indeed, are the bites that the dog takes on the ball, and the sleeve, and on a running rabbit all distinctly different behaviors, motivated by distinctly different drives? I think not. However, because one dog may bite very well, and still he will not have the slightest inclination to chase the ball, it is necessary to distinguish between whatever combinations of urges impel these behaviors. Recognize that drives are marked by and associated with discrete motor patterns. The validity of the decision to speak of a particular drive depends upon how distinct its accompanying motor patterns are, and how closely they are associated with the urge in question. In Fig. #3 is pictured one example, the neuro-muscular patterns of expression typically displayed by a dog undergoing agitation.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 62

Utah POST K-9 Program Figure #3:

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Various facial expressions in dogs undergoing agitation, and a proposed model of the associated drives.

Prey Drive

Chasing Biting Killing Carrying Prey-Guarding

No Threat No Fear

Prey-Guarding Low Threat Mild Fear

Defense Drive

Avoidance Drive

Intense Threat Intense Fear Rival Fighting

Dominance Drive Fighting Drive

Threatening Biting Fighting

Intense Threat Little or No Fear

It is customary to distinguish between drives which serve to preserve the species and drives which serve to preserve the individual. I do not recognize this distinction because, in my opinion, there is little difference. The only "purpose" of any living thing is to reproduce itself. Any tendency which serves to preserve the individual also will serve to preserve the species by enhancing the likelihood that that individual will survive to reproduce. Survival urges are not perpetuated because the animal in question realizes that he performed the action which was best calculated to save his life. They are perpetuated because the animal survives to reproduce himself. Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 63

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Following is a list of the various drives which constitute character. They are arranged so that each drive overlaps with the drives immediately above and below it, and this array depicts the degree of relationship and closeness between various drives, as much as is possible. Hunting Drive

is founded on the urge to satisfy hunger. Under hunting drive we should understand the seemingly aimless patterns of "appetitive behavior" which involve restlessness and random purposive searching. This behavior is seen when we release a dog into a field and witness his ceaseless quartering as he runs about, hoping to "get a rabbit up." We also see this behavior in a dog who runs interminably in his pen, like a caged tiger. These patterns are the result of removing a hunter from his natural environs and placing him in a position in which his predatory drives and energy go unused. He eats merely through the exertion of walking to the bowl in the corner. We find that the "nervous" dog appetitive behavior in his make-up.

often

has

much

Hunting drive is closely related to and overlaps with prey, olfactory, retrieving, and play urges (see Fig. 2). Olfactory Drive

is the facility or desire with which the dog uses air and/or ground scent and persistently follows it in order to attain his aim. This urge is seen in a dog who, when his sense of vision is somehow foiled, immediately and naturally falls to using his nose and displays intense concentration in doing so.

Prey Drive

is the urge to chase, catch, kill, carry, and guard prey. This urge drives a whole complex of very, very strong behaviors which are associated on an almost reflexive level with the perception of movement, and can be said to be "triggered" by movement. These behaviors include the "full-mouthed" bite (in which the dog bites with the whole of his mouth and jaw including the molar area, literally filling his mouth), the peripheral bite response, and also the "killing shake." Prey drive is differentiated from hunting drive because prey behavior is initiated upon sight of the prey object or animal.

Retrieving Drive

is really only an expression of the prey behaviors of chasing, biting, and carrying modified by domestication and social urges. In many dogs, retrieving is a serious endeavor, and is much closer in nature to

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 64

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

hunting or aggression than it is to play. The dog who is a truly strong natural retriever pursues the ball with an awesome intensity of purpose, and this spirit can be used to great advantage in all phases of his training. In some dogsthe trait is emphasized by an extreme nervous disposition and an oral tendency which may be the result of domestication. These dogs use the ball or some other prey object as a social catalyst and a pacifier, and seem unable to interact with their handlers without excessive anxiety unless this interaction is centered around retrieving and play. Play Drive

is an urge whose function is not fully understood. The possible explanations range from the "practice" theory, in which an immature animal perfects neuro-muscular motor patterns and behavior needed for survival, to the "pleasure" theory, in which the animal plays simply because he enjoys it. Suffice it to say that dogs have a strong tendency to engage in play behavior by themselves, with objects, and with other dogs and people, and that it is important to the dog's training and his rapport with his handler that the handler engage in play with him. Play drive is closely related to retrieving and social drives. Play behavior in dogs may somehow serve to facilitate social bonding, or possibly to reaffirm and stabilize social ties.

Social Drive

is the urge to interact socially with conspecifics (the dog who is socialized to people regards a human being as a quasi-dog, and thus a conspecific); it is the drive to seek and find a stable position in the dominance hierarchy of the pack and to, for lack of a less anthropomorphic expression, "belong." Under social drive we will find "allelomimetic"27 (mutual mimicking) behavior, and we will observe the canine tendency to act in concert, as a group. Under this urge we should also understand the dog's bond to his handler, from which arises willingness to cooperate. Willingness is the ability to submit happily to a higher-ranking pack member and the tendency to adore authority. This tendency is so important to training that Handel assigns to it a specific, distinct drive, which he calls the "Drive to Willingly Cooperate."

Dominance Drive

is the urge to gain a higher standing in the dominance hierarchy of the pack. This drive is responsible for

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 65

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

the "upward polarization" of the pack. This is to say that every dog has a tendency to be upwardly mobile in the ranking order. Each dog will struggle to rise as far as his strength and his nerve will allow, until he reaches his given level, respecting and acknowledging the dominance of his superior and rigidly enforcing the submission of his inferior. This upward polarization is the "gravity" which draws each dog to his own level and thereby lends the pack its stability. Dominance appears to be inversely related to willingness (i.e., highly dominant dogs are often unwilling), but this relationship is indistinct. It is not uncommon for a tremendously dominant dog to display a pronounced willingness to cooperate once his handler has gained his respect. Fighting Drive is founded in dominance drive. Handel defines it as "the eagerness to measure physical strength,”28 and compares it to "pugnaciousness.” It is difficult to ascribe any particular set of behaviors or motor patterns to fighting drive and for this reason this urge has a manmade flavor. Fighting drive may exist more in our minds than in the dog itself. However, there is a certain calm quality or tendency in some dogs towards "pugnaciousness" or "fight-happiness" which does not resemble the hysterical over-aggressiveness of the very sharp dog, yet is too intensive and non-object-oriented to ascribe to prey drive. As a descriptive adjective for these dogs fighting drive works very well indeed. Territorial Drive

describes the dog's tendency to become attached to a locality and to defend this locality. This behavior is well-documented in wolves in the wild. It should be stressed that territory is "owned" communally by members of a dog or wolf pack year-round rather than by a single individual during mating season, as in many other species. The most dominant animals are the most zealous defenders of territory.

Protection Drive

is the urge to defend pack members. This drive is displayed only rarely. The majority of dogs do not express it, whether they are trained to bite or not. However, it is a distinct urge marked by specific behavior, because there are cases of perfectly calm, peaceable animals who are suddenly roused to intense aggression by acts of violence committed against their handlers or other dogs whom they consider to be pack mates.29 Of all of the elements of character, protection drive most closely corresponds to the Menzels' original concept of courage, which they felt was "a socially

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 66

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

based phenomenon" in which "an individual consciously faces dangers in the interest of others."30 (See "Courage" in this chapter.) Defensive Drive

is the drive to avert harm through aggressive action. Defensive behavior is a reaction induced when the animal perceives himself to be threatened at a critical level, as when he is threatened and flight is not possible. Under this urge we should understand Krushinskii's active defense reflex (ADR) and Hediger's flight and critical reaction distances, which are closely associated with defensive drive. Defensive behavior is "ultimately based in fear,"31 and results from the conflict of the impulse to flee and the impulse to fight. As such, it is intimately associated with avoidance drive. A certain measure of defensive drive is necessary for any dog in service with the military or police, and also is advantageous, in moderate doses, in the Schutzhund dog. [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope].

Avoidance Drive

is the drive to avert harm through avoidance behavior. This urge is clearly expressed when the dog flees from danger, and also it is expressed when the dog learns to sit on command in order to avoid receiving a correction. It cannot be stressed enough that a major part of training based on compulsion is founded in the dog's urge to avoid harm. Misunderstanding of this concept permits anthropomorphism in training, which is ruinous to progress. (See "Avoidance Learning."32).

Sex Drive

is the urge to engage in sexual activity. This behavior is metered to a great extent by the secretion of hormones in the endocrine system and is a good example of a behavior which is highly hereditary. However, as is true with any behavior, learning plays an appreciable part in sexual activities, as is well known to anyone who has owned a stud dog and has witnessed this dog's first breeding. As Handel notes, especially in the male, the awakening of the sex drive is accompanied by a decrease in tractability and an increase in pugnacity and territorialism.

Nurturing Drive

is expressed in the bitch's careful tending of her litter. We might call this urge "nursing drive," except that some males if given the opportunity will display solicitous care-giving behavior towards the

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 67

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

puppies. This type of behavior is especially welldocumented in wolves, whose litters not only have fathers," but also "uncles.” Under nurturing drive we should recognize the closely related patterns of "epimeletic” (care-giving) behavior and “et-epimeletic"33 (care-soliciting) behavior. Traits Traits are the characteristics which modify the occurrence or nonoccurrence of drive-motivated behavior. The degree to which the dog possesses these characteristics will determine the "trigger," or the amount and type of environmental stimulation required to bring out particular behaviors. Thus, the various traits such as "hardness" are very broad terms which describe the dog's various nervous irritability thresholds. Nervous thresholds are the breaking points at which certain behaviors are triggered by degrees of nervous stimulus. From an observational standpoint, a threshold can be defined as "the level at which a stimulus produces a measurable response."34 Although it is not strictly true, we can speak of a particular threshold for each drive. Furthermore, each drive will be especially sensitive to particular sorts of stimulation. We can say that, for instance, threat "attracts" defensive behavior. We should understand this to mean that this stimulus has great "threshold value" for defense, and a particular intensity or duration of threat will reach the threshold for the defensive drive very quickly in comparison with other types of stimulation. As we have discussed, the dog is motivated by many different factors but, if one drive has a comparatively low threshold of stimulation, then it will tend to dominate or supersede the others. For example, a dog with an extremely low threshold for defensive behavior may become defensive in response to a stimulus which in another dog would merely stimulate prey behavior. It is important to realize that thresholds are not distinct, invariable limits. According to Konrad Lorenz, "No behavior with a constant threshold has ever been observed in animals."35 Thresholds are constantly in flux, varying as the animal's state of frustration or satiety varies. In addition, due to the effects of "summation,"36 we find that stimulation has a cumulative effect. For instance, a hungry dog will show an increased irritability and tendency to fight. An animal which is walking on a slick floor in a dark building that is unfamiliar to him will be slightly "loaded" and as a result will come into defense more easily than he would in familiar surroundings. Following is a list of the various traits which constitute character. These traits are similar to the drives we have reviewed in that they are Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 68

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

very broad terms which overlap significantly and do not possess sharp, clearly-defined boundaries. Constitution

Under "constitution" we understand all of the physical attributes of the dog, including the "conformation, efficiency, and responsiveness"37 of the skeletal and visceral muscles, internal organs, sense organs and, most importantly, the central and peripheral nervous systems. The psychological and emotional characteristics of the dog are based on anatomical and physiological factors; the dog's "personality" is not separate from his physical nature, but dependent upon that physical nature. With this in mind, it is evident that condition plays a role in affecting the dog's character. A slack, inactive dog in soft condition will be significantly different in behavior from the same dog when he is in hard, fit condition. "Condition is expressed above all by the degree of readiness with which an individual reacts. This readiness to react determines the efficiency and adaptability of the individual and therefore the basis for the so-called character picture."38

Courage

is a human quality which is predicated upon the human ability to evaluate consequences. In order to display courage, a person must take aggressive action in a situation in which two conditions exist. Firstly, the person must recognize the possibility for serious physical harm to himself. Secondly, the alternative to retreat or withdraw must be available to the person, so that if he wishes he can avoid the consequences. The motive which impels a person into this situation is, as Immanual Kant put it, his "collectivistic consciousness.” The person's act is courageous because in performing it he has subordinated his own physical safety to that of others. This sort of evaluation and selfless sacrifice is, of course, totally out of the question in the case of a dog, whose intelligence and cognitive abilities are quite limited. [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. However, Rudolf and Rudolfine Menzel argued that courage in a dog must still be evaluated in terms of those same two conditions; the dog perceives danger or harm in the situation (i.e., he is not fearless) and the possibility exists for the dog to escape. The Menzels proposed two slightly different possibilities for the vital motive which would impel the dog into

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 69

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

harm's way. The first was a "collectivistic drive," a purely biological or mechanical urge for the preservation of the species which under certain conditions could conquer the drive for the preservation of the self. As an alternative they also proposed the existence of a "drive to be respected" which they felt was also responsible for all of the human actions which we regard to be noble and fine; including courage. This idea left a little more room for the possibility of some equivalent to nobility and selflessness in the dog. In the Menzels' view, the animal's need to hold rank and respect in his society is somehow translated into some type of "leader" behavior in which he disregards danger. They proposed that the dog's need to hold rank was so overpowering in some cases that it was "well able to counteract the instinct of selfpreservation."39 Modern character theorists, such as Handel and Seiferle, reject this hypothesis on the basis of its complexity and the dog's lack of the cognitive ability to evaluate. They speak instead of "fearlessness" or "the quality of not being easily frightened." In my opinion, courage is best defined as a very high threshold for avoidance behavior. This definition simply means that, in the case of a courageous dog, an enormous amount of accumulated threatening stimulation is required to awaken the avoidance drive. Courage is not only an expression dealing with nervous thresholds; it is also a function of the strength of drive. The more stimulated and excited the animal is, the more difficult it is to frighten him or make him unsure. In addition, courage is also affected to a great degree by learning (as are all character traits). For instance, the success which the dog met in his last attempt at a muzzle attack will affect the fortitude which he shows in his next attempt. I use the term "confidence" to describe this phenomenon. When asked to distinguish between courage and confidence, I do so in this way: Confidence is the fortitude arising from positive experience, while courage is the fortitude arising only from constitutional and genetic factors. Of course, it is highly incorrect to attempt to separate character traits into those which are genetic in origin and those which are learned. As modern behavioral scientists now realize, nearly any behavior Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 70

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

which an animal shows is a result of the interaction between heredity and environment. However, when evaluating a trained dog it is necessary to distinguish, or rather attempt to distinguish, between the dog's "native" fortitude and the fortitude which has arisen as a result of his training. Therefore, while I do not make a formal distinction between the two, I do acknowledge the effect of experience upon courage, and use the term confidence to describe this process. It is important to realize that a dog can be too courageous. Some dogs are not threatened by anything. Neither are they excited or stimulated by anything. These dogs are said to be "dull" and, along with their extremely high thresholds, they normally possess very weak drives. As a result, they are nearly useless for any purpose whatsoever. Hardness

is "the ability to accept negative or unpleasant physical and emotional sensations without being momentarily or permanently influenced adversely by them."40 The "hard" dog is normally characterized by high courage, and insensitivity to touch or to pain. In other words, the hard dog, like the courageous dog, is characterized by consistently high thresholds of irritability. Hardness and courage are in some ways indistinguishable and arise from the same base. However, recovery also plays an important part in hardness. Even a hard dog will encounter a situation at one time or another which, in spite of his low sensitivity, is highly painful or discouraging to him. We find that the truly hard dog has the marvelous capacity to recover, or somehow forget these unpleasant consequences. Where a soft dog will always react fearfully to some exercise which was taught to him by the means of harsh compulsion, the hard dog will be seen after a time to completely forget the distress of compulsion and remember the exercise only, so that he performs it accurately and with a lively zest. I have no explanation for this characteristic of recovery. The Menzels attributed it to a limited "emotional memory range."41 Hardness also is a function of drive, because the more stimulated or excited the dog is, the stronger the drive which is engaged at the time that he is hurt, the less the impression pain or discouragement will have on

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 71

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

him. This phenomenon can be partly explained through the effect of endorphins and other hormones which are produced within the central nervous system when the dog is under stress and which have a pronounced inhibitory effect upon the animal's perception of pain. Sharpness

describes consistently aggressive reactions to a wide range of environmental stimuli. Sharpness implies a low threshold for defensive and/or fighting drives, and also low thresholds in general. Realize that defensive behavior implies a feeling of being endangered on the dog's part, and thus a tendency for fearfulness. For this reason, the more sharpness an animal displays, the more his courage and strength of nerve are called into doubt. By the same token, the higher the dog's courage and hardness, the less sharpness he will normally display. There are a very few dogs who display pronounced sharpness and yet do not express excessive defensiveness or weakness of nerve. These highly courageous and unfriendly dogs are said to be "desirably sharp" to distinguish them from sharp/shy or fear-biting animals who are said to be "undesirably sharp." For lack of a better explanation of this puzzling development, desirable sharpness is attributed to low thresholds for fighting and dominance drives and an utter feeling of sovereignty (rank, power, authority) on the dog's part. A certain sharpness or keenness is desirable in any working dog, especially in police or military service.

Temperament

is the dog's intensity of reaction to environmental stimuli and his level of energy. Temperament is liveliness or alertness, and it is spoken of in terms of quantity. For instance, a high-spirited dog is said to have "much" temperament, while a dull dog is said to have "little." Temperament is based upon generally low to medium thresholds of irritability and pronounced appetitive behavior arising from strong hunting and prey drives. Under temperament we should understand nervousness or lack of nervousness, because the nervous dog is nothing more than a dog with excessive temperament. Also, nervous dogs are not necessarily always fearful or

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 72

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

unsound; I have known several distinctly nervous animals that were highly courageous working dogs. In addition, nervousness makes for spirited obedience and bite-work. However, normally, excessive temperament is highly undesirable because it goes hand in hand with softness, sensitivity, and low courage. In general, the higher the courage, the less temperament the dog will show. The lower the courage and the softer the dog, the more temperament he will have. Also, the more the temperament the dog displays, the sharper he will be. There are many exceptions to these rules. Endurance

is the capacity for extended physical exertion and the ability not to tire or lose interest while engaged in intensive drive-motivated activities. Under endurance we should understand the dog's ability to concentrate single-mindedly upon an aim or an objective. Endurance describes not only the dog's physical capacity for work but also the degree of fatigue to which his drives are subject. Some dogs will bite hard once or twice and then they must be put back in the kennel, while other dogs will quite literally work themselves to the point of a physical collapse if allowed to do so. [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. Thus endurance is based both in the dog's constitution and also in the general strength of his drives, desires and urges.

Intelligence

describes the dog's higher psychological and cognitive capabilities. Under intelligence we should understand the dog's problem-solving ability (in the average dog, not high), the ease with which he makes associations, the span of time over which he is able to make an association (again, in the average dog, not long), his ability to generalize from one situation to another (not high), and his ability to recall or remember associations and past experience. Even in human beings, intelligence is difficult to measure. In dogs, our indication of intelligence is how quickly the dog learns the lessons involved in his training. However, this is a singularly unreliable measure, because it is affected by the strength of the dog's urges, his emotional state, his degree of willingness, and above all by the skill of his trainer. Progress in training might be said to be a more accurate measure of the intelligence of the handler

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 73

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

than that of the dog. [Bold added by Sgt. Wendell Nope]. We are reduced to giving our general impression of a dog's intelligence which, if we are experienced enough, is a valid observation. Some dogs are more easily trained than others, and this difference is due in part to varying degrees of intelligence. Afterword The European literature which is cited in this piece represents merely the tip of the iceberg. Because of their long history of intense, scholarly interest in working dogs, enthusiasts in Europe have accumulated large tracts of important cynological literature. However, because the working dog movement is very new in the United States and of interest to comparatively few people, the vast majority of this literature remains untranslated, locked away behind the barrier of language. As a result, research for this piece presented nearly insurmountable problems. Accordingly, I owe a debt of gratitude to Ms. Joanne Peckham, a scholar in two languages, who translated tremendous quantities of material from German for her Club newsletter, The Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales. These pieces were taken, with permission, from the SV Zeitung, the official publication of the German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany, and from them I derived the majority of the material used in preparing this piece. In addition, I am also indebted to Mr. Larry McKinney, who obtained for me Bodingbauer's Wesens-analyse fuer Junghunde. Also I am grateful to my mother, Ms. Eleanor J. Hartwell, a scholar in her own right, who edited the manuscript mercilessly. Footnotes 1

Elliott Humphrey and Lucien Warner, Working Dogs (Baltimore, 1934), p. 148.

2

Ibid., p. 90.

3

Rudolf Menzel and Rudolfine Menzel, "Basic Observations on the Schutzhund Character Test, Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Execution," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales, (May-June, 1982), 11.

4

Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression (New York and London, 1963), p. xi.

5

James Grier, Biology of Animal Behavior (St. Louis, Toronto, and Santa Clara, 1984), p. 30.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 74

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

6

Cleveland Hickman, Cleveland Hickman, Jr., and Frances Hickman, Biology of Animals (St. Louis, 1978), p. 109.

7

Ibid., p. 109.

8

Konrad Lorenz, The Foundations of Ethology (New York, 1981), p. 1.

9

Cleveland Hickman, Cleveland Hickman, Jr., and Frances Hickman, Biology of Animals (St. Louis, 1978), pp. 112-113.

10

W. Handel, "The Psychological Fundamentals of Character Evaluation," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales, (July, 1981), 7.

11

Konrad Lorenz, The Foundations of Ethology (New York, 1981), p. 139.

12

Cleveland Hickman, Cleveland Hickman, Jr., and Frances Hickman, Biology of Animals, (St. Louis, 1978), p. 111.

13

Konrad Lorenz, The Foundations of Ethology (New York, 1981), pp. 127-129.

14

Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression (New York and London, 1963), p. 52.

15

Ibid., p. 53.

16

Konrad Lorenz, The Foundations of Ethology (New York, 1981), p. 130.

17

Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression (New York and London, 1963), p. 52.

18

James Grier, Biology of Animal Behavior (St. Louis, Toronto, and Santa Clara, 1984), p. 39.

19

Cleveland Hickman, Cleveland Hickman, Jr., and Frances Hickman, Biology of Animals (St. Louis, 1978), p. 112.

20

John Paul Scott, Animal Behavior (Chicago and London, 1958), p. 90.

21

Ibid., p. 73.

22

Ibid., p. 92.

23

Ibid., p. 92.

24

John King, "Adaptive Behavior," in M. Ray Denny (Ed.), Comparative Psychology (New York, Chichester, Brisbane, and Toronto, 1980), p. 21.

25

W. Handel, "The Psychological Fundamentals of Character Evaluation," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales, (July, 1981), 7.

26

Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression (New York and London, 1963), p. 89.

27

Michael Fox, Understanding Your Dog (New York, 1974), p. 68.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 75

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

28

W.Handel, "The Psychological Fundamentals of Character Evaluation," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales, (September-October, 1981), 7.

29

Cynological Symposium of the VDH, 1970, Seminar for Behavior Research held by "Ambulatorischer und Geburtshilflichen Veterinarklinik der Justus-Universitat Giessen, Director: Prof. Dr. Tillman, "Canine Aggression against People," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales (April, 1981), p. 11.

30

Rudolf Menzel and Rudo1fine Menzel, "Basic Observations on the Schutzhund Character Test, Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Execution," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales (May-June, 1982), 9.

31

Johannes Grewe, Deutsche Schutzhundschule (Denver, 1981), p. 8.

32

Daniel Tortora, Understanding Electronic Dog-Training (Tucson, 1981), pp. 102-103.

33

John Paul Scott, Animal Behavior (Chicago and London, 1958), p. 16 and pp. 17-18.

34

Susan Jackson, "Strength-Aggressiveness Factors in Doberman Temperament," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales (February, 1981) 11.

35

Konrad Lorenz, The Foundations of Ethology (New York, 1981), p. 130.

36

John Paul Scott, Animal Behavior (Chicago and London, 1958), pp. 53-54.

37

W. Handel, "The Psychological Fundamentals of Character Evaluation," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales (July, 1981), 7.

38

Ibid., pp. 6-7.

39

Rudolf Menzel and Rudolfine Menzel, "Basic Observations on the Schutzhund Character Test; Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Execution," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales (May-June, 1982), B.

40

Johannes Grewe, Deutsche Schutzhundschule (Denver, 1981), p. 7.

41

Rudolf Menzel and Rudolfine Menzel, "Basic Observations on the Schutzhund Character Test; Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Execution," Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales (September-October, 1982), p. 9. Bibliography

Bodingbauer, J. (1969).

Wesens-Analyse fur Junghunde.

Campbell, W. E. (1975). Behavior Problems in Dogs. Publications, Inc., Santa Barbara.

Wien.

American Veterinary

Denny, M. R. (Ed.). (1980) Comparative Psychology: An Evolutionary Analysis of Animal Behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 76

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Toronto. Fox, M. W. (1971). Cape, London.

Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canids.

Grewe, J. (1981).

Deutsche Schutzhundschule.

Grier, J. W. (1984). Louis.

Jonathan

Quality Press, Denver.

Biology of Animal Behavior.

C. V. Mosby Co., Saint

Handel, W. (1979). The Psychological Fundamentals of Character Evaluation. Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales. (July, 1981), 6-8. Hassett, J. (1984).

Psychology in Perspective.

Harper and Row, New York.

Hickman, C. P., Hickman, C. P., Jr., and Hickman, F. (1978). Animals. C. V. Mosby Co., Saint Louis. Humphrey, E., and Warner, L. (1934). Baltimore.

Working Dogs.

Biology of

Johns Hopkins Press,

Jackson, S. (1976). Strength-Aggressiveness Factors in Doberman Temperament. Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales. (February, (1981), 10-15. Krauss, F. (1979). Hardness and Willingness to Cooperate. Schutzhund Tales. (November-December, 1981), 4-7.

Rocky Mountain

Lorenz, K. (1953).

Man Meets Dog.

Kingsport Press, Inc., Kingsport.

Lorenz, K. (1963).

On Aggression.

Harvest, New York and London.

Lorenz, K. (1981). York.

The Foundations of Ethology.

Simon and Schuster, New

Mech, L. D. (1970). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Menzel, R. and Menzel, R. (192?). Basic Observations on the Schutzhund Character Test; Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Execution. Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales. (May, 1982 - June, 1983). Mikulas, W. L. (1978). Most, K. (1951).

Behavior Modification.

Training Dogs:

Putnam, P. B. (1958).

A Manual.

Love in the Lead.

Scott, J. P. (1958). Animal Behavior. Chicago and London.

Harper and Row, New York.

The Anchor Press LTD, Essex.

E. P. Dutton, New York.

The University of Chicago Press,

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 77

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Scott, J. P. (1958). Aggression. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. SV Training Committee (1972). The Role of Protection Work in the Assessment of Courage, Hardness, Fighting Drive, and Obedience - An Ongoing Task for Trial Judges. Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales. (February-March, 1982). Tillman (Director) (1970). Canine Aggression Against People. Cynological Symposium of the VDH. Seminar for Behavior Research held by "Ambulatorischer und Geburtshilflichen Veterinarklinik der JustusUniversitaet Giessen. Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Tales. (March-May, 1981). Tortora, D. F. (1981). Understanding Electronic Dog-Training. Tronics, Inc., Tucson.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Tri-

Ch. 5 Pg. 78

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

A Comparative Analysis of K-9 Performance Utah Patrol Dogs vs. Western USA Patrol Dogs Conducted by Sgt. Wendell Nope, Utah Police Academy K-9 Program 29 September 2020 Synopsis

A well-known truism states, “You can’t have good fruits from bad roots.” Comparing the Utah POST K-9 Program graduates against their peers in the western United States is one method of determining if Utah POST is capable of training a Patrol Dog that could be deemed reliable for deployments.

Objective

This analysis presents research intended to address the validity of Utah POST’s training program for Patrol . One consideration may be accomplished by comparing the performance of Utah K-9's* vs. K-9's from the western United States in an objective and third-party environment that brings hundreds of K-9's and Handlers together for the sake of competition in reality-based scenarios: the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department K-9 Trials (2005-2019). * K-9's trained and certified by the Utah POST K-9 Program.

Validation

The data presented herein may be found in the official yearly records maintained by the LVMPD K-9 Trial administration. The value of this comparison is to see plain evidence how the Utah K-9's compare in skill and performance to top Handler/K-9 performers throughout the western United States. The website of the LVMPD K-9 Trials for 2019 may be perused at https://lakelasvegas.com/k9/ .

Procedure

For the purposes of this analysis, the comparisons will be made by revealing the ratings or “placement” assigned to the top performing Handlers/K-9's in multiple Patrol Dog functions. Also, the Top Patrol Dog, Overall Top Dog, and Overall Top Agency rankings are shown.

Participants

The non-Utah Agencies that “placed” in the years from 20052019 consist of the following. This means that the Agencies listed below placed in the top five rankings, not the total number of agencies that participated in those years. There are numerous other Agencies that participated but did not place. An average of 50 competitors participated each year. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZ) Baja State Police (MEXICO) Boulder City Police Department (NV) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (USA) Chico Police Department (CA) Corona Police Department (CA)

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 79

Utah POST K-9 Program 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

El Cajon Police Department (CA) Estatal Preventiva Policia (MEXICO) Goodyear Police Department (AZ) Guadalajara Police Department (MEXICO) Henderson Police Department (NV) Hermosa Police Department (CA) Hill Air Force Base Military Police Department (Utah Agency but non-POST) Jalisco Fiscalia Genral del Estado (MEXICO) Kern County Police Department (CA) Kern County Probation Office (CA) Kings County Sheriff’s Office (CA) Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (NV) Lompoc Police Department (CA) Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office (CA) Los Angeles School District Police Department (CA) McKinley County Sheriff’s Office (NM) Mexicali Muni Police Department (MEXICO) National City Police Department (CA) Nellis Air Force Base Military Police Department (NV) Nevada Highway Patrol (NV) New York City Police Department (NY) North Las Vegas Police Department (NV) Oxnard Police Department (CA) Phoenix Police Department (AZ) Rialto Police Department (CA) Riverside Police Department (CA) San Diego County Sheriff’s Office (CA) San Francisco County Sheriff’s Office (CA) San Francisco Federal Reserve Police Department (USA) San Francisco Police Department (CA) Santa Barbara Police Department (CA) Tijuana Policia Municipal (MEXICO) United States Park Police Department (USA) Vancouver Police Department (CANADA) Ventura Police Department (CA) West Covina Police Department (CA)

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 80

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Utah K-9's vs. Western USA K-9s

Comparative Analysis of Utah Patrol Dogs vs. Western USA Patrol Dogs Las Vegas Metro PD K-9 Trials 2005-2019 Only the Rankings of Utah K-9s are Shown Year

Bldg Search

2019

Area Search

Handler Protection

Overall Top Dog

Overall Top Agency

1st, 2nd

1st, 4th

1st,3rd

1st,3rd

2018

2nd, 3rd

2nd, 3rd

2017

4th

5th

2016

1st,3rd,5th

1st, 3rd

1st, 2nd, 3rd

1st,2nd,3rd

1st,3rd

2015

1st, 3rd

1st, 3rd, 4th

1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th

1st,2nd

2nd

2014

1st,3rd,4th,5th

2nd, 3rd, 5th

2nd,3rd,4th,5th

2nd,3rd

1st,3rd

2013

3rd

2nd, 5th

2nd, 3rd, 5th

2012

2nd,3rd,5th

2nd, 3rd, 5th

1st, 2nd, 4th

1st, 3rd

1st,3rd

2011

1st,2nd,4th

3rd, 5th

1st,2nd,4th,5th

1st,2nd,3rd

1st,2nd

5th

2nd, 4th

3rd

2nd

2nd

4th

2nd

1st

4th, 5th

4th

2010 2009

2nd,4th,5th

2008 2007

2nd 3rd

2006

4th

2005

2nd, 3rd

Conclusion

2nd

2nd,3rd

2nd, 3rd 4th

3rd 3rd

1st

1st

The above chart reveals the following statistics, in spite of competing against 42 other Agencies. 1.

Utah K-9s ranked in the 90th percentile of “Patrol Dog Building Searches” 27 of 75 times, which means that 36% of the time Utah K-9's ranked in the top 90% of competitors.

2.

Utah K-9s ranked in the 90th percentile of “Patrol Dog Searches” 27 of 75 times, which means that 36% of the time Utah K-9's ranked in the top 90% of competitors.

3.

Utah K-9s ranked in the 90th percentile of “Overall Top Dog” 17 of 75 times, which means that 22% of the time,

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 81

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Utah K-9's ranked in the top 90% of all Narcotics Dog competitors. 4.

Utah K-9 Agencies ranked in the 90th percentile of “Overall Top Agency” 18 of 75 times, which means that 24% of the time, Utah K-9 Agencies ranked in the top 90% of all Agencies competing.

6.

Utah K-9s ranked 1st, 2nd, or 3rd a total of 18 times in the “Patrol Dog Building Search” competition, which means that 40% of the time, Utah K-9's ranked in the top three of all Patrol Dog Building Search competitors.

7.

Utah K-9s ranked 1st, 2nd, or 3rd a total of 17 times in the “Patrol Dog Area Search” competition, which means that 38% of the time, Utah K-9's ranked in the top three of all Patrol Dog Area Search competitors.

8.

Utah K-9s ranked 1st, 2nd, or 3rd a total of 18 times in the “Overall Top Dog” competition, which means that 40% of the time, Utah K-9's ranked in the top three of all K-9 competitors.

9.

Utah K-9 Agencies ranked 1st, 2nd, or 3rd a total of 18 times in the “Overall Top Agency” competition, which means that 40% of the time, Utah K-9 Agencies ranked in the top three of all Agencies competing.

10.

A Utah K-9 Agency ranked 1st as “Overall Top Agency” a total of seven times from 2005-2019, which means that 47% of the time a Utah K-9 Agency outperformed all the other K-9 Agencies.

Revised 29 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 5 Pg. 82

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

History and Evolution of Police K-9s in Utah Agencies within the State of Utah have utilized Police Dogs for many years. Salt Lake City Police Department is recognized as establishing the first organized K-9 Unit in 1954. Since that time, the population of Police Dogs in Utah has grown to just over 200 active K-9's spread across the State. No discussion on the history and evolution of Police Dogs would be complete without a presentation on the actual origin of Police Dogs. In 1889, the London Police Department brought in two Bloodhounds from a well-known breeder to try to follow the trail of Jack the Ripper. Immediately upon their arrival in London they were brought to the last location where a murder had occurred. Although the dogs were unsuccessful in locating Jack the Ripper from that incident, the killings stopped for the period of time the Bloodhounds were present in the city. This is the first known case of the psychological deterrent of Police Dogs. Just before the turn of the century, police officers in Europe were experiencing an increased amount of hostility from persons they had to deal with in both civil and criminal matters. An imaginative Belgian police commissioner, E. Van Wesemael, is credited for presenting the idea for dogs to accompany the officers. At approximately the same time, officers in Germany recognized the potential benefits of dogs in law enforcement and started multiple programs there. Very shortly after the small-scale Ghent K-9 Program, the German police built a large-scale Police Dog training facility. It was the first official Police Dog training center in the world. Shortly thereafter, national training facility was built near Berlin, in the area of Gruenheide. The first director of the national facility was the renown Colonel Konrad Most, a famous name in the Police Dog world. The national facility was recognized worldwide in 1929 when it published a series of experiments known as the Karlshorster Versuche (Karlshorster Experiments) which dealt with tracking behavior.

One of 37 Ghent Police Department K-9 Teams preparing for night patrol in 1899.

The German police have undoubtably had the greatest influence on Police Service Dogs worldwide. Very shortly after the small-scale Belgium program, the German police in the Province now known as North Rhine Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Westphalia built a regional training facility. It was the first official Police Service Dog training center in Germany. This same facility has continued operational since that time and is now known as the Landespolizeischule für Diensthundführer Nordrhein-Westfalen or (translated) North Rhine - Westphalia (LPSfDHF) or State Police School for Service Dog Handlers. The LPSfDHF is the training center from which the majority of technology utilized in Utah POST’s K-9 Program originates. As a side-note, during these early years, the newly formed German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany (SV) was seriously contemplating what procedures to utilize for working evaluations of their breeding stock. It was not uncommon for SV members to attend police training sessions and observe the Police Dog training. On one occasion, a group of them dropped in on a regional training session near Düsseldorf. This incident circa 1910 is synopsised as follows: “The Shepherd Dog enthusiasts arrived with much anticipation to observe the performance of the Police Dogs in capturing criminals. After watching for some period of time they inquired if the police would be concerned if they approximated the capture exercises for the purpose of establishing performance standards for their breeding stock. We believe this was the conceptualization of today’s Schutzhund. This is also why a number of the Schutzhund exercises are very similar to the longestablished DPO certification.” Interview: EPHK Alfred Maciejewski, Director State Police School for Service Dog [Police Dog] Handlers North Rhine - Westphalia, 1996. [Brackets added by Wendell Nope]. How curious it is to know that the worldwide Schutzhund movement originated from a Police Dog seminar shortly after the turn of the century. Even in the early years of Police Dogs, civil rights were a major consideration among the police trainers. Consider this, if a Police Dog is dispatched to capture a person and, upon finding its target, the dog encounters a passive non-hostile person. If the person has not been forewarned of a possible Police Dog injury, human dignity suggests that the dog not injure the person, but neither should the dog allow the person to evade capture further. This is achieved by Detaining, which is a normal police function. By definition, it means to hold someone temporarily without arrest or injury. The early Police Dogs learned this function well. After the World Wars, other nations recognized the Police Dog technology created by the Germans to be valuable. Even the British and American military services utilized a portion of the technology. British police dog technology filtered over into Canada and down into the New England states. By now, the technology had changed considerably and the dogs exhibited behavior which is now called “Find & Bite,” meaning that the dog usually Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

made a find and attached itself immediately to its target. The American military had no need for the original “civil rights” oriented technology and adopted Find & Bite also. For many years, Find & Bite was the prevailing Service Dog capture concept for the American military and police. The Turbulent 60's Some of the most publicized incidents regarding Police K-9s in the 1960's were about civil disturbances in which numerous citizens were injured. Photo of unknown officer and subjects in a 1960's era civil disturbance. The photographer is also unknown and credit will be given upon disclosure of identity. This era is earmarked in American history as a time of protest or enlightenment, depending on who you speak to. One thing is for certain, it was a time when Police K-9s got lots of attention, although it wasn’t always positive. Although many wonderful deployments occurred during this time, the single most memorable Police K-9 image of the day is deemed negative by many. This occurred at a large civil disturbance in central Alabama where Police K-9s were deployed to quell rioters. The unfortunate circumstances that followed produced long-lasting questions in the minds of citizens and police alike, regarding the application of Police K-9s in our society. Parallel to the American society, the German police were also re-evaluating the use of Police K-9s. Although there was no single incident like Birmingham to motivate them, scrutiny by the citizenry and an ever-present desire to enhance professionalism prompted refinements of training and deployment techniques. The Awakening 70's The 1970's brought an era of true awakening for the American Police K-9 Handler. A number of SV Schutzhund Judges, some of whom were German law enforcement officers, presented training ideas which enlightened American K-9 Handlers who attended these curious Schutzhund events. It was a new and interesting sight for American cops to see dogs tracking footstep-tofootstep in precision fashion. Up to this point, most Police K-9s used a combination of air scenting with a bit of tracking now and then, if the wind current changed. But most incredible was the overall precision with which the German-trained dogs performed. The Renaissance 80's Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

LAPD Corporal Donn Yarnall and PSD Popeye apprehend a murder suspect in 1983, shortly after Donn graduated from the German Customs Service School. Photo courtesy of Donn Yarnall. This decade produced a new “Type” of Police K-9 trainer in America. The application of canine psychology became an integral part of the training format. For the first time, American police officers traveled to Germany to be trained at the leading Police K-9 facilities. Donn Yarnall, an Officer from the Los Angeles Police Department, graduated from the German Customs K-9 Training Center in Neuendettelsau and Wendell Nope, a Deputy Sheriff from Louisiana, graduated from the State Police School for Service Dog Handlers in North Rhine - Westphalia. Both continued their formal education in the German police concepts to the point of being certified as Police K-9 Judges. The skill levels of Police K-9 personnel have now become well-defined. The technology has truly evolved into a professional display of police craft. At present, the different skill levels are recognized as: 1.

HANDLER - an officer who deploys a Police K-9 on a daily basis;

2.

UNIT TRAINER - an officer who provides maintenance training only to Police K-9s and Handlers in a designated agency, the Dogs and Handlers having already achieved certification at a PSD training school;

3.

SCHOOL TRAINER - an officer who provides comprehensive training to an unlimited number of Police K-9s and Handlers from a wide variety of jurisdictions;

4.

K-9 JUDGE - an officer who trains and/or examines the skill level of Police K-9s, Handlers, and Instructors, and if suitable skill is evident then s/he declares their streetworthiness;

5.

K-9 TEACHING JUDGE - an officer who trains and/or examines the skill level of Judges, Instructors, Handlers, and Dogs, and if suitable skill is evident then declares the Judge streetworthy.

By 1986, Donn Yarnall was certified as a Judge and Wendell Nope as a Teaching Judge. Both readily passed on the knowledge gained to colleagues on every occasion possible. Schutzhund vs. Police Dogs Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

One unfortunate situation occurred during the 1980's. A great many law enforcement officers perceived the German-bred Shepherd Dogs, especially those with Schutzhund Titles, to be automatically superior to American-bred dogs. Also, many officers misunderstood the nature of Schutzhund and assumed that a Titled dog was trained by or for police. One of this era’s most heinous police scandals involved the mis-application of two Schutzhund 3 FH German Shepherd Dogs imported into New England and taken to crime scenes all over America to assist in numerous unsolved crimes. They were deployed to track suspects, track victims, and even sniff people out of a lineup, without any further police training. One incident which in New York City was a 14-day-old track through downtown Manhattan, New York. It is not possible to begin to estimate the number of people who had walked across the alleged track in that time period. Yet, one of these SchH 3 FH wonder-dogs was able to start and end at the desired points. Some of the other tracks these dogs were deployed on were years old - that’s right - “years” old! Ultimately, the handler of these two animals was impeached in court. It may very well be assumed that the “counting horse” phenomenon was at play in some fashion with these dogs. Patrol Dogs must now learn true combat to battle with powerful and highly-motivated criminal suspects. This German Shepherd Dog has maintained a firm grip on the (simulated) suspect’s arm in spite of being wrestled to the ground and having its torso squeezed in a legscissor-lock. Photo courtesy of Phillip Holden. Another general misconception occurred during this era. Many police agencies acquired Schutzhund-Titled German Shepherd Dogs and placed them immediately into service. When a high percentage of the dogs didn’t perform as supposed, Schutzhund began to get a bad name. Commercial vendors and other good-hearted people were quick to respond to the police call for Schutzhund 3's, since they could be put “on the street” in an accelerated time frame. This would have been great, except that the dog that does great Schutzhund work may not do great police work. A HighFight-Drive trained Schutzhund 3 is very likely to accept the challenge that police work offers - and even excel. The High-Prey-Drive trained dog that also has High-Fight-Drive, even though undeveloped, may also rise to the challenge. But, the High-Prey-Drive trained dog that lacks High-FightDrive gets a rude awakening that crooks on the street don’t carry sleeves and the combats are real. Nonetheless, many German Shepherd Dogs that lacked High- Fight-Drive and were Prey-Drive trained failed miserably in police work at this time. For this reason, an unfortunate stigma began and still remains over Schutzhund.

Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual The High-Tech 90's

One of the most high-tech applications of Police K-9s in the 1990's is the introduction of “SWAT Dogs” as a tool in high-risk deployments. The SWAT Dogs not only sniff better, move faster, and have better night vision, but also they have an approximate 700% greater tolerance to tear gas and other chemical agents employed by SWAT Units. Most of all, a SWAT Dog provides a safety buffer between the tactical officers and criminal suspects who are possibly armed and refuse to comply to lawful orders to surrender. Only dogs with phenomenal working drives and the highest level of trainability are successful in this specialty function. Photo courtesy of Frank Peck. The difference between K-9's of the 60's and those of the 90's is awesome. Just one example of this difference is that in earlier years the philosophy of Police K-9 training was “change the dog to fit the training” whereas now the attitude is “Change the training to fit the dog.” Accordingly, now trainers are able to achieve a higher level of training from an individual dog and also achieve a higher statistic of success from a given number of dogs. Another example is the effort to acquire dogs which are able to be social among the public. This was not even a consideration in earlier years. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for a K-9 Unit to have multiple dogs at a public demonstration and even participate in a “Petting Zoo” experience with the Police K-9s. This has led to a complete change of attitudes among the citizens. Police Dogs now have their own trading cards! Officer Rosalie Cox of the Salt Lake City Police Department K-9 Unit, became the first-ever female WPO Judge at the World Police Dog Championship in Germany. She judged Apprehension and was heartily commended for her professionalism. Photo courtesy of Rosalie Cox. As of this date, there are estimated to be just over 11,000 Police K-9s in the United States. Approximately 30% of these are trained according to the German police concepts. The DPO/PSP standard is the most prevalent among these and accounts for hundreds of certifications per year.

Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Sergeant Jim Winder, of the Salt Lake County Sheriff Office, officiated as a Tracking Judge at the World Police Dog Championship. He and his Police K-9 Atticus have captured numerous felons, including a cop-killer. Photo courtesy of Jim Winder. At the Utah Police Academy alone, approximately 400 DPO/PSP certificates have been issued. There is no doubt that this era of Police K-9s has gone high-tech. The program continues to grow and has recently upgraded to “Reality-Based” training regimen. Officer John Lynch of the Layton Police Department in Utah functioned as an Obedience Judge at the World Police Dog Championship. He currently is an Adjunct Instructor/Judge for the K-9 Program at the Utah Police Academy. Photo courtesy of John Lynch. One example of high-tech deployments is a homicide investigation involving the Nebraska State Patrol K-9 Unit. They were pursuing the suspect from the scene and at a certain point he entered a field. The search team called for a K-9 and a helicopter. The helicopter had an instrument known as a “FLIR” (Forward-Looking-Infra-Red) device. The dog began tracking the subject and when the helicopter arrived, the FLIR could actually “see” the footprints the dog was following. The helicopter flew ahead of the team, following the footsteps, and eventually observed a “heat-signature” coming out of a snowbank. The suspect had dug an eight-foot horizontal snow-cave and was hiding inside. The helicopter hovered while the officers strategically deployed the K-9 using the “Dragline Technique” to extract the suspect. When the suspect refused to surrender, the K-9 entered the cave on a long leash, acquired a firm grip, and the Handler dragged the suspect out. He was taken into custody without any of the officers having to be directly exposed to deadly force. Sergeant Mike Kerby of the Nebraska State Patrol was the Apprehension Judge at the World Police dog Championship in 1998. He is the Head K-9 Trainer for the NSP and is in charge of nearly 20 dogs which interdict drug smugglers on interstate roadways and are also some of the most proficient SWAT Dogs in the United States. Mike has created a special training course “Close-Quarter-Combat” for Handlers who have to help the K-9 battle suspects Photo courtesy of Mike Kerby. From the very inception of Police K-9s, stories of valor and achievement have been reported. Countless numbers of police officers Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

and citizens have been saved by Police K-9s. One story taking place in America stands out and elicits considerable emotion. A German Shepherd Dog and its Handler (who wish to remain anonymous at this time) were deployed to assist in a chase of a stolen vehicle. Several occupants bailed out when it crashed. The Handler and Dog chose one suspect to pursue. At a strategic moment, the Handler dispatched the Dog. The Dog soon left the Handler behind and disappeared down a dark alley. Moments later, the Handler heard his Dog barking, signaling the target had been cornered. The Handler rounded a corner and observed the Dog holding the suspect at bay. The “suspect” turned out to be an 8-month pregnant 16 year-old girl who fled out of sheer fright. She was taken into custody and later determined to be an unwilling participant in the car theft. Nonetheless, she fled out of a sense of panic. This German Shepherd Dog, although no high-scoring competitor, had sound and reliable training. It detained the panicked girl and may be credited for preventing the possible death of the unborn child. When news of this incident became publicized in the community, the Handler and Dog were hailed as heroes and rightly so. Officer Jon Richey and Drago of the Salt Lake City Police Department win the USA Nationals WPO Competition for a second time, demonstrating a high level of discipline and control. They also participated in the World Police Dog Championship in Germany. Drago had a distinguished career in Utah, capturing many suspects and finding a huge volume of drugs. From the beginning until today, a tremendous evolution has occurred in Police K-9 technology. Laws change, criminal methodology changes, and community values change. Keeping up with these changes is a genuine challenge for those who employ Police K-9s. Who would have thought, when considering the early Police K-9s, that one day they would be deployed against heavily-armed robbers and even terrorists. These are all-too-frequent occurrences today. One particularly interesting incident occurred in Los Angeles several years ago. Officers were chasing an armed suspect and enlisted the service of a Patrol Dog to expedite the situation. The Dog followed the suspect’s trail into a backyard which contained a large palm tree. As the Dog approached the tree, the suspect stepped out and pointed a shotgun at the group of officers. The Dog “Engaged” the suspect and knocked him offbalance. This no doubt saved the lives of the officers. The subject began firing in their general direction, even with the Dog firmly attached. The officers returned fired and terminated the threat in just a few seconds. Remarkably, the Dog was untouched by their numerous (15+) gunshots and survived the incident with only a minor non-firearm-related wound inflicted at the onset. This Dog remained on task in spite of remarkable circumstances. The Handler and Dog later received national recognition for their phenomenal performance.

Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Thoughts On The Future

Who can guess what developments will come in the future. Training concepts are developing at such a rapid pace that it’s hard to keep up with new innovations.

Revised 25 March 2019 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 7 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Performance Objectives (This chapter is currently in revision)

Patrol Dog [DPO/PSP] These Performance Objectives are based on a Reality-based training format, in order to optimize training efficiency and also to provide the most realistic training environment possible, within the current time/logistical constraints. These guidelines also are consistent with internationallyaccepted performance standards for Patrol Dogs, better known as PSP and DPO. The skills outlined in the Performance Objectives are considered important for the seasoned/veteran Patrol Dog. However, if an Agency or Handler does not perceive the need for all 10 skills, five certification options are available. 1.

A Handler or Agency may participate in the following skills and achieve an internationally-accepted certification which is designated by the acronym PSP-1. This certification is the highest level offered to a Patrol Dog. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

2.

A Handler or Agency may participate in the following skills and achieve an internationally-accepted certification which is designated by the acronym DH. This certification is fundamentally PSP-1 without Tracking or Evidence Search. 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

3.

Shots Fired Scenario Tracking Scenario Evidence Search Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario Recapture an Escaping Prisoner Scenario Apprehend a Hostile Suspect Scenario Tactical Windscenting Scenario Apprehend a Suspect Out-of-Sight Scenario

Shots Fired Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario Recapture an Escaping Prisoner Scenario Apprehend a Hostile Suspect Scenario Tactical Windscenting Scenario Apprehend a Suspect Out-of-Sight Scenario

A Handler or Agency may participate in the following skills and achieve an internationally-accepted certification which is designated by the acronym DPO-2.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4.

Shots Fired Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario Recapture an Escaping Prisoner Scenario Apprehend a Hostile Suspect Scenario

A Handler or Agency may participate in the following skills and achieve an internationally-accepted certification which is designated by the acronym DPO-1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

6.

Shots Fired Scenario Tracking Scenario Evidence Search Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario Recapture an Escaping Prisoner Scenario Apprehend a Hostile Suspect Scenario

A Handler or Agency may participate in the following skills and achieve an internationally-accepted certification which is designated by the acronym DH-2. 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

5.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Shots Fired Scenario Tracking Scenario Evidence Search Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario

A Handler or Agency may participate in the following skills and achieve an internationally-accepted certification which is designated by the acronym DH-1. This certification is the most basic certification offered to a Patrol Dog. 1. 4. 5. 6.

Shots Fired Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual General Information

1.

The skills favorable for successful deployment of a Patrol Dog are recognized within three categories. 1.

Scentwork. 1.

2.

3.

2.

Some Agencies or Handlers opt not to train and/or deploy a Patrol Dog in Tracking or Evidence Search. Accordingly and for certification purposes, Scentwork skills shall be considered optional.

Obedience-Agility. 1.

Obedience is a critical skill which must be manifested in a reliable manner. During training, only procedures which are approved and humane may be utilized. During deployment, conditions beyond the Handler’s control may arise which require extreme control measures. An example is recalling an exhausted Dog to the Handler after it has engaged a combative perpetrator.

2.

Agility is an important skill which is necessary to confidently attempt to negotiate strenuous obstacles, such as privacy fences.

Apprehension. 1.

The Dog can be successfully trained to an appropriate skill level by a qualified Patrol Dog Handler or Instructor. The competency can then be evaluated and declared by a qualified Patrol Dog Judge.

2.

The performance objectives listed herein are comparable to the International Advanced Patrol Dog or "PSP-1" guidelines, revised March 25, 1998. The PSP-1 Apprehension exercises are performed by a muzzled dog, to establish realism. The simulated suspects shall have no protective clothing, which approximates as closely as possible the conditions a Patrol Dog shall experience in actual deployments. A Dog which does not perform well while muzzled shall not be penalized for Utah POST Certification. The Apprehension exercises may be performed by an unmuzzled Dog, for POST Certification purposes, but the "PSP-1" Title may not be awarded in this case. Rather, the “UPSP-1” Title (Unmuzzled PSP-1) shall be awarded.

The Patrol Dog evaluation shall be concluded within a reasonable length of time after it is begun. Most evaluations may be concluded within 24 hours, however, climate conditions, injuries, etc. may cause delays. This is to establish that the Dog's mental and physical

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

endurance are sufficient to withstand the rigors of active service. 3.

The Handler/Department of a POST Certified Detector Dog (PSP-2, etc.) with current certification status may substitute that Detector Dog's grade for the Patrol Dog Scentwork phase grade.

4.

A certification is an official police function. Accordingly, official uniforms shall be worn by any Handler presenting a Dog for an examination. Handlers are expected to display appropriate tactical skills during the course of the examination. All collars, harness, etc. worn by the dog shall be approved by the Judge prior to an examination.

5.

In the event a Handler or Dog does not exhibit suitable skill during an examination, no certification shall be issued at that time. A retake of certain elements may be permitted, at the Judge’s discretion. If elements are re-taken, they must be examined within the “reasonable-time” constraint. The entire examination may be re-taken if desired, after a period of time to be established by the respective Judge or Agency.

6.

The Patrol Dog Judge shall issue a weapon (pistol, knife, etc.) to the perpetrator in at least one of the apprehension exercises. The weapon shall be carried such that it can be discovered only by a careful frisk.

7.

No portion of these performance objectives should be construed to suggest a restriction against participating in other types of Dog Trials, so long as the event carries significant benefit to the Dog’s official function. Handlers should exercise caution when determining whether or not to participate in such Trials. Handlers should seek competent input from administrators or other experienced Handlers or Trainers as to the degree of benefit versus the risk.

8.

In the interest of equity for all certificants, the following should be ensured during an examination:

9.

1.

All scenarios are deployed within a reasonable time frame;

2.

All simulated suspects are strangers to the Dog; and

3.

All simulated suspects utilized in the scenarios are foreign to the Dog.

Each Patrol Dog examination shall begin with the Shots Fired Scenario to establish the presence of certain critical skills. Then the Patrol Dog Judge may determine the order of the remaining scenarios. A Dog which does not defend its Handler sufficiently or exhibits gunshyness or lacks suitable skill in Obedience shall not continue past that point in the examination.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

10.

Voice commands or hand signals are permitted. Repeating a command or a signal is permitted only if it is evident the Dog did not hear or see it or if it is integral to the exercise. The Judge shall determine the appropriateness of the action. Commands or signals other than those declared as official shall be considered Handler Help. Excessively loud commands, objects, and food used as motivations are not professional and are not allowed. The Dog should respond to commands in a professional manner.

11.

The Handler shall act in a professional manner at all times during the examination. Questions and clarifications may be directed to the Patrol Dog Judge at any appropriate time.

12.

The Patrol Dog Judge shall issue a weapon (pistol, knife, etc.) to the simulated suspect in at least one of the apprehension scenarios. The weapon shall be carried such that it can be discovered only by a careful frisk. The Handler is expected to find all weapons thus assigned and failure to do so shall be grounds for withholding the certification from the Handler.

13.

The Patrol Dog Handler and Dog form an operational team. Therefore, a Dog is to be examined with the respective Handler it is to be deployed with.

14.

The Patrol Dog must achieve an overall skill rating of at least “Suitable” in the Obedience and also Apprehension phases to be declared serviceable. Additionally, the Dog must also achieve a skill level rating of “Suitable” in each of the following critical behaviors: 1.

Detaining a submissive person;

2.

Subduing a furtive, hostile or fleeing person;

3.

Releasing a person on command;

4.

Indicating the presence of a person and evidence;

5.

Disengaging upon command;

6.

Over-ride Command;

7.

Tactical Release; and

8.

Emergency Release.

The Patrol Dog must achieve a skill rating of “Pass” in the following skills, which are evaluated on a Pass-Fail basis: 9.

Sociability;

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

15.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

10.

Gunfire; and

11.

Pain Tolerance.

K-9 Training Definitions. 1.

Tracking:

Tracking may consist of any of three behaviors.

1.

Precision Tracking is observed when the Dog follows the path of a person by focusing on footsteps; the Dog is functioning primarily in Tracking Drive; the ideal speed is a comfortable walking speed of the Handler. This Dog is observed on-leash but the behavior may be shown offleash as well. The purpose of tracking at a comfortable walking speed is that the Dog does not out-pace the Backup Officers. The advantage of tracking is following the exact path of a suspect or victim. The disadvantage is that a rookie Dog or “not yet a veteran Street Dog” may not pick up its head and windscent immediately upon getting into the scent cone of the target person.

2.

Street Tracking is observed when the Dog follows the path of a person by focusing on footsteps or body odor, whichever is providing the dominant scent; the Dog is functioning in a combination of Tracking Drive and Air Scent Drive; the ideal speed is a comfortable walking/jogging speed of the Handler. Backup Officers who assist a StreetTracking Dog should be in decent physical condition, as this variety of tracking tends to require more stamina. It is important that the speed not be too fast, as the Handler and Backup Officers should not be breathing heavily upon locating a suspect, as this could affect their ability to return fire if engaged by an armed suspect.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

2.

3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Trailing is observed when the Dog follows the path of a person by focusing primarily on the target’s body odor; the Dog is functioning primarily in Air Scent Drive; the ideal speed is a comfortable jogging speed of the Handler. It is important that the speed not be too fast, as the Handler and Backup Officers should not be breathing heavily upon locating a suspect, as this could affect their ability to return fire if engaged by an armed suspect.

Heel: The Dog shall accompany the Handler willingly and attentively, keeping its shoulder in line with the Handler’s torso. Forging or lagging, wide or crowding behavior is faulty. Only at a change of pace may the Handler issue an additional command or signal. The normal and fast paces shall be distinctly different. Police Dog heeling is not competition heeling. If the Dog is attentive to its environment while heeling, this is desirable. focus on the Handler is not optimal.

A robotic

Sit: If the Handler halts, the Dog shall, without command or signal, sit immediately in the Heel position. The Handler shall not move in order to favor the Dog’s position, but rather, the Dog shall position itself according to the Handler. This behavior is important so that the Handler does not have to worry what the Dog is doing if s/he stops to talk to another Officer or person. Assuming a sit position causes the Dog to feel controlled and less likely to move about on its own.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

4.

Down: If the Handler commands or signals the Dog to Down, it shall comply immediately. If this occurs during Heeling, the Dog shall lie parallel to the Handler. If this occurs during an apprehension task i.e., Detaining, Pursuit, etc., the Dog shall lie facing the relevant person. The down posture is the most controlled of all the positions a Dog may be commanded to assume. It is also the most submissive of all postures.

5.

Recall: If the Handler Recalls the Dog, it shall respond immediately and run at top speed to the Handler. Either the “Front” or the “Heel/Finish” is prescribed for a Recall, depending on the verbal/silent command given by the Handler. The Recall is a critical behavior, as it is one of the major ways to control a Dog that has acquired a wrong target ID or has misinterpreted the Handler’s intention.

6.

Jump/Climb: If the Handler commands or signals the Dog to jump/climb an obstacle, it should respond immediately. When the Dog is exiting an obstacle it has had to climb, it should also attempt to climb down, rather than just jump off. This is to diminish the risk of a shoulder injury. A Dog’s shoulders are not in any form of joint or socket, and are held to the rib cage only be sinew. Continued jumping has a cumulative effect which damages the integrity of the connective tissue and the shoulders may become irreparably damaged. The practice of having Dog’s jump off obstacles 6'-10' high, as in years past, should be avoided as much as possible. The photo here shows a platform that the Dog may use to diminish the risk of injury as it jumps down off the obstacle.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

7.

Stand in Place: If the Handler commands or signals the Dog to stand in place (lifted over a fence, remain in car, vet inspection, etc.), it should respond immediately.

8.

Behavior in Public: If the Handler walks through a group of people, the Dog should remain at Heel - neutral and safe - to the people. Touching or sniffing is faulty. The Handler shall ensure sufficient space between the Dog and others. This neutral and safe demeanor shall be maintained, even if the Handler speaks or a person speaks to the Handler. The minimum acceptable standard for a Patrol Dog is to act neutral in a neutral environment, it is not mandatory that the Handler permits petting or socializing ... as that is according to Departmental or Handler Policy/Procedure/Practice. Any requirement beyond “neutral in a neutral environment” exceeds the minimum professional standard of acceptable behavior.

9.

Surveillance: If the Handler assumes a Surveillance position with the Dog, the prescribed posture shall be a kneeling Handler beside a sitting Dog or a prone Handler beside a downed dog, whichever is appropriate. For examination purposes, the Handler may hold the Dog by the collar. The Dog shall be attentive to the terrain being surveilled and shall remain quiet and attentive, even if the Handler addresses a person.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

10.

Pursuit : If t h e Handler command s or signals the Dog t o Pursue a person, the Dog shall respond immediately by running at top speed.

11.

Tactical Windscenting: If the Handler initiates a suspect search utilizing Tactical Windscenting, s/he shall hold the Dog on a short leash and deploy slowly across the wind current. The Dog shall respond by sniffing the wind as they move forward. The Handler may quietly encourage the Dog as they advance.

12.

Suspect Search: If the Handler initiates a Suspect Search, s/he shall begin it from the Heel position and off-leash. The Dog shall search as commanded or signaled, purposefully, intensely, and systematically. The command or signal may be issued together with the name of the Dog. The Handler may give additional commands or signals as the Dog is directed to each new quadrant of the search area.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

13.

Criminal Evidence Search: If the Handler initiates a Criminal Evidence Search s/he shall begin it from the Heel position and off-leash. The Dog shall search as commanded or signaled, purposefully, intensely, and systematically. The command or signal may be issued together with the name of the Dog. The Handler may give additional commands or signals as the Dog is directed to each new quadrant of the search area.

14.

Pinpointing (aka Finding): If a Patrol Dog is deployed on a search for a person or criminal evidence, it shall do so as described herein. If it perceives odor from a person or evidence, it shall immediately pinpoint the source of the odor. Pinpointing differs from Searching in that it is evaluated as independent behavior manifested by the Dog, whereas Searching is a Handler-controlled behavior.

15.

Tactical Windscenting Indication: If a Patrol Dog perceives odor or sound from a person while being thus deployed, it shall immediately, quietly, and intensely face the direction of the scent-cone. Sitting is optimal but not mandatory. The Indication should occur without influence from the Handler. As a point of clarification, the Dog should stop and face into the wind, not attempt to drag the Handler into the search area. merely a turn into the wind and then a halt.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

It is

Ch. 8 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

16.

Suspect Indication: If a Patrol Dog locates a passive, submissive or inaccesible suspect while searching, it shall respond by immediately and persistently barking to advise the Handler of the exact location. The barking should give the impression that the Dog is calling for backup (Handler) and not that the Dog is attempting to induce the suspect to move, flinch, or flush out of his/her location.

17.

Evidence Indication: If a Patrol Dog locates evidence while searching, it shall respond by immediately assuming a posture of down, sit, or stand and cease further searching. The evidence shall not be contaminated by the dog in any way.

18.

Detaining a Passive Person: If a Patrol Dog locates a passive person while searching, it shall immediately, intensely, and persistently hold the person without physical contact. The Dog may assume a posture of sitting, standing, downing or circling to aid in the task. A Detaining Patrol Dog shall not invade the passive person’s body space. Optimal distance is 3-6 feet. Should the Dog Detain from behind the suspect’s hiding place or circle the entire location, this is not faulty. For evaluation purposes, if a muzzled Detaining Dog bumps a passive person it shall be assumed to have bitten. Further, if an unmuzzled Dog bites a passive person, it is considered an escalation of force initiated by the dog.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program 19.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Richey Technique: A Handler may opt to strategically omit an official announcement prior to deploying a Patrol Dog to deal with a suspect. This might occur if the Handler perceives that the announcement may, of itself, create a substantial risk to the Handler and/or others, or the announcement may create an opportunity for a high-threat-level suspect to evade capture. In this case, no announcement is given before deployment and the dog assumes a Release/Guard posture at the moment the Handler issues lawful orders to the suspect. This technique is named after Jon Richey of the Salt Lake City Police Department, who perfected its training/deployment process. A proper Richey Technique is as follows. The Handler quietly keys the Dog on the suspect. Without an announcement, s/he deploys the Dog. The Dog runs at top speed toward the suspect. As the Dog approaches to about 30 feet distance, the Handler yells out a lawful order, such as “Police! Stay Still!” The Dog closes to within about 3-6 feet and goes into a Release/Guard posture.

20.

Over-ride Command or “Dial Technique”: A Patrol Dog trained to Detain or Guard a passive suspect holds and restricts that person without physical contact. Refer to Detaining and Guarding. A Dog lacks the mental faculties to recognize a slow yet furtive movement and normally does not then Engage, even though it may be appropriate to do so. A Handler, however, may recognize a slow movement as being furtive and may decide to have the Dog Engage the suspect. This may also be described as an “Override” command for a Detaining or Guarding Patrol Dog. The override command is also beneficial when the Handler decides to have a pursuing Dog automatically Engage a suspect, even if motionless. This technique is named after Wayne Dial of the Salt Lake County Sheriff Office, who perfected its training process. A proper Dial Technique is as follows.

The Dog is Pursuing,

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Detaining, or Guarding when the Handler issues the override command. If Pursuing, the Dog Engages without hesitation as it approaches; if Detaining or Guarding, the Dog Engages immediately upon hearing the command. This command overrides any other trained behavior and causes the Dog to Engage. 21.

Subduing a Fleeing Person: If a Patrol Dog engages a fleeing person while searching or pursuing, it shall exhibit considerable pain compliance through biting to subdue. Considerable combat behavior should enhance the pain compliance. If the Dog is muzzled, as in training or certification, intense bumping and wrestling should be evident.

22.

Subduing a Hostile Person: If a Patrol Dog engages a hostile person while searching or pursuing, it shall exhibit considerable pain compliance through biting to subdue. Considerable combat behavior should enhance the pain compliance. If the Dog is muzzled, as in training or certification, intense bumping and wrestling should be evident.

23.

Verbal Release: If a Handler commands a Patrol Dog to Release, it shall respond by 1.

Immediately release primary control of the subject, whether Engaged or Detaining; if it is Engaged, it releases its physical grip of the subject; if it is Detaining, it assumes a mental posture of “... my Handler is taking over primary control ...” and prepares to assume a “backup” position

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program 2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Assume a position, i.e., sit/stand/down/return 1.

Sit at a distance out of suspect striking range yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command, optimal distance is 3-6 feet

2.

Stand at a distance out of suspect striking range yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command, optimal distance is 3-6 feet

3.

Down at a distance out of suspect striking range yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command, optimal distance is 3-6 feet

4.

Return to the Heel position; this could be an automatic response to the verbal command or via a secondary command to return to Heel ... upon returning to the Heel position, the Dog may sit or go into a down;

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

3.

Remain quiet; it is very important that the K-9 remain quiet, the Handler or another officer needs to issue lawful orders to the subject to enact the arrest, the K-9 that barks or is notably unruly is acting insubordinate, the K-9 should, in concept, act as a Backup officer and allow the Handler or other officer to issue lawful orders without interruption; and

4.

Remain alert for furtive movement; the value of a K-9 at this point is both psychological and logistical; psychologically, a subject is less likely to exhibit a furtive movement with the K-9 in close proximity; logistically, if the subject does exhibit a furtive movement the focused and alert K-9 is able to react in an appropriate manner.

A proper Verbal Release is as follows. On a lawful order to a compliant suspect, such as “Stay Still,” the Dog shall immediately let go, if Engaged. If a position command is given such as “Heel” the Dog shall immediately respond to the respective command (in this case return to the Heel position). It should then be alert and quiet, ready to react to a furtive movement. Reasonable human behavior from the suspect shall be tolerated by the Dog when commanded to Release. It should not Engage, for example, if the suspect merely coughs or cries out. 1.

If the Dog assumes a position near the suspect, it should be out of impact weapon striking range and personal body space, yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

24. T a c t i c a l Release: A Tactical Release is a maneuver which may be appropriate when there is considerable physical activity between the subject, the Handler, or even Backup Officers during a capture. It may be utilized anytime the Handler perceives that the Dog may misinterpret the actions of any of the above. It is a maneuver intended to diminish the possibility of unintended injury to the Subject, Handler, or Backup Officers. It is a form of Verbal Release, with the added element of physical control of the Dog. It is commonly referred to as a “Hands-on Verbal Release.” It is critical to know that a Tactical Release is different from a Lift-Off (aka Choke-off). A Tactical Release is a deployment technique, while a Lift-Off is a training technique. Also, during a Tactical Release, the Handler issues a Verbal Release command; while during a Lift-Off, the Handler issues the Engage command. Finally, during a Tactical Release, the Dog is expected to Release its grip within 3 seconds; while during a Lift-Off, the Dog is trained to hold on for as long as its air supply will sustain it. A proper Tactical Release is as follows. 1.

Handler gains control of the Dog’s head;

2.

Handler announces to Arrest Team “Tactical Release”;

3.

Handler gives Verbal Release to Dog;

4.

Dog responds to Handler within three seconds;

5.

Handler lifts Dog clear of Subject and Arrest Team;

6.

Handler announces to arrest Team “Dog Off”;

7.

Handler moves Dog away from Team;

8. position; and

Handler/Dog

assume backup

9. Dog remains alert and quiet, ready to Engage again. 25.

Emergency Release: An Emergency Release is a maneuver which may be

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

appropriate when the Handler perceives an exigent circumstance during a capture. For example, a subject may appear unconscious or catatonic, a Backup Officer inadvertently is bitten, or some other situation in which life-threatening conditions exist AND the subject is obviously compliant or non-threatening. A proper Emergency Release is as follows: 1.

The Kerby Emergency Release - rigid hands at throat and at base of skull. This technique is advantageous for a larger stronger person. The Handler approaches the Dog with his/her hands rigid and flat ... place one hand at the top of the throat and the other at the base of the skull ... press inward firmly with both hands to secure the Dog’s head ... squeeze tightly and hold on as the Dog opens its mouth ... gently maneuver the Dog’s mouth away from the bite-site ... firmly hold onto the Dog’s head to prevent an inadvertent secondary bite ... move the Dog away from the person in a safe manner ... be aware that the Dog may slip into Survival Drive during the procedure ... help the Dog to recover from the Kerby Emergency Release by using a calming voice.

2.

The Lentz Technique - conventional choke-hold. The Handler approaches the Dog in a manner to effectively get the Dog’s throat positioned in the crook of one arm ... place the other arm such that the Dog’s neck is now in the conventional choke-hold position ... squeeze tightly and hold on as the Dog opens its mouth ... gently maneuver the Dog’s mouth away from the bite-site ... firmly hold onto the Dog’s head to prevent an inadvertent secondary bite ... move the Dog away from the person in a safe manner ... be aware that the Dog may slip into Survival Drive during the procedure ... help the Dog to recover from the Lentz Emergency Release by using a calming voice.

3.

The Nope Technique - tightened chain collar at top of throat. This technique is advantageous for a smaller person with lesser arm strength. The Handler approaches the Dog with his/her hands ready to grasp the chain collar at each side of the Dog’s head ... Grasp the collar such that the fingers are next to the Dog’s neck ... slide the collar as far forward as possible so that it is high on the Dog’s neck but still on the windpipe ... squeeze the collar tightly such that the Dog’s air supply is completely shut off ... hold on tightly as the Dog opens its mouth ... gently maneuver the Dog’s mouth away from the bite-site ... firmly hold the

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Dog’s head to prevent an inadvertent secondary bite ... move the Dog away from the person in a safe manner ... be aware that the Dog may slip into Survival Drive during the procedure ... help the Dog to recover from the Nope Emergency Release by using a calming voice. 26.

Disengage: If a Patrol Dog is Pursuing or Engaging a person, the Handler may deem it appropriate to completely “shut down” the Dog from its task, due to exigent circumstances. The Disengage behavior is not a “Release,” but rather, a total task shutdown. Any reasonable behavior is acceptable for a Disengage, such as a “Down en route” or a “Recall to Handler.” Four exigent circumstances may prompt the Handler to Disengage the Dog: 1.

Wrong “Target ID” during a deployment;

2.

The Dog is ineffective in controlling or subduing a suspect, perhaps due to chemical influences on the suspect and further deployment is not strategically valuable;

3.

The suspect is non-compliant: 1.

4.

to lawful orders due to extreme fear or a state of panic to the degree of loss of sensibility, and 1.

not an overt threat to the Handler or another person, or

2.

further deployment is not strategically valuable; or

3.

further deployment will substantially increase the degree of injury to the suspect.

The Dog is in danger and the overall circumstances do not merit leaving the Dog on-task. 1.

The Dog is in danger from an overly-hostile subject.

2.

The Dog is in danger from a suspect wielding a deadly force instrument.

3.

The Dog is in danger from the environment, i.e., pursuing a suspect across a busy street.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

A rule of thumb for initiating a Disengage during a physical encounter is, “When tissue damage supercedes pain compliance - Disengage!” A proper Disengage is as follows. The Dog is Pursuing or Engaged when the Handler issues the Disengage command. If Pursuing, the Dog shuts down from its Pursuit; if Engaging, the Dog shuts down immediately upon hearing the command. In either case, the Dog may assume a position away from the Handler or may be recalled to the Handler. This Disengage command overrides any other trained behavior and causes the Dog to shut down. An officer of agency may choose what action the Dog takes after the command; for example, lay down or return to the Heel position once shutting down. It is always an option to re-deploy the Dog if desired. 27. Frisk: If a Handler conducts a frisk of a suspect subsequent to a Release command to the Dog, the suspect may be instructed to step back or the Dog may be commanded to the Heel position, whichever is more favorable. Regardless of where placed, the Dog shall remain quiet and attentive to the suspect, prepared to respond to a furtive movement. The Frisk behavior, for examination purposes, ends when the Handler returns to the Dog and begins the next task. If the Handler deems it appropriate to have a Backup Officer conduct the frisk, the dog will be evaluated according to the same criteria, except that the Handler may or may not be at the Heel position. 28. Transport: If a Handler initiates a Transport of a suspect in custody, the Dog shall respond by remaining at the Heel position, attentive to the suspect. The Front Transport is optimal and performed at a distance of about 10 feet. The Handler shall issue appropriate commands to direct the arrestee’s movements. For examination purposes, the Transport is ended when the arrestee has gone about 15 feet and is remanded. If the Handler deems it appropriate to have a Backup Officer conduct a side transport, the Handler shall take the same position behind the arrestee and the dog will be evaluated according to the same criteria. 29.

Dismiss/Remand: If a Handler inadvertently encounters a person not a suspect, during a deployment, s/he may choose to Dismiss the person from the area without further

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

investigation. If a Handler is assisted by a backup officer once a capture is effected, s/he may choose to Remand the arrestee to the backup officer. For examination purposes, both behaviors appear identical. Once a Dismiss or Remand is initiated, the Dog’s behavior is evaluated while the person/suspect moves a minimum of five paces, to determine if the Dog remains stable during this function. 30.

Pain Tolerance: Pain Tolerance or “Hardness” is a critical issue for the Patrol Dog in modern society. It has been discovered by sad experience that some suspects vigorously resist the application of a Patrol Dog to subdue them and even attempt to hurt the Dog. Therefore, it is mandatory that the Dog exhibit considerable pain tolerance in order to successfully Engage and Subdue suspects. For examination purposes, pain tolerance is evaluated by mentally intimidating and physically stinging the Dog. Any physical strikes with a simulated weapon should be carefully aimed for the less-sensitive portions of its body, such as the rib cage.

31.

Gunsureness: Gunsureness is a critical issue for the Patrol Dog in modern society. The incidence of officer-involved shootings has increased dramatically over the years, requiring that a Patrol Dog is more stable than ever. The optimal behavior is “Gunfire-sure,” however, a Dog that is “Gunfire-sensitive” yet controllable may be allowed. “Gunfire-shy” dogs should not function as Patrol Dogs.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program 16.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

K-9 Deployment Definitions. 1.

Community Contact. 1.

Definition. A social and/or physical contact made by a K-9 with a person who is not the Handler or someone whom the K-9 is in regular contact, i.e., someone who is not a member of the K9's “pack.”

2.

3.

Examples that would be considered Community Contacts. 1.

While being briefed on the strategy to conduct a building search of a pharmacy, the pharmacist and his wife are standing near the K-9 as they describe the layout of the building’s interior (Community Contacts = 2).

2.

At a K-9 Demonstration for a local youth group, each of the 22 teenaged attendees comes up to the K-9 in single file and pets the K-9 briefly (Community Contacts = 22).

Examples that would not be considered Community Contacts. 1.

The eight K-9 Handlers in a particular K-9 Unit have a BBQ at the training field and are all sitting in lawn chairs with each K-9 lying beside its respective Handler.

2.

A Handler is giving his K-9 a bath at home in the driveway and his/her three young children are helping him/her rub dog shampoo on the K-9.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program 2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

K-9 Deployment 1.

Definition. A meaningful use of a K-9 in an investigation.

2.

3.

Examples that would be considered a K-9 deployment. 1.

A Handler is dispatched to a burglary scene to initiate a K-9 Sniff of the interior to locate any possible suspects remaining inside.

2.

A Handler is assigned to take a position at the rear exit of a domicile in which a fugitive from justice is believed to be hiding, whether or not the fugitive comes out of that exit.

3.

A Handler arrives at a scene wherein a dispute between several neighboring families is starting to escalate, the initial officers are attempting to de-escalate the situation, and the Handler removes his/her K-9 out of the vehicle, takes a position several yards behind the Responding Officers, and the presence of the K-9 has a calming influence on the incident.

Examples that would not be considered a K-9 deployment. 1.

In the same incident as #3 above, the Handler elects to leave the K-9 in the vehicle and responds him/herself as a backup officer.

2.

While the Handler is giving his/her K-9 a rest break on the grass surrounding an abandoned building, the Handler discovers evidence related to criminal activity.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Apprehension. 1.

Definition. The capture of a suspect or subject in which a K-9 played a meaningful role.

2.

3.

4.

Examples that considered apprehension.

would be a K-9

1.

A K-9 tracks a felony suspect to a drainage culvert where s/he had hidden after running from a crime scene.

2.

A burglary suspect hiding in a building opts to surrender after hearing K-9 Announcements issued by the Handler at the point of entry.

3.

A K-9 searches a jewelry store for a burglar and locates him/her hiding in a closet in the hallway leading from the showroom to the storage area of the business, even though the closet is locked from the inside and the K-9 cannot enter.

Examples that would not be considered a K-9 apprehension. 1.

A clever Patrol Officer responds to a burglary point of entry and makes a K-9 Announcement that motivates the suspect to surrender, even though no actual K-9 was present.

2.

A K-9 tracks from the point of entry at a pharmacy burglary to a certain point and then loses the track, then other officers locate the subject several blocks further along the direction of flight the K-9 was successfully heading.

Bite Ratio 1.

Definition. A statistic which reveals the numerical comparison between apprehensions/captures in which the respective subject incurs physical injury or not. Normally, the number reflects the percentile of injuries.

2.

History. The numerical ratio of apprehensions to injuries has been utilized for decades by law enforcement agencies as an

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

administrative tool to track certain aspects of K-9 deployments. Historically, no specific percentile was accepted nationwide as the official point at which a Handler and K-9 should be further scrutinized for propriety or validity of their performance. In fact, each individual “K9 Use of Force” should be scrutinized for propriety and justification. Logically, K-9's in areas known for higher rates of criminality may have higher Bite Ratios than in areas where crime has a lower statistic. This is not always the case, of course. When the federal civil action known as Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 857 F.2d 1546. (1989) was adjudicated, the issue of Bite Ratio was presented in a further light. 3.

Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 857 F.2d 1546. (1989) 1.

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/875/875.F2d .1546.87-5837.html is one location where the full of the ruling text may be found.

2.

The pertinent text of the ruling is as follows. “Because a dog's responsiveness to its handler's commands may erode over time, police dogs need continual training to assure that they will perform responsibly. To ensure that misbehaving dogs receive prompt corrective training, a strict performance monitoring system is necessary. One indication of a misbehaving dog is a high ratio of bites to apprehensions (the bite-ratio). An expert testified concerning the bite-ratio that could be expected from a properly trained and supervised canine unit. That expert indicated that less than thirty percent of apprehensions should, on average, result in a bite. Thus, some police departments require supervisors automatically to review the performance of any canine unit with a bite-ratio of over twenty percent in order to ensure that misbehaving dogs receive prompt corrective training.”

4.

Appropriately trained K-9 personnel seek a 0% Bite Ratio. The Bite Ratio is more a factor of criminal suspect behavior than Handler/Dog behavior. K-9 Officers who are acting according to established professional standards desire that all suspects against whom their K-9 might be deployed would surrender. No rightthinking K-9 Handler seeks to inflict injury upon any suspect who surrenders. If suspects would surrender, there would be no need for searching, locating, and occasionally engaging a criminal suspect. In other words, if all

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 25

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

suspects would surrender, each K-9 would have a 0% Bite Ratio. Unfortunately, this is not the case in reality. Suspects often: 1.

refuse to comply to lawful orders, or

2.

they hide themselves to avoid capture, or

3.

they actively resist arrest by fleeing or fighting.

When a K-9 is used as a searching tool to locate a suspect and that suspect then makes furtive movements, the K-9 typically reacts by physically engaging. It was not the Handler’s initial intent that the person be injured, rather, it was the person’s action that brought about the possible injury. If s/he had initially surrendered, no injury would have resulted. 5.

Bite Ratio as an Administrative Tool. The federal court ruling in Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 857 F.2d 1546. (1989) refers to law enforcement agencies utilizing a Bite Ratio to evaluate whether or not a K-9 is “misbehaving.” Two factors should, therefore, be considered.

6.

1.

In this era of law enforcement, each and every physical encounter a K-9 has with a suspect should be reviewed and officially declared to be justified or unjustified.

2.

In light of the language in Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 857 F.2d 1546. (1989), once a K-9's Bite Ratio reaches 30%, it is prudent to re-evaluate the incidents to ensure no unjustified incident has occurred and been overlooked. In this way, K-9's that have a Bite Ratio higher than 30% do not get misrepresented as “misbehaving.” When this is done, it shows genuine intent on the part of the respective agency to comply with the spirit of this ruling. Additionally, this subsequent large-scale review can be a validation of the individual reviews conducted after each incident.

Bite Ratio as a determiner of “misbehaving dogs.” Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 857 F.2d 1546. (1989). The use of a Bite Ratio to identify a “misbehaving” K-9, when thorough reviews of each apprehension incident have been initially conducted, is indeed stereotyping in its truest form. Only a review of individual incidents can determine if a K-9 is “misbehaving.” As an example, a K-9 with a 40% Bite Ratio in a large city may have been ruled to

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 26

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

be justified in every incident, whereas, another K-9 with a 10% Bite Ratio elsewhere may have been ruled to have multiple unjustified incidents. It is unjustified K-9 behavior that actually accounts for “misbehaving.” Analysis of the Kerr ruling shows that the K-9's in question were not being reviewed after each incident, therefore, the Bite Ratio testimony of the Plaintiff’s K-9 expert was deemed reasonable. 7.

Special note on Bite Ratio relative to SWAT Dog deployments. Patrol Dogs that are cross-trained as SWAT Dogs should maintain a separate SWAT Dog Bite Ratio for that function, since many SWAT Dog physical encounters are the result of intentional applications of the K-9 to prevent having to resort to a higher level of force in a high-risk encounter. A Patrol Dog’s Bite Ratio should only include statistics of its performance as a Patrol Dog. To mix these statistics produces a skewed ratio of Patrol Dog statistics. Still, each encounter whether as a Patrol Dog or SWAT Dog should be reviewed and declared justified or unjustified. Obviously, the SWAT Dog function is likely to have a higher Bite Ratio, since that function tends to have a higher volume of “Dial Technique” applications, also known as the “Over-Ride Command.” Refer to the Dial Technique in the Training Behavior definitions for more clarification.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 27

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 28

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Certification Scenarios 1.

Shots Fired Scenario This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog Critical Skills in a single scenario to assure the certificant is sufficiently skillful to challenge the total evaluation. Of particular interest are the following behaviors. 1.

Sociability.

2.

Discipline/Control.

3.

Gunsureness.

4.

Handler Protection (Combat/Defense skill).

5.

Pain Tolerance.

6.

Disengage.

7.

Handler Skill.

The Handler and Dog shall be deployed in this scenario via radio communications. Once the first radio transmission is received, the scenario evaluation begins. They shall first be dispatched to report to an on-scene officer (Evaluator) for a deployment briefing. After being briefed, the Handler shall then command or signal the Dog to Heel as s/he advances approximately 100 feet to meet a group of three Handlers and Dogs who are part of the scenario. At approximately the midpoint, a series of obstacles shall be encountered which will require the Handler and Dog to execute at least one right turn and one left turn to negotiate. Upon reaching the other Handlers and Dogs, the Handler shall be advised to take a position at the front of the group. S/He shall Heel in serpentine fashion through the group of Handlers whose Dogs are lying at their sides. Upon arriving at the front of the group, the Handler shall be dispatched to advance quickly to another scenario position and standby. S/he shall leave the group and jog to the assigned position. While en route, the Handler and Dog shall have to negotiate a (simulated) fence which is about 39 inches high, and then continue jogging. At a point beyond the fence, the Handler shall receive a dispatch to go to an assigned location and standby for further communication. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 29

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

A short time after the Handler arrives at the location, two shots (blank gun) shall be fired from a designated location in the crime scene. The Handler shall not be advised whether these are suspect or police rounds. S/he shall find the nearest cover and take a safe position. Next, the Handler shall observe a group of at least three people walking in his/her direction. The Handler shall stop the group and conduct a field interview with each person, utilizing whatever departmental procedures s/he has been trained in, while using the Dog as a backup. One of these persons will assault the Handler while being interviewed. The Handler shall not know ahead of time which person will become hostile. The Handler shall take evasive action and the Dog must defend its Handler immediately and attempt to subdue. The Handler shall deal with the assault as tactically as possible, with special emphasis on not losing focus on the other persons in the group, giving lawful orders as appropriate. The attacker shall suddenly brandish an impact weapon and inflict at least two strikes on the Dog. The Dog shall continue attempting to subdue the attacker, in spite of the blows, until s/he begins to exhibit a distinct change of behavior. S/he shall clearly want to give up and show signs of extreme fear. S/he shall make defensive gestures toward the Dog, as if trying to protect him/herself from further injury. At this point the Handler shall Disengage the Dog. When the Dog Disengages, the person shall continue to act fearful. The actions shall be vigorous and loud, but clearly fearful. S/he will not stand still, but neither will s/he be threatening. Once the Dog Disengages, the Handler shall take control of the group once more and make such radio transmissions as are appropriate. At this point the Dog shall remain alert and quiet while the Handler completes the frisk and places the individual in custody. The Handler shall remand the arrestee to the responding backup officer (Evaluator) and then complete the interview of the other persons. The scenario shall not be concluded until all persons have been interviewed, in the event the first or second person commits the assault. 8.

Procedures.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 30

Utah POST K-9 Program

2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

1.

The Dog being tested should be muzzled and shall be offleash during this scenario, up to the point where three persons are field interviewed. The Dog shall be unmuzzled for the field interview. If the Dog is being tested unmuzzled throughout the entire examination, it may begin so at this point.

2.

The group of Handlers and their muzzled Dogs that are assisting shall be positioned about 10 feet apart. These Dogs shall be maintained on-leash.

3.

After the Handler and Dog have exited the group, they are excused from the immediate area.

4.

The hurdle obstacle shall be a chain-link or similar-type fence. It shall be at least 39 inches high and see-through. The Dog shall demonstrate a Stand-, Sit-, or Down-in-Place on command after it jumps the hurdle. The Handler shall then negotiate the same obstacle before resuming movement in the scenario.

5.

The firearm used to evaluate gunsureness should be about as loud as a 9mm handgun. The distance from gun to Dog should be at least 60 feet.

6.

The group to be interviewed shall be moving in a line facing and perpendicular to the Handler and Dog. They shall be at least six feet in front of the approaching Handler and Dog. The members of the group should be about 10 feet apart from each other. They shall be moving at a walking speed.

7.

The strikes to the Dog shall be of medium intensity on the less sensitive parts of the body.

Tracking Scenario. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for Tracking suspects or victims, including finding evidence dropped along the way.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to track a person’s travel route. A investigative scene, including

an

object

of

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

evidence

(car,

Ch. 8 Pg. 31

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

briefcase, etc.) marks the starting point of the track. The person shall depart from the object and travel about 600 feet to a hiding spot. Along the way s/he shall make two realistic turns and drop one item of realistic evidence. The Handler shall deploy the Dog to cast about for the track, then follow it. The Dog shall Indicate the evidence, as well as the passive hidden person. 2.

Procedures. 1.

The Judge shall determine the place where the initial evidence object is to be placed.

2.

A “scentpad” is not permitted. visible.

3.

The tracklayer shall walk in a natural manner and wear ordinary shoes. S/he is forbidden from making abnormal footfalls.

4.

The track shall not be a defined pattern and shall be laid reasonable to the lay of the land. Unnaturally sharp or acute-angle turns are not realistic and not appropriate for the examination. Obtuse-angle turns are permitted.

5.

The evidence items shall not be larger than 10" and shall be similar color as the terrain.

6.

The evidence shall be thoroughly permeated with human odor.

7.

The evidence may be placed anywhere along the track, except in the first or last 60 feet.

8.

The track must have at least one change of terrain.

9.

The Dog may track on-leash or off-leash and at any length, long or short, with vigilant scrutiny to watch for inappropriate Handler help.

10.

The track concludes at the hiding place where the passive person is placed. S/he may be in any position and will be totally passive and compliant when encountered.

11.

The Dog shall demonstrate an Indication on the person as defined previously.

12.

The Dog may exhibit either precision-tracking, streettracking, or trailing to accomplish this task. Neither is evaluated superior to the other. The overall evaluation shall be according to the skill of the Dog to follow/locate the person and the evidence.

Footprints should not be

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 32

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Criminal Evidence Search. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for searching, locating, and indicating criminal evidence or lost property.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to locate and indicate criminal evidence. The search area shall be about 800m² size. The Judge shall place four contaminated realistic objects in the search area and the Dog shall be given a reasonable amount of time (10 minutes) to deploy.

2.

Procedures. 1.

The search area shall be realistic and typical of deployment scenarios.

2.

The Dog shall deploy unmuzzled.

3.

The Handler and Dog shall be out of sight when the objects are placed. They shall be composed of four different materials and not be over 10cm² in size. The objects shall be similar color as the terrain and shall not be placed in plain sight.

4.

The objects shall be thoroughly permeated with human odor.

5.

The Handler shall inform the Judge of the Indication behavior prior to deploying the Dog. The Dog shall exhibit the same Indication behavior at all objects.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 33

Utah POST K-9 Program 4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Building Search. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for searching inside buildings for suspects or victims. At the discretion of the Judge, a situation may develop during this scenario in which the Handler should command the Dog to over-ride its Detain, Guard, or Transport and Engage the subject. This encounter shall result in a struggle in which both the Dog and the subject are on the ground. If the encounter occurs, the subject shall be in a prone position when the Handler verbally commands the Dog to Release.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to locate and indicate a suspect hiding in a building.

2.

The Handler shall issue at least two official announcements prior to deploying the Dog. After the second announcement, the Handler may deploy at will.

3.

When the Dog has located the suspect, it shall immediately and intensely Indicate. Upon hearing the Dog’s Indication, the Handler may tactically advance to the location. When the Handler arrives at the hiding spot, s/he may take control of the situation as circumstances dictate.

4.

The Handler shall frisk, arrest, and transport the person to the Judge outside the building.

5.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled or unmuzzled and off-leash.

2.

The building shall be at least 1000m2. Numerous hiding spots shall be available in the building. This is intended to ensure that the Dog’s skill level may be accurately evaluated.

3.

The suspect shall be placed direct contact by the Dog is made. The suspect may be in position, according to the

in a high location such that not possible when the find is a standing, sitting, or prone environment available in the

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 34

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

building. 5.

Open Area Suspect Search. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for conducting a systematic search for suspects in large, open search areas.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to search for and locate suspects in large search areas.

2.

Prior to deployment, the Judge shall place a person in an area about 100m x 200m size. The person shall be lying in a prone position. For purposes of the examination, this person represents a sleeping or unconscious person who does not hear the K-9 Announcements.

3.

When the Dog finds the person, it shall Detain and Indicate the location immediately to the Handler. When the Dog Indicates, the Handler may tactically advance to the location.

4.

The Handler shall determine the identity of the person and discover s/he is not the suspect in question. At this time, the Handler shall dismiss the person from the search area.

5.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled or unmuzzled and off-leash.

2.

The search area shall have considerable undergrowth or other conditions which dramatically reduce visual abilities.

3.

The person placed in this scenario represents an innocent citizen inadvertently in the search area. S/he shall wear inconspicuous clothing and lie in a natural manner. The person shall not be visible to the Handler until the last moment.

4.

The Judge shall dictate the starting point for the deployment, after considering wind, etc., in order to provide the Dog with optimal chances for success.

5.

The Handler shall conduct a systematic search through this

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 35

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

area.

6.

6.

If the Dog overruns or the boundary of the search area slightly or does not go completely to the boundary during the process of searching, this is not faulty.

7.

The Handler is not required to follow an exact center-line, but rather, may follow the lay of the land during his/her advance.

Pursue and Apprehend a Surrendering Suspect In Sight. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for pursuing a fleeing suspect who decides to surrender prior to the Dog’s arrival. This scenario presents several options for the Handler. Since the subject is in plain view, the Handler may choose to allow the dog to perform a Detain, Richey Maneuver, Down Enroute, or Recall to the Handler. The Gradesheet contains each category and may be evaluated according to the behavior chosen.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to pursue and subdue a suspect who is fleeing in sight.

2.

The Handler and Dog shall assume a Surveillance position at a point designated by the Judge.

3.

A suspect shall appear at a distance of about 300 feet. The Handler shall then issue two official announcements. After the first announcement, the suspect shall flee.

4.

After the second announcement, the Handler shall deploy the Dog. The Dog shall pursue at top speed. When the Dog is en route, the suspect shall stop, face the Dog, and surrender. The surrendering behavior shall be evident and s/he shall then remain motionless. The Handler now has the option of permitting the Dog to perform whichever of the following s/he deems the best course of action: 1. 2.

Detain; Down-en-route;

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 36

Utah POST K-9 Program 3. 4. 5.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Richey Technique; or Recall.

Detain Option: The Dog shall do so without physical contact. When the Handler arrives at a distance of at least ten paces, s/he shall command the Dog to assume a backup position.

Down-en-route Option: The Dog shall do so immediately upon receiving the command. It shall then await the Handler’s approach and they shall advance together for the remainder of the distance. Upon arrival at the suspect’s location, the Handler shall command the Dog to assume a backup position. To clarify, the intent of this behavior is that the Dog lays down immediately upon receiving the command and awaits the Handler to deploy further.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 37

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Richey Technique Option: The Dog shall do so immediately upon receiving the command. It shall then await the Handler’s approach while remaining at a Guard position. Upon arrival at the suspect’s location, the Handler may command the Dog to assume a backup position, either at a Heel position or close to the Suspect. To clarify, the intent of this behavior is that the Dog is eventually down at a proper Guarding distance from the suspect. Recall Option: The Dog shall do so immediately upon receiving the command. It shall go to the Heel position immediately or upon subsequent command. It shall then advance with the Handler at the Heel position for the remainder of the distance. Upon arrival at the suspect’s location, the Handler shall command the Dog to assume a backup position. To clarify, the intent of this behavior is that the Dog returns immediately upon receiving the command and then act as a partner for the remainder of the scenario. 6.

It shall now remain quiet and alert, ready to respond to a furtive movement. The Handler shall then frisk, arrest, and transport the suspect back to the Judge for Remanding.

7.

Procedure. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled or unmuzzled and off-leash.

2.

The suspect shall remain passive and motionless once the surrendering behavior is exhibited. If the Detaining Dog circles or positions itself behind the suspect, s/he may turn in order to maintain a frontal view of the Dog.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 38

Utah POST K-9 Program NOTE:

7.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

A muzzled Patrol Dog exhibiting 1-6 may be designated DPO-1. An unmuzzled Patrol Dog exhibiting 1-6 may be designated UDPO-1. A muzzled Patrol Dog exhibiting 1,4-6 may be designated DH-1. A unmuzzled Patrol Dog exhibiting 1,4-6 may be designated UDH-1. Recapture an Escaping Prisoner. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for recapturing escaping suspects.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to subdue an escaping arrestee.

2.

During a Front Transport, an arrestee attempts to escape. At the direction of the Judge, s/he shall begin running straight ahead.

3.

The Handler shall issue at least two official announcements prior to deploying the Dog. The Dog shall remain at Heel, even during the announcements. After the second announcement, the Handler may deploy at will.

4.

The Handler shall now be required to respond to a perceived emergency situation. At some point the Judge shall announce that some form of emergency exists and the Handler should take immediate control of the situation. The Handler shall perform an Emergency Release and remove the Dog from the physical engagement and from the immediate area. The scenario ends at that point.

5.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled or unmuzzled and off-leash.

2.

The escapee shall flee suddenly and without any other stimulation than the flight.

3.

The Dog shall Pursue at top speed, engage, and attempt to subdue the escapee. The Handler shall follow and take control of the situation as the environment dictates.

4.

If the Dog knocks the escapee down, s/he shall protect him/herself. Otherwise, the escapee shall stop running when engaged and then resist the Dog by hitting and grabbing, while facing the Dog at all times.

5.

The Handler is permitted to choose the type and form of Emergency Release s/he shall perform, as long as it comports with the intent of the maneuver.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 39

Utah POST K-9 Program 8.

NOTE:

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Pursue and Apprehend a Hostile Suspect In-Sight. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for pursuing and engaging suspects who attempt to thwart the Dog using intimidation.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to subdue a hostile suspect, even if s/he attempts to thwart the Dog’s efforts.

2.

The Handler and Dog shall assume a Surveillance position as directed by the Judge. A known suspect shall appear at a distance of about 150 feet. The Handler shall then issue two official announcements to surrender. After the first announcement the suspect shall turn and flee.

3.

After the second announcement, the Handler shall deploy the Dog. The Dog shall pursue at top speed. When the Dog is about 100 feet distance, the suspect shall attempt to scare the Dog away by charging it, yelling, and making threatening gestures.

4.

The Dog shall disregard the suspect’s behavior and engage with considerable intensity. It shall attempt to subdue the suspect, regardless of his/her actions. Backup officers may then assist in the capture and the Handler shall perform a Tactical Release to prevent further possible injury.

5.

The suspect shall be frisked, arrested, and transported to the Judge for Remanding.

6.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy unmuzzled and off-leash.

2.

The suspect shall wear suitable protective clothing such as a sleeve or bitesuit.

3.

When the suspect charges the Dog, s/he shall do so in a manner which is intended to thwart the Dog’s desire to engage. The suspect shall continue to make combative movements and actions, even after the Dog has Engaged. The suspect shall stop resisting within 5-10 seconds, then exhibit an obvious desire to surrender. By now, the Handler should be nearby and shall take control of the situation as circumstances dictate.

A muzzled Patrol Dog exhibiting 1-8 may be designated DPO-2. An unmuzzled Dog exhibiting 1-8 may be designated UDPO-2. A muzzled Dog exhibiting 1,4-8 may be designated DH-2. An unmuzzled Dog exhibiting 1,4-8 may be designated UDH-2.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 40

Utah POST K-9 Program 9.

10.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Tactical Windscenting. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Patrol Dog and Handler deployment skills for windscenting and indicating hidden suspects or victims.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to tactically windscent, locate, and Indicate a suspect hidden in a search area. The Handler shall deploy the Dog on a short leash across the wind current until it Indicates. The Handler shall immediately take cover. The Handler shall then issue at least two official announcements prior to deploying the Dog. After the second announcement, the Handler may deploy at will.

2.

The Dog shall then search for and find the suspect. When the Dog has located the suspect, it shall Detain immediately and intensely Indicate. Upon hearing the Dog’s Indication, the Handler may tactically advance to the location. When the Handler arrives at the hiding spot, s/he may take control of the situation as circumstances dictate.

3.

The Handler shall frisk, arrest, and transport the suspect to the Judge.

4.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled or unmuzzled and on a short leash for the windscenting phase.

2.

The suspect shall be standing upright in a natural hidingplace which is not visible to the Handler from the windscenting phase.

3.

The scenario shall be set up such that the wind favors the windscenting Dog.

4.

Should the wind cease, the suspect shall make minimal noises which shall not be perceivable to the Handler.

Pursuit and Apprehension Out of Sight. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the K-9 and Handler deployment skills for searching for a suspect who appear at great distances and then hides. At the option of the Judge, this scenario may be fashioned into a “Yard-to-Yard” type search.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to Pursue a fleeing suspect and locate him/her, even if hidden.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 41

Utah POST K-9 Program

NOTE:

Patrol Dog Training Manual

2.

The Handler and Dog shall assume a Surveillance position as directed by the Judge.

3.

At a distance of about 300 feet, a known suspect shall appear. The Handler shall then issue two official announcements to the suspect.

4.

After the first announcement, the suspect shall flee out of sight and hide in a location about 100 feet beyond the view of the Handler.

5.

When the suspect is out of sight, the Handler shall deploy the Dog to Pursue. The Handler may follow immediately behind but shall halt at the point where the suspect disappeared.

6.

The Dog shall Pursue at top speed to the point where the suspect disappeared. Now the Dog is expected to independently search for and locate the suspect.

7.

When the Dog locates the suspect, it shall immediately Detain and Indicate the location to the Handler. When the Handler hears the Dog Indicate, s/he may tactically advance to the location.

8.

When the Handler arrives at the location, s/he may take control of the situation as circumstances dictate. The suspect shall be frisked, arrested, and transported to the Judge for Remanding.

9.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled or unmuzzled and off-leash.

2.

The suspect shall run quickly to the hiding spot, after the announcement is issued. For purposes of the examination, the suspect shall remain upright and passive during the encounter.

A muzzled Patrol Dog exhibiting 1-10 may be designated PSP-1. An unmuzzled Dog exhibiting 1-10 may be designated UPSP-1. A muzzled Dog exhibiting 1,4-10 may be designated DH. An unmuzzled Dog exhibiting skills 1,4-10 may be designated UDH.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 42

Utah POST K-9 Program Patrol Dog Certification

Patrol Dog Training Manual List Type

PSP-1

Date

20 Feb 2017

This document is an administrative tool to collect data for POST Staff to update the POST files on Officer and Dog. All blanks must be filled in before submitting to POST. Any Scenarios not performed must be marked as such. Dogs judged via Pass-Fail protocol need only have a “P” recorded in each blank to reflect a 4.00 gpa or better. Each Scenario MUST be passed on its own merits - no False Indications are allowed. Handler

John Doe

Dog

Hunter

Department

Any Police Department

Work Phone

XXX-XXX-XXXX

Address

123 Any Street, Any Town, ST XXXXX

Email

[email protected]

Cell Phone

XXX-XXX-XXXX

Overall Exam Performance Grade 2.19 (B) Chief Judge Wendell Nope Shots Fired Scenario Grade 2.60 (C) Judge Mike Johnson Tracking Scenario Grade 2.20 (B) Judge Mike Chatelain Evidence Search Scenario Grade 3.34 (C) Judge Ken Eatchel Building Search Scenario Grade 2.34 (B) Judge Tom Smith Systematic Search Scenario Grade 2.67 (C) Judge Brett Lawrenson In-Sight Capture Scenario Grade 2.17 (B) Judge Tim Magnuson Courage Test Grade 2.43 (B) Judge Bobby Johnson Recapture Scenario Grade 2.20 (B) Judge Jason Thomas Tactical Windscenting Grade 2.50 (C) Judge Ryan Bauer Pursuit Out-of-Sight Scenario Grade 2.58 (C) Judge Erika Smith Handler Skill Grade 2.34 (B) Shots Fired Scenario - Yard-Yard Search Pass Fail Sociability The performance received a grade of Pass Fail Gunfire The performance received a grade of Interview The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Defense The performance received a grade of Pass Fail Pain Tolerance The performance received a grade of Disengage The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Guard/Frisk/Trans The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Handler Defense spontaneous and powerful, Disengaged on 2nd command then creeped and whined Scentwork Scenarios - Tracking & Evidence Search Track Start The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Turns The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Legs The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Evidence The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Indicate Target The performance received a grade of Evidence Search The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Evidence Indicate The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Building Search Scenario - High & Inaccessible Announcements The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Search The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Indicate The performance received a grade of Release The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Frisk The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Totally focused searching using eyes/nose/ears, immediate barking upon locating the Subject, flinching and multiple barks during the frisk

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 43

Utah POST K-9 Program Patrol Dog Certification Handler John Doe Searching Detaining Indicating Release Frisk Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcement Pursuit Capture Frisk Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Transport Recapture Pain Compliance Release Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcement Pursuit Engage Pain Compliance Pain Tolerance Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Windscent Indicate Search Detain Indicate Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcements Search Detain Indicate Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

Patrol Dog Training Manual List Type

PSP-1

Date 20 Feb 2017 Dog Hunter

Open Area Systematic Search Scenario - Clear-As-You-Go The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Immediate/continuous barking, creeping/whining on frisk Open Area Capture Scenario - In-Sight & Surrendering The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Detained--Downed--Recalled--Richey The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U All-out effort on Pursuit Recapture Scenario - Fleeing Escapee The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Lunging/powerful impact, energetic subdue effort, full/stable grip Courage Test Scenario - Combative Subject The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Pass Fail The performance received a grade of The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Top speed Pursuit, creeping on Frisk, forging on Transport Tactical Windscent Scenario - Strategic Deployment The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Sat/sniffed 1st Indication, immediate barking 2nd, creep/forge on F/T Runaway Out of Sight Scenario - Fleeing & Hiding The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Flinching/whining on Announcements, creeping/forging on Frisk/Trans

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 44

Utah POST K-9 Program Patrol Dog Certification

Patrol Dog Training Manual List Type

Date

This document is an administrative tool to collect data for POST Staff to update the POST files on Officer and Dog. All blanks must be filled in before submitting to POST. Any Scenarios not performed must be marked as such. Dogs judged via Pass-Fail protocol need only have a “P” recorded in each blank to reflect a 4.00 gpa or better. Each Scenario MUST be passed on its own merits - no False Indications are allowed. Handler

Dog

Department

Work Phone

Address Email

Cell Phone

Overall Exam Performance Grade Chief Judge Shots Fired Scenario Grade Judge Tracking Scenario Grade Judge Evidence Search Scenario Grade Judge Building Search Scenario Grade Judge Systematic Search Scenario Grade Judge In-Sight Capture Scenario Grade Judge Courage Test Grade Judge Recapture Scenario Grade Judge Tactical Windscenting Grade Judge Pursuit Out-of-Sight Scenario Grade Judge Handler Skill Grade Shots Fired Scenario - Yard-Yard Search Sociability The performance received a grade of Pass Fail Gunfire The performance received a grade of Pass Fail Interview The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Defense The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Pain Tolerance The performance received a grade of Pass Fail Disengage The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Guard/Frisk/Trans The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Obedience The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Handler Skill The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Comments Scentwork Scenarios - Tracking & Evidence Search Track Start The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Track Turns The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Track Legs The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Track Evidence The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Indicate Target The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Evidence Search The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Evidence Indicate The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Obedience The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Handler Skill The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Comments Building Search Scenario - High & Inaccessible Announcements The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Search The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Indicate The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Release The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Frisk The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Obedience The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Handler Skill The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Comments

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

Ch. 8 Pg. 45

Utah POST K-9 Program Patrol Dog Certification Handler Searching Detaining Indicating Release Frisk Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcement Pursuit Capture Frisk Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

Open The The The The The The The

Patrol Dog Training Manual List Type

Area Systematic Search performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a

Date Dog Scenario - Clear-As-You-Go grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

Open Area Capture Scenario - In-Sight & Surrendering The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C Detained--Downed--Recalled--Richey 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

Tactical Windscent Scenario - Strategic Deployment The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

Runaway Out of Sight Scenario - Fleeing & Hiding The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C The performance received a grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C

4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D 4/D

5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I 5/I

6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U 6/U

Transport Recapture Pain Compliance Release Obedience Handler Skill Comments

The The The The The The

Recapture Scenario performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a

- Fleeing Escapee grade of 1/A 2/B grade of 1/A 2/B grade of 1/A 2/B grade of 1/A 2/B grade of 1/A 2/B grade of 1/A 2/B

Announcement Pursuit Engage Pain Compliance Pain Tolerance Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

The The The The The The The The The

Courage Test Scenario performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a performance received a

- Combative Subject grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of Pass Fail grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C grade of 1/A 2/B 3/C

Windscent Indicate Search Detain Indicate Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcements Search Detain Indicate Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

3/C 3/C 3/C 3/C 3/C 3/C

Ch. 8 Pg. 46

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Handler Control Dog Performance Objectives The Handler Control Dog performance objectives are now included in the K-9 Manual. This option is not considered the standard of Utah POST, but rather, an option for Agencies/Handlers utilizing this form of Patrol Dog. The objectives have been scrutinized, however, if in the process of training or certification, an issue arises as to intent, practice, or procedure, the Instructor or Judge shall apply a rule of “StreetReasonableness” to the situation to resolve it. A Utah POST Handler Control Dog is identical to a standard Utah POST Patrol Dog, with the exception that it is not taught to Detain. To offset this fact, the Handler exerts more close-proximity control over the Dog. For example, the Handler does not allow the Dog to go out of his/her immediate view or control. As with the standard Patrol Dog, the Handler of a Handler Control Dog is totally responsible for the actions of his/her K-9 when it is being trained or deployed. The Handler Control Dog Performance Objectives are based on a Reality-based training format, in order to optimize training efficiency and also to provide the most realistic training environment possible, within the current time/logistical constraints. These guidelines also are consistent with internationally-accepted performance standards for Patrol Dogs, better known as PSP and DPO, with the exception of the absence of the Detain behavior. The skills outlined in these Performance Objectives are considered important for the seasoned/veteran Handler Control Dog. However, if an Agency or Handler does not perceive the need for all 10 skills, five other certification options are available. 1.

A Handler or Agency may acquire the following skill-set and achieve a Utah POST Handler Control Dog certification. This is the standard skill-set for a Handler Control Dog. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

2.

Shots Fired Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario Recapture an Escaping Prisoner Scenario Apprehend a Hostile Suspect Scenario Tactical Windscenting Scenario Apprehend a Suspect Out-of-Sight Scenario Tracking Scenario Evidence Search Scenario

A Handler or Agency may opt for the following skills-set and receive certification. This skill-set does not include the Tracking and Evidence Search scenarios.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 47

Utah POST K-9 Program 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 3.

Shots Fired Scenario Tracking Scenario Evidence Search Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario

A Handler or Agency may opt for the following skills-set and receive certification. This skill-set does not include the Recapture, Hostile Suspect, Tactical Windscenting, Out-of Sight, Tracking or Evidence Search scenarios. This is the minimum skill-set for Utah POST Handler Control Dog Certification. 1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

Shots Fired Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario Recapture an Escaping Prisoner Scenario Apprehend a Hostile Suspect Scenario Tactical Windscenting Scenario Apprehend a Suspect Out-of-Sight Scenario

A Handler or Agency may opt for the following skills-set and receive certification. This skill-set does not include the Tactical Windscenting, Out-of Sight, Tracking or Evidence Search scenarios. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Shots Fired Scenario Building Search Scenario Open Area Search Scenario Apprehend a Suspect In-Sight Scenario

The Tracking Scenario and Criminal Evidence Scenario may be added to options 2-4 for certification in scentwork. General Information

1.

The skills favorable for successful deployment of a Handler Control Dog are recognized within three categories. 1.

Scentwork. 1.

2.

Some Agencies or Handlers opt not to train and/or deploy a Handler Control Dog in Tracking or Evidence Search. Accordingly and for certification purposes, Scentwork skills shall be considered optional.

Obedience-Agility. 1.

Obedience is a critical skill which must be manifested in a reliable manner. During training, only procedures which are approved and humane may be utilized. During deployment,

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 48

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

conditions beyond the Handler’s control may arise which require extreme control measures. An example is recalling an exhausted Dog to the Handler after it has engaged a combative perpetrator. 2.

3.

Agility is an important skill which is necessary to confidently attempt to negotiate strenuous obstacles, such as privacy fences.

Apprehension. 1.

The Dog can be successfully trained to an appropriate skill level by a qualified Handler Control Dog Handler or Instructor. The competency can then be evaluated and declared by a qualified Judge.

2.

The scenarios listed herein are similar to the International Advanced Patrol Dog or "PSP-1" guidelines, revised March 25, 1998, with the exception of the absence of a Detain. The Apprehension exercises are performed in a particular manner to establish realism to the Dog. The simulated suspects shall have sufficient protective clothing, which approximates as closely as possible the conditions a Handler Control Dog will experience in actual deployments. The "PSP-1" Title may not be awarded to a Handler Control Dog.

2.

The Handler Control Dog evaluation shall be concluded within a reasonable length of time after it is begun. Most evaluations may be concluded within 24 hours, however, climate conditions, injuries, etc. may cause delays. This is to establish that the Dog's mental and physical endurance are sufficient to withstand the rigors of active service.

3.

The Handler/Department of a POST Certified Detector Dog (PSP-2, etc.) with current certification status may not substitute that Detector Dog's grade for the Handler Control Dog Scentwork phase grade.

4.

A certification is an official police function. Accordingly, official uniforms shall be worn by any Handler presenting a Dog for an examination. Handlers are expected to display appropriate tactical skills during the course of the examination. All collars, harness, etc. worn by the dog shall be approved by the Judge prior to an examination.

5.

In the event a Handler or Dog does not exhibit suitable skill during an examination, no certification shall be issued at that time. A retake of a scenario may be permitted, at the Judge’s discretion. The entire examination may be re-taken if desired, after a period of time to be established by the respective Judge or Agency.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 49

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

6.

The Judge shall issue a weapon (pistol, knife, etc.) to the perpetrator in at least one of the apprehension exercises. The weapon shall be carried such that it can be discovered only by a careful frisk.

7.

No portion of these performance objectives should be construed to suggest a restriction against participating in other types of Dog Trials, so long as the event carries significant benefit to the Dog’s official function. Handlers should exercise caution when determining whether or not to participate in such Trials. Handlers should seek competent input from administrators or other experienced Handlers or Trainers as to the degree of benefit versus the risk.

8.

In the interest of equity for all certificants, the following should be ensured during an examination: 1.

All scenarios are deployed within a reasonable time frame;

2.

All simulated suspects are strangers to the Dog; and

3.

All locations utilized in the scenarios are foreign to the Dog.

9.

Each Handler Control Dog examination shall begin with the Shots Fired Scenario to establish the presence of certain critical skills. Then the Judge may determine the order of the remaining scenarios. A Dog which does not defend its Handler sufficiently or exhibits gunshyness or lacks suitable skill in Obedience shall not continue past that point in the examination.

10.

Voice commands or hand signals are permitted. Repeating a command or a signal is permitted only if it is evident the Dog did not hear or see it or if it is integral to the exercise. The Judge shall determine the appropriateness of the action. Commands or signals other than those declared as official shall be considered Handler Help. Excessively loud commands, objects, and food used as motivations are not professional and are not allowed. The Dog should respond to commands in a professional manner.

11.

The Handler shall act in a professional manner at all times during the examination. Questions and clarifications may be directed to the Judge at any appropriate time.

12.

The Judge shall issue a weapon (pistol, knife, etc.) to the simulated suspect in at least one of the apprehension scenarios. The weapon shall be carried such that it can be discovered only by a careful frisk. The Handler is expected to find all weapons thus assigned and failure to do so shall be grounds for withholding the certification from the Handler.

13.

The Handler and Dog form an operational team. Therefore, a Dog is to be examined with the respective Handler it is to be deployed with.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 50

Utah POST K-9 Program 14.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

The Handler Control Dog must achieve an overall skill rating of at least “Suitable” in the examination to be declared serviceable. Additionally, the Dog must also achieve a skill level rating of “Suitable” in each of the following critical behaviors: 1.

Detaining a submissive person;

2.

Subduing a furtive, hostile or fleeing person;

3.

Releasing a person on command;

4.

Indicating the presence of a person and evidence;

5.

Disengaging upon command;

6.

Over-ride Command;

7.

Tactical Release; and

8.

Emergency Release.

The Handler Control Dog must achieve a skill rating of “Suitable” in the following skills, which are evaluated on a Pass-Fail basis:

15.

9.

Sociability;

10.

Gunfire; and

11.

Pain Tolerance.

Definitions of Behavior. 1.

Tracking: Tracking may consist of any of three behaviors, or even a combination of any of them. 1.

Precision Tracking is observed when the Dog follows the path of a person by focusing on footsteps; the Dog is functioning primarily in Tracking Drive; the ideal speed is a comfortable walking speed of the Handler. This Dog is observed on-leash but the behavior may be shown offleash as well. The purpose of tracking at a comfortable walking speed is that the Dog does not out-pace the Backup Officers. The advantage following the exact path of a suspect or disadvantage is that a rookie Dog or “not Street Dog” may not pick up its head

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

of tracking is victim. The yet a veteran and windscent Ch. 8 Pg. 51

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

immediately upon getting into the scent cone of the target person.

2.

2.

Street Tracking is observed when the Dog follows the path of a person by focusing on footsteps or body odor, whichever is providing the dominant scent; the Dog is functioning in a combination of Tracking Drive and Air Scent Drive; the ideal speed is a comfortable walking/jogging speed of the Handler. Backup Officers who assist a StreetTracking Dog should be in decent physical condition, as this variety of tracking tends to require more stamina. It is important that the speed not be too fast, as the Handler and Backup Officers should not be breathing heavily upon locating a suspect, as this could affect their ability to return fire if engaged by an armed suspect.

3.

Trailing is observed when the Dog follows the path of a person by focusing primarily on the target’s body odor; the Dog is functioning primarily in Air Scent Drive; the ideal speed is a comfortable jogging speed of the Handler. It is important that the speed not be too fast, as the Handler and Backup Officers should not be breathing heavily upon locating a suspect, as this could affect their ability to return fire if engaged by an armed suspect.

Heel: The Dog shall accompany the Handler willingly and attentively, keeping its shoulder in line with the Handler’s torso. Forging or lagging, wide or crowding behavior is faulty. Only at a change of pace may the Handler issue an additional command or signal. The normal and fast paces shall be distinctly different. Police Dog heeling is not competition heeling. If the Dog is attentive to its environment while heeling, this is desirable. focus on the Handler is not optimal.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

A robotic

Ch. 8 Pg. 52

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

3.

Sit: If the Handler halts, the Dog shall, without command or signal, sit immediately in the Heel position. The Handler shall not move in order to favor the Dog’s position, but rather, the Dog shall position itself according to the Handler. This behavior is important so that the Handler does not have to worry what the Dog is doing if s/he stops to talk to another Officer or person. Assuming a sit position causes the Dog to feel controlled and less likely to move about on its own.

4.

Down: If the Handler commands or signals the Dog to Down, it shall comply immediately. If this occurs during Heeling, the Dog shall lie parallel to the Handler. If this occurs during an apprehension task i.e., Detaining, Pursuit, etc., the Dog shall lie facing the relevant person. The down posture is the most controlled of all the positions a Dog may be commanded to assume. It is also the most submissive of all postures.

5.

Recall: If the Handler Recalls the Dog, it shall respond immediately and run at top speed to the Handler. Either the “Front” or the “Heel/Finish” is prescribed for a Recall, depending on the verbal/silent command given by the Handler. The Recall is a critical behavior, as it is one of the major ways to control a Dog that has acquired a wrong target ID or has misinterpreted the Handler’s intention.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 53

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

6.

Jump/Climb: If the Handler commands or signals the Dog to jump/climb an obstacle, it should respond immediately. When the Dog is exiting an obstacle it has had to climb, it should also attempt to climb down, rather than just jump off. This is to diminish the risk of a shoulder injury. A Dog’s shoulders are not in any form of joint or socket, and are held to the rib cage only be sinew. Continued jumping has a cumulative effect which damages the integrity of the connective tissue and the shoulders may become irreparably damaged. The practice of having Dog’s jump off obstacles 6'-10' high, as in years past, should be avoided as much as possible. The photo here shows a platform that the Dog may use to diminish the risk of injury as it jumps down off the obstacle.

7.

Stand in Place: If the Handler commands or signals the Dog to stand in place (lifted over a fence, remain in car, vet inspection, etc.), it should respond immediately.

8.

Behavior in Public: If the Handler walks through a group of people, the Dog should remain at Heel - neutral and safe - to the people. Touching or sniffing is faulty. The Handler shall ensure sufficient space between the Dog and others. This neutral and safe demeanor shall be maintained, even if the Handler speaks or a person speaks to the Handler. The minimum acceptable standard for a Patrol Dog is to act neutral in a neutral environment, it is not mandatory that the Handler permits petting or socializing ... as that is according to Departmental or Handler Policy/Procedure/Practice. Any requirement beyond “neutral in a neutral environment” exceeds the minimum professional standard of acceptable behavior.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 54

Utah POST K-9 Program 9.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Surveillance: If the Handler assumes a Surveillance position with the Dog, the prescribed posture shall be a kneeling Handler beside a sitting Dog or a prone Handler beside a downed dog, whichever is appropriate. For examination purposes, the Handler may hold the Dog by the collar. The Dog shall be attentive to the terrain being surveilled and shall remain quiet and attentive, even if the Handler addresses a person.

10.

Pursuit: If the Handler commands or signals the Dog to Pursue a person, the Dog shall respond immediately by running at top speed.

11.

Tactical Windscenting: If the Handler initiates a suspect search utilizing Tactical Windscenting, s/he shall hold the Dog on a short leash (6"-18") and deploy slowly across the wind current. The Dog shall respond by sniffing the wind as they move forward. The Handler may quietly encourage the Dog as they advance.

12.

Suspect Search: If the Handler initiates a Suspect Search, s/he shall begin it from the Heel position and off-leash. The Dog shall search as commanded or signaled, purposefully, intensely, and systematically. The command or signal may be issued together with the name of the Dog. The Handler may give additional commands or signals as the Dog is directed to each new quadrant of the search area.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 55

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

13.

Criminal Evidence Search: If the Handler initiates a Criminal Evidence Search s/he shall begin it from the H e e l position and off-leash. The Dog shall search as commanded or signaled, purposefully, intensely, and systematically. The command or signal may be issued together with the name of the Dog. The Handler may give additional commands or signals as the Dog is directed to each new quadrant of the search area.

14.

Pinpointing ( a k a Finding): I f a H a n d l e r Control Dog is deployed on a search f o r a person or criminal evidence, it shall do so as described herein. If it perceives odor from a person or evidence, it shall immediately pinpoint the source of the odor. Pinpointing differs from Searching in that it is evaluated as independent behavior manifested by the Dog, whereas Searching is a Handler-controlled behavior.

15.

Tactical Windscenting Indication: If a Handler Control Dog perceives odor or sound from a person while being thus deployed, it shall immediately, quietly, and intensely face the direction of the scent-cone. Sitting is optimal but not mandatory. The Indication should occur without influence from the Handler. As a point of clarification, the Dog should stop and face into the wind, not attempt to drag the Handler into the search area. merely a turn into the wind and then a halt.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

It is

Ch. 8 Pg. 56

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

16.

Suspect Indication: If a Handler Control Dog locates an inaccesible suspect while searching, it shall respond by immediately and persistently barking to advise the Handler of the exact location. The barking should give the impression that the Dog is calling for backup (Handler) and not that the Dog is attempting to induce the suspect to move, flinch, or flush out of his/her location.

17.

Evidence Indication: If a Handler Control Dog locates evidence while searching, it shall respond by immediately assuming a posture of down, sit, or stand and cease further searching. The evidence shall not be contaminated by the dog in any way.

18.

Detaining a Passive Person: A Handler Control Dog is not trained to display this behavior.

19.

Richey Technique: A Handler may opt to strategically omit an official announcement prior to deploying a Handler Control Dog to deal with a suspect. This might occur if the Handler perceives that the announcement may, of itself, create a substantial risk to the Handler and/or others, or the announcement may create an opportunity for a high-threatlevel suspect to evade capture. In this case, no announcement is given before deployment and the dog assumes a Release/Guard posture at the moment the Handler issues lawful orders to the suspect. This technique is named after Jon

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 57

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Richey of the Salt Lake City Police Department, who perfected its training/deployment process. A proper Richey Technique is as follows. The Handler quietly keys the Dog on the suspect. Without an announcement, s/he deploys the Dog. The Dog runs at top speed toward the suspect. As the Dog approaches to about 30 feet distance, the Handler yells out a lawful order, such as “Police! Stay Still!” The Dog closes to within about 3-6 feet and goes into a Release/Guard posture. 20.

Over-ride Command or “ D i a l Technique”: A Handler Control Dog trained to Guard a p a s s i v e s u s p e c t holds and restricts that person without physical contact. Refer to Guarding for more clarification. A Dog lacks the mental faculties to recognize a slow yet furtive movement and normally does not then Engage, even though it may be appropriate to do so. A Handler, however, may recognize a slow movement as being furtive and may decide to have the Dog Engage the suspect. This may also be described as an “Override” command for a Guarding Handler Control Dog. A proper Dial Technique is as follows. The Dog is Guarding when the Handler issues the override command. The Dog Engages immediately upon hearing the command. This command overrides any other trained behavior and causes the Dog to Engage.

21.

Subduing a Fleeing Person: If a Handler Control Dog engages a fleeing person while searching or pursuing, it shall exhibit considerable pain compliance through biting to subdue. Considerable combat behavior should enhance the pain compliance. If the Dog is muzzled, as in training or certification, intense bumping and wrestling should be evident.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 58

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

22.

Subduing a H o s t i l e Person: If a Handler Control Dog engages a h o s t i l e p e r s o n w h i l e searching o r pursuing, it shall exhibit considerable pain compliance through biting to subdue. Considerable combat behavior should enhance the pain compliance. If the Dog is muzzled, as in training or certification, intense bumping and wrestling should be evident.

23.

Verbal Release: If a Handler commands a Handler Control Dog to Release, it shall respond by 1.

Immediately release primary control of the subject, whether Engaged or Detaining; if it is Engaged, it releases its physical grip of the subject and assumes a mental posture of “... my Handler is taking over primary control ...” and prepares to assume a “backup” position

2.

Assume a position, i.e., sit/stand/down/return 1.

Sit at a distance out of suspect striking range yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command, optimal distance is 3-6 feet.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 59

Utah POST K-9 Program

3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

2.

Stand at a distance out of suspect striking range yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command, optimal distance is 3-6 feet

3.

Down at a distance out of suspect striking range yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command, optimal distance is 3-6 feet

4.

Return to the Heel position;

Remain quiet; it is very important that the K-9 remain quiet, the Handler or another officer needs to issue lawful orders to the subject to enact the arrest, the K-9 that barks or is notably unruly is acting insubordinate, the K-9 should, in concept, act as a Backup officer and allow the Handler or other officer to issue lawful orders without interruption; and

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 60

Utah POST K-9 Program 4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Remain alert for furtive movement; the value of a K-9 at this point is both psychological and logistical; psychologically, a subject is less likely to exhibit a furtive movement with the K-9 in close proximity; logistically, if the subject does exhibit a furtive movement the focused and alert K-9 is able to react in an appropriate manner. A proper Verbal Release is as follows. On a lawful order to a compliant suspect, such as “Stay Still,” the Dog shall immediately let go, if Engaged. If a position command is given such as “Heel” the Dog shall immediately lie down. It should then be alert and quiet, ready to react to a furtive movement. Reasonable human behavior from the suspect shall be tolerated by the Dog when commanded to Release. It should not Engage, for example, if the suspect merely coughs or cries out. 1.

24.

If the Dog assumes a position near the suspect, it should be out of impact weapon striking range and personal body space, yet close enough to react efficiently to a furtive movement or an over-ride command.

Tactical Release: A Tactical Release is a maneuver which may b e appropriate when there i s considerabl e physical activity between the subject, the Handler, or even Backup Officers during a capture. It may be utilized anytime the Handler perceives that the Dog may misinterpret the actions of any of the above. It is a maneuver intended to diminish the possibility of unintended injury to the Subject, Handler, or Backup Officers. It is a form of Verbal Release, with the added element of physical control of the Dog. It is commonly referred to as a “Hands-on Verbal Release.” It is critical to know that a Tactical Release is different from a Lift-Off (aka Choke-off). A Tactical Release is a deployment technique, while a Lift-Off is a training technique. Also,

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 61

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

during a Tactical Release, the Handler issues a Verbal Release command; while during a Lift-Off, the Handler issues the Engage command. Finally, during a Tactical Release, the Dog is expected to Release its grip within 3 seconds; while during a Lift-Off, the Dog is trained to hold on for as long as its air supply will sustain it. A proper follows.

25.

Tactical

Release

is

as

1.

Handler gains Dog’s head;

control

of the

2.

Handler announces to Arrest Team “Tactical Release”;

3.

Handler gives Verbal Release to Dog;

4.

Dog responds to Handler within three seconds;

5.

Handler lifts Dog clear of Subject and Arrest Team;

6.

Handler announces to arrest Team “Dog Off”;

7.

Handler moves Dog away from Team;

8.

Handler/Dog assume backup position; and

9.

Dog remains alert and quiet, ready to Engage again.

Emergency Release: An Emergency Release is a maneuver which may be appropriate when the Handler perceives an exigent circumstance during a capture. For example, a subject may appear unconscious or catatonic, a Backup Officer inadvertently is bitten, or some other situation in which lifethreatening conditions exist AND the subject is obviously compliant or non-threatening. A proper Emergency Release is as follows: 1.

The Kerby Emergency Release - rigid hands at throat and at base of skull. This technique is advantageous for a larger stronger person. The Handler approaches the Dog with his/her hands rigid and

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 62

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

flat ... place one hand at the top of the throat and the other at the base of the skull ... press inward firmly with both hands to secure the Dog’s head ... squeeze tightly and hold on as the Dog opens its mouth ... gently maneuver the Dog’s mouth away from the bite-site ... firmly hold onto the Dog’s head to prevent an inadvertent secondary bite ... move the Dog away from the person in a safe manner ... be aware that the Dog may slip into Survival Drive during the procedure ... help the Dog to recover from the Kerby Emergency Release by using a calming voice. 2.

The Lentz Technique - conventional choke-hold. The Handler approaches the Dog in a manner to effectively get the Dog’s throat positioned in the crook of one arm ... place the other arm such that the Dog’s neck is now in the conventional choke-hold position ... squeeze tightly and hold on as the Dog opens its mouth ... gently maneuver the Dog’s mouth away from the bite-site ... release the squeeze pressure but firmly hold onto the Dog’s head to prevent an inadvertent secondary bite ... move the Dog away from the person in a safe manner ... be aware that the Dog may slip into Survival Drive during the procedure ... help the Dog to recover from the Lentz Emergency Release by using a calming voice.

3.

The Nope Technique - tightened chain collar at top of throat. This technique is advantageous for a smaller person with lesser arm strength. The Handler approaches the Dog with his/her hands ready to grasp the chain collar at each side of the Dog’s head ... Grasp the collar such that the fingers are next to the Dog’s neck ... slide the collar as far forward as possible so that it is high on the Dog’s neck but still on the windpipe ... squeeze the collar tightly such that the Dog’s air supply is completely shut off ... hold on tightly as the Dog opens its mouth ... gently maneuver the Dog’s mouth away from the bite-site ... firmly hold the Dog’s head to prevent an inadvertent secondary bite ... move the Dog away from the person in a safe manner ... be aware that the Dog may slip into Survival Drive during the procedure ... help the Dog to recover from the Nope Emergency Release by using a calming voice.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 63

Utah POST K-9 Program 26.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Disengage: If a Handler Control Dog is Pursuing or Engaging a person, the Handler may deem it appropriate to completely “shut down” the Dog from its task, due to exigent circumstances. The Disengage behavior is not a “Release,” but rather, a total task shutdown. Any reasonable behavior is acceptable for a Disengage, such as a “Down en route” or a “Recall to Handler.” Four exigent circumstances may prompt the Handler to Disengage the Dog: 1.

Wrong “Target ID” during a deployment;

2.

The Dog is ineffective in controlling or subduing a suspect, perhaps due to chemical influences on the suspect and further deployment is not strategically valuable;

3.

The suspect is non-compliant: 1.

4.

to lawful orders due to extreme fear or a state of panic to the degree of loss of sensibility, and 1.

not an overt threat to the Handler or another person, or

2.

further deployment is not strategically valuable; or

3.

further deployment will substantially increase the degree of injury to the suspect.

The Dog is in danger and the overall circumstances do not merit leaving the Dog on-task. 1.

The Dog is in danger from an overly-hostile subject.

2.

The Dog is in danger from a suspect wielding a deadly force instrument.

3.

The Dog is in danger from the environment, i.e., pursuing a suspect across a busy street.

A rule of thumb for initiating a Disengage during a physical encounter is, “When tissue damage supercedes pain compliance - Disengage!” A proper Disengage is as follows. The Dog is Pursuing or Engaged when the Handler issues the Disengage command. If Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 64

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Pursuing, the Dog shuts down from its Pursuit; if Engaging, the Dog shuts down immediately upon hearing the command. In either case, the Dog may assume a position away from the Handler or may be recalled to the Handler. This Disengage command overrides any other trained behavior and causes the Dog to shut down. An officer of agency may choose what action the Dog takes after the command; for example, lay down or return to the Heel position once shutting down. It is always an option to re-deploy the Dog if desired. 27.

Frisk: If a Handler conducts a frisk of a suspect subsequent to a Release command to the Dog, the suspect may be instructed to step back or the Dog may be commanded to the Heel position, whichever is more favorable. Regardless of where placed, the Dog shall remain quiet and attentive to the suspect, prepared to respond to a furtive movement. The Frisk behavior, for examination purposes, ends when the Handler returns to the Dog and begins the next task. If the Handler deems it appropriate to have a Backup Officer conduct the frisk, the dog will be evaluated according to the same criteria, except that the Handler may or may not be at the Heel position.

28.

Transport: If a Handler initiates a Transport of a suspect in custody, the Dog shall respond by remaining at the Heel position, attentive to the suspect. The Front Transport is optimal and performed at a distance of about 10 feet. The Handler shall issue appropriate commands to direct the arrestee’s movements. For examination purposes, the Transport is ended when the arrestee has gone about 15 feet once remanded. If the Handler deems it appropriate to have a Backup Officer conduct a side transport, the Handler shall take the same position behind the arrestee and the dog will be evaluated according to the same criteria.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 65

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

29.

Dismiss/Remand: If a Handler inadvertently encounters a person not a suspect, during a deployment, s/he may choose to Dismiss the person from the area without further investigation. If a Handler is assisted by a backup officer once a capture is effected, s/he may choose to Remand the arrestee to the backup officer. For examination purposes, both behaviors appear identical. Once a Dismiss or Remand is initiated, the Dog’s behavior is evaluated while the person/suspect moves a minimum of five paces, to determine if the Dog remains stable during this function.

30.

Pain Tolerance: Pain Tolerance or “Hardness” is a critical issue for the Handler Control Dog in modern society. It has been discovered by sad experience that some suspects vigorously resist the application of a Handler Control Dog to subdue them and even attempt to hurt the Dog. Therefore, it is mandatory that the Dog exhibit considerable pain tolerance in order to successfully Engage and Subdue suspects. For examination purposes, pain tolerance is evaluated by mentally intimidating and physically stinging the Dog. Any physical strikes with a simulated weapon should be carefully aimed for the less-sensitive portions of its body, such as the rib cage.

31.

Gunsureness: Gunsureness is a critical issue for the Handler Control Dog in modern society. The incidence of officer-involved shootings has increased dramatically over the years, requiring that a Handler Control Dog is more stable than ever. The optimal behavior is “Gunfire-sure,” however, a Dog that is “Gunfire-sensitive” yet controllable may be allowed. “Gunfire-shy” dogs should not function as Handler Control Dogs.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 66

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Handler Control Dog Certification Scenarios 1.

Shots Fired Scenario 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog Critical Skills in a single scenario to assure the certificant is sufficiently skillful to challenge the total evaluation. Of particular interest are the following behaviors.

1.

Sociability.

2.

Discipline/Control.

3.

Gunsureness.

4.

Handler Protection (Combat/Defense skill).

5.

Pain Tolerance.

6.

Disengage.

7.

Handler Skill.

The Handler and Dog shall be deployed in this scenario via radio communications. Once the first radio transmission is received, the scenario evaluation begins. They shall first be dispatched to report to an on-scene officer (Evaluator) for a deployment briefing. After being briefed, the Handler shall then command or signal the Dog to Heel as s/he advances approximately 120 feet to meet a group of three Handlers and Dogs who are part of the scenario. At approximately the midpoint, a series of obstacles shall be encountered which will require the Handler and Dog to execute at least one right turn and one left turn to negotiate. Upon reaching the other Handlers and Dogs, the Handler shall be advised to take a position at the front of the group. S/He shall Heel in serpentine fashion through the group of Handlers whose Dogs are lying at their sides. Upon arriving at the front of the group, the Handler shall be dispatched to advance quickly to another scenario position and standby. S/he shall leave the group and jog to the assigned position. While en route, the Handler and Dog shall have to negotiate a (simulated) fence which is about 39 inches high, and then continue jogging. At a point beyond the fence, the Handler shall receive a dispatch to go to an assigned location and standby for further communication. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 67

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

A short time after the Handler arrives at the location, two shots (blank gun) shall be fired from a designated location in the crime scene. The Handler shall not be advised whether these are suspect or police rounds. S/he shall find the nearest cover and take a safe position. Next, the Handler shall observe a walking line of at least three people. The Handler and Dog shall move out, walk toward the people and, when about 15 feet beyond, shall turn back toward them. S/he shall overtake the group and order them to halt. S/he shall also halt at a distance of about 10 feet and face the group. S/he shall then conduct a field interview with each person. One of these persons will assault the Handler while being interviewed. The Handler shall not know ahead of time which person will become hostile. The Handler shall take evasive action and the Dog must defend its Handler immediately and attempt to subdue. The Handler shall deal with the assault as tactically as possible, with special emphasis on not losing focus on the other persons in the group, giving lawful orders as appropriate. The attacker shall suddenly brandish an impact weapon and inflict at least two strikes on the Dog. The Dog shall continue attempting to subdue the attacker, in spite of the blows, until s/he begins to exhibit a distinct change of behavior. S/he shall clearly want to give up and show signs of extreme fear. S/he shall make defensive gestures toward the Dog, as if trying to protect him/herself from further injury. At this point the Handler shall Disengage the Dog. When the Dog Disengages, the person shall continue to act fearful. The actions shall be vigorous and loud, but clearly fearful. S/he will not stand still, but neither will s/he be threatening. Once the Dog Disengages, the Handler shall take control of the group once more and make such radio transmissions as are appropriate. At this point the Dog shall remain alert and quiet while the Handler completes the frisk and places the individual in custody. The Handler shall remand the arrestee to the responding backup officer (Evaluator) and then complete the interview of the other persons. The scenario shall not be concluded until all persons have been interviewed, in the event the first or second person commits the assault.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 68

Utah POST K-9 Program 8.

2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Procedures. 1.

The Dog should be muzzled and shall be off-leash during this scenario, up to the point where three persons are field interviewed. The Dog shall be unmuzzled for this phase.

2.

The group of Handlers and their muzzled Dogs shall be positioned about 30 feet apart. These Dogs shall be maintained on-leash.

3.

After the Handler and Dog have exited the group, they are excused from the immediate area.

4.

The hurdle obstacle shall be a chain-link or similar-type fence. It shall be at least 39 inches high and see-through. The Dog shall demonstrate a Sit-, Stand-, or Down-in-Place on command after it jumps the hurdle. The Handler shall then negotiate the same obstacle before resuming movement in the scenario.

5.

The firearm used to evaluate gunsureness should be about as loud as a 9mm handgun. The distance from gun to Dog should be at least 60 feet.

6.

The group to be interviewed shall be moving in a line facing and parallel to the Handler and Dog. They shall be about six feet to the side of the approaching Handler and Dog. The members of the group should be about 10 feet behind each other. They shall be moving at a walking speed.

7.

The strikes to the Dog shall be of medium intensity on the less sensitive parts of the body.

Tracking Scenario. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for Tracking suspects or victims, including finding evidence dropped along the way.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to track a person’s travel route. An investigative scene, including an object of evidence (car, briefcase, etc.) marks the starting point of the track. The person shall depart from the object and travel about 600 feet to a hiding spot. Along the way s/he shall make two realistic turns and drop one item of realistic evidence. The Handler shall deploy

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 69

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

the Dog to cast about for the track, then follow it. The Dog shall Indicate the evidence, as well as the passive hidden person. 2.

3.

Procedures. 1.

The Judge shall determine the place where the initial evidence object is to be placed.

2.

A “scentpad” is not permitted. visible.

3.

The tracklayer shall walk in a natural manner and wear ordinary shoes. S/he is forbidden from making abnormal footfalls.

4.

The track shall not be a defined pattern and shall be laid reasonable to the lay of the land. Unnaturally sharp or acute-angle turns are not realistic and not appropriate for the examination. Obtuse-angle turns are permitted.

5.

The evidence items shall not be larger than 10" and shall be similar color as the terrain.

6.

The evidence shall be thoroughly permeated with human odor.

7.

The evidence may be placed anywhere along the track, except in the first or last 60 feet.

8.

The track must have at least one change of terrain.

9.

The Dog may track on-leash or off-leash and at any length, long or short, with vigilant scrutiny to watch for inappropriate Handler help.

10.

The track concludes at the hiding place where the passive person is hiding. S/he may be in any position and will be totally passive and compliant when encountered.

11.

The Dog shall demonstrate an Indication on the person as defined previously.

12.

The Dog may exhibit either “precision” tracking or “street” tracking to accomplish this task. Neither is evaluated superior to the other. The overall evaluation shall be according to the skill of the Dog to follow/locate the person and the evidence.

Footprints should not be

Criminal Evidence Search.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 70

Utah POST K-9 Program

4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for searching, locating, and indicating criminal evidence or lost property.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to locate and indicate criminal evidence. The search area shall be about 800m² size. The Judge shall place four contaminated realistic objects in the search area and the Dog shall be given a reasonable amount of time (10 minutes) to deploy.

2.

Procedures. 1.

The search area shall be realistic and typical of deployment scenarios.

2.

The Dog shall deploy unmuzzled.

3.

The Handler and Dog shall be out of sight when the objects are placed. They shall be composed of four different materials and not be over 10cm² in size. The objects shall be similar color as the terrain and shall not be placed in plain sight.

4.

The objects shall be thoroughly permeated with human odor.

5.

The Handler shall inform the Judge of the Indication behavior prior to deploying the Dog. The Dog shall exhibit the same Indication behavior at all objects.

Building Search. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for searching inside buildings for suspects. This scenario represents a situation in which the Handler and perhaps other officers have issued multiple lawful orders to surrender, yet the suspect has failed to comply. For purposes of the examination, the “Graham v. Connor” elements are sufficiently satisfied to deploy the Dog.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 71

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

At the discretion of the Judge, a situation may develop during this scenario in which the Handler should command the Dog to over-ride its Guard, or Transport and Engage the subject. This encounter shall result in a struggle in which both the Dog and the subject are on the ground. If a physical confrontation occurs, the subject shall be in a prone position when the Handler verbally commands the Dog to Release.

5.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to locate and indicate a suspect hiding in a building.

2.

The Handler shall issue at least two official announcements prior to deploying the Dog. After the second announcement, the Handler may deploy at will.

3.

When the Dog has located the suspect, it shall immediately and intensely Indicate. Upon hearing the Dog’s Indication, the Handler may tactically advance to the location. When the Handler arrives at the hiding spot, s/he may take control of the situation as circumstances dictate.

4.

The Handler shall frisk, arrest, and transport the person to the Judge outside the building.

5.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled and off-leash.

2.

The building shall be at least 1000m2. Numerous hiding spots shall be available in the building. This is intended to ensure that the Dog’s skill level may be accurately evaluated.

3.

The suspect shall be placed in a high location such that direct contact by the Dog is not possible. The suspect may be in a standing, sitting, or prone position, according to the environment available in the building.

Open Area Suspect Search. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for conducting a systematic search for suspects in large, open search areas. This is a particularly challenging situation for the Handler of a Handler Control Dog. The Handler must have sufficient control over the Dog to conduct an efficient search, yet s/he

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 72

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

must also diminish the risk of an inadvertent bite on a nonsuspect who might also be in the search area. Examples are sleeping or intoxicated persons, persons with earphones, etc. Additionally, the Handler must not decrease his/her personal safety tactics in order to allow the Dog to perform at a distance or out of sight. The scenario represents a situation in which the Handler and perhaps other officers have issued multiple lawful orders to surrender, yet the suspect has failed to comply. For purposes of the examination, the “Graham v. Connor” elements are sufficiently satisfied to deploy the Dog. Due to the fact that a Handler Control Dog may bite a person during a search - absent the intervention of the Handler - the Handler must be notably vigilant in this scenario to receive a Suitable rating. 1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to search for and locate suspects in large search areas.

2.

Prior to deployment, the Judge shall place a person in an area about 100m X 200m size. The person shall be lying in a prone position. For purposes of the examination, this person represents a sleeping or unconscious person who does not hear the K-9 Announcements.

3.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog to find the suspect, yet control it sufficiently that it does not bite any non-suspect who may happen to be in the search area. When the Dog has located the suspect, the Handler shall tactically advance to the location as quickly as reasonably possible and take control of the situation as is tactically appropriate for the circumstances.

4.

The Handler shall determine the identity of the person and discover s/he is not the suspect in question. The Handler shall deal with this situation as dictated by his/her departmental policy or per reasonable professional standards.

5.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled and off-leash.

2.

The search area shall have considerable undergrowth or other conditions which dramatically reduce visual abilities.

3.

The person placed in this scenario represents an innocent citizen inadvertently in the search area, such as a sleeping or intoxicated person. S/he shall wear inconspicuous clothing and lie in a natural manner. The person shall not

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 73

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

be visible to the Handler until the last moment.

6.

4.

The Judge shall dictate the starting point for the deployment, after considering wind, etc., in order to provide the Dog with optimal chances for success.

5.

The Handler shall conduct a systematic search through this area.

6.

If the Dog overruns or the boundary of the search area slightly or does not go completely to the boundary during the process of searching, this is not faulty.

7.

The Handler is not required to follow an exact center-line, but rather, may follow the lay of the land during his/her tactical advance.

8.

This scenario is to be evaluated with additional scrutiny, since it is intended to evaluate the actions of the Handler in the unfortunate event that a non-suspect encounters a Handler Control Dog before the Handler is able to intervene.

9.

The Judge shall halt the scenario once the Handler has dealt reasonably with the non-suspect.

Pursue and Apprehend a Surrendering Suspect In Sight. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for pursuing a fleeing suspect who decides to surrender prior to the Dog’s arrival. This scenario presents several options for the Handler. Since the subject is in plain view, the Handler may choose to allow the dog to perform a Richey Maneuver, Down Enroute, or Recall to the Handler. The Gradesheet contains each option and may be evaluated according to the behavior chosen.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to pursue and capture a suspect who is fleeing in sight.

2.

The Handler and Dog shall assume a Surveillance position at a point designated by the Judge.

3.

A suspect shall appear at a distance of about 300 feet. The Handler shall then issue two official announcements. After the first announcement, the suspect shall flee.

4.

After the second announcement, the Handler shall deploy the Dog. The Dog shall pursue at top speed. When the Dog is en route, the suspect shall stop and face the Dog. The surrendering behavior

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 74

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

shall be evident and s/he shall then remain motionless. The Handler now has the option of permitting the Dog to perform whichever of the following s/he deems the best course of action: 1. 2. 3.

Down-en-route; Richey Technique Recall.

Down-en-route Option: The Dog shall do so immediately upon receiving the command. It shall then await the Handler’s approach and they shall advance together for the remainder of the distance. Upon arrival at the suspect’s location, the Handler shall command the Dog to assume a backup position. To clarify, the intent of this behavior is that the Dog lay down immediately upon receiving the command and awaits the Handler to deploy further. Richey Technique Option: The Dog shall do so immediately upon receiving the command. It shall then await the Handler’s approach while remaining at a Guard position. Upon arrival at the suspect’s location, the Handler may command the Dog to assume a backup position, either at a Heel position or close to the Suspect. To clarify, the intent of this behavior is that the Dog is eventually down at a proper Guarding distance from the suspect.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 75

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Recall Option: The Dog shall do so immediately upon receiving the command. It shall go to the Heel position immediately or upon subsequent command. It shall then advance with the Handler at the Heel position for the remainder of the distance. Upon arrival at the suspect’s location, the Handler shall command the Dog to assume a backup position. To clarify, the intent of this behavior is that the Dog returns immediately upon receiving the command and then act as a partner for the remainder of the scenario.

7.

6.

It shall now remain quiet and alert, ready to respond to a furtive movement. The Handler shall then frisk, arrest, and transport the suspect back to the Judge for Remanding.

7.

Procedure. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled and off-leash.

2.

The suspect shall remain passive and motionless once the surrendering behavior is exhibited. If the Dog circles or positions itself behind the suspect, s/he may turn in order to maintain a frontal view of the Dog at all times. The Dog shall not interpret this movement as furtive and shall not Engage if this happens.

Recapture an Escaping Prisoner. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for recapturing escaping suspects.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to subdue an escaping arrestee.

2.

During a Front Transport, an arrestee attempts to escape. At the direction of the Judge, s/he shall begin running straight ahead.

3.

The Handler shall issue at least two official announcements prior to deploying the Dog. The Dog shall remain at Heel, even during the announcements. After the second announcement, the Handler may deploy at will.

4.

The Handler shall now be required to respond to a perceived emergency situation. At some point the Judge shall announce that some form of emergency exists and the Handler should take

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 76

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

immediate control of the situation. The Handler shall perform an Emergency Release and remove the Dog from the immediate area. The scenario ends at that point. 5.

8.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled and off-leash.

2.

The escapee shall flee suddenly and without any other stimulation than the flight.

3.

The Dog shall Pursue at top speed, engage, and attempt to subdue the escapee. The Handler shall follow and take control of the situation as the environment dictates.

4.

If the Dog knocks the escapee down, s/he shall protect him/herself. Otherwise, the escapee shall stop running when engaged and then resist the Dog by hitting and grabbing, while facing the Dog at all times.

5.

The Handler is permitted to choose the type and form of Emergency Release s/he shall perform, as long as it comports with the intent of the maneuver.

Pursue and Apprehend a Hostile Suspect In-Sight. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for pursuing and engaging suspects who attempt to thwart the Dog using intimidation.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to subdue a hostile suspect, even if s/he attempts to thwart the Dog’s efforts.

2.

The Handler and Dog shall assume a Surveillance position as directed by the Judge. A known suspect shall appear at a distance of about 150 feet. The Handler shall then issue two official announcements to surrender. After the first announcement the suspect shall turn and flee.

3.

After the second announcement, the Handler shall deploy the Dog. The Dog shall pursue at top speed. When the Dog is about 100 feet distance, the suspect shall attempt to scare the Dog away by charging it, yelling, and making threatening gestures.

4.

The Dog shall disregard the suspect’s behavior and engage with considerable intensity. It shall attempt to subdue the suspect, regardless of his/her actions. Backup officers shall then assist in the capture and the Handler shall perform a Tactical Release to prevent further possible injury.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 77

Utah POST K-9 Program

9.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

5.

The suspect shall be frisked, arrested, and transported to the Judge for Remanding.

6.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy unmuzzled and off-leash.

2.

The suspect shall wear suitable protective clothing such as a sleeve or bitesuit.

3.

When the suspect charges the Dog, s/he shall do so in a manner which is intended to thwart the Dog’s desire to engage. The suspect shall continue to make combative movements and actions, even after the Dog has Engaged. The suspect shall stop resisting within 5-10 seconds, then exhibit an obvious desire to surrender. By now, the Handler should be nearby and shall take control of the situation as circumstances dictate.

Tactical Windscenting. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the Handler Control Dog and Handler deployment skills for windscenting and indicating hidden suspects or even victims. This is a particularly challenging situation for the Handler of a Handler Control Dog. The Handler must have sufficient control over the Dog to conduct an efficient search, yet s/he must also diminish the risk of an inadvertent bite on a non-suspect or even a victim who might also be in the search area. Additionally, the Handler must not decrease his/her personal safety tactics in order to allow the Dog to perform at a distance or out of sight. The scenario represents a situation in which the Handler and perhaps other officers have issued multiple lawful orders to surrender, yet the suspect has failed to comply. For purposes of the examination, the “Graham v. Connor” elements are sufficiently satisfied to deploy the Dog. Due to the fact that a Handler Control Dog may bite a person during a search - absent the intervention of the Handler - the Handler must be notably vigilant in this scenario to receive a Suitable rating. A Backup Officer or even a Search Team may accompany the Handler in this scenario.

1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to tactically windscent, indicate, and locate a suspect hidden in a search area. The Handler shall begin by deploying the Dog on a short leash across the wind current until it Indicates. The Handler shall then find cover and issue two loud K-9 announcements. There will be no response from the suspect.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 78

Utah POST K-9 Program

10.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

2.

The Handler shall then opt to employ the Dog to pinpoint the location of the suspect. If a Backup Officer or a Search Team is used, the Handler shall employ them in a reasonable manner. The Handler may then deploy the Dog on-leash to pinpoint the suspect’s position. The tactics employed at this point shall be scrutinized by the Judge. The Handler will be evaluated on his actions from this point on, to determine if they are reasonable for the circumstances the Handler is experiencing. When/if the Dog pinpoints the suspect’s location, the Handler will be evaluated on his/her efforts in the capture process.

3.

When/if a capture is made, the Handler or Backup Officer or Search Team shall frisk, arrest, and transport the suspect to the Judge.

4.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled and on a short leash for the windscenting phase.

2.

The suspect shall be standing upright in a natural hidingplace which is not visible to the Handler from the windscenting phase.

3.

The scenario shall be set up such that the wind favors the windscenting Dog.

4.

Should the wind cease, the suspect shall make minimal noises which shall not be perceivable to the Handler.

5.

The Judge shall be responsible for insuring the integrity of this scenario.

Pursuit and Apprehension Out of Sight. 0.

This Scenario has been designed to evaluate the K-9 and Handler deployment skills for searching for suspects who appear at great distances and then hides. This is a particularly challenging situation for the Handler of a Handler Control Dog. The Handler must have sufficient control over the Dog to conduct an efficient search, yet s/he must also diminish the risk of an inadvertent bite on a non-suspect or even a victim who might also be in the search area. Additionally, the Handler must not decrease his/her personal safety tactics in order to allow the Dog to perform at a distance or out of sight. The scenario represents a situation in which the Handler and perhaps other officers have issued multiple lawful orders to surrender, yet the suspect has failed to comply. For purposes of the examination, the “Graham v. Connor” elements are sufficiently satisfied to deploy the Dog.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 79

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Due to the fact that a Handler Control Dog may bite a person during a search - absent the intervention of the Handler - the Handler must be notably vigilant in this scenario to receive a Suitable rating. A Backup Officer or even a Search Team may accompany the Handler in this scenario. At the option of the Judge, this scenario may be fashioned into a “Yard-to-Yard” type search. 1.

The Handler shall deploy the Dog in a scenario which has been prepared to examine the Dog’s ability to Pursue a fleeing suspect and locate him/her, even if hidden.

2.

The Handler and Dog shall assume a Surveillance position as directed by the Judge.

3.

At a distance of about 300 feet, a known suspect shall appear. The Handler shall then issue two official announcements to the suspect.

4.

After the first announcement, the suspect shall flee out of sight and hide in a location about 100 feet beyond the view of the Handler.

5.

When the suspect is out of sight, the Handler shall deploy the Dog on-leash to Pursue.

6.

The Handler, Backup Officer, or Search Team shall halt at the point where the suspect disappeared. The Handler shall now advise the Backup Officer or Search Team what his/her strategy will be from this point on. The strategy shall be reasonable for the circumstances the Handler perceives. The Handler shall then deploy the Dog to find the suspect. Whether the Handler deploys on-leash or off-leash is at the handler’s discretion.

7.

When the Dog locates the suspect, the Handler shall take whatever steps are necessary to prevent an unjustified physical encounter between the suspect and Dog. The Handler, Backup Officer, or Search Team shall also tactically advance to the location.

8.

When the Handler arrives at the location, s/he may take control of the situation as circumstances dictate. The suspect shall be frisked, arrested, and transported to the Judge for Remanding.

9.

Procedures. 1.

The Dog shall deploy muzzled and off-leash.

2.

The suspect shall run quickly to the hiding spot, after the announcement is issued. For purposes of the examination, the suspect shall remain upright and passive during the encounter.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 80

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 81

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 82

Utah POST K-9 Program Handler Control Dog Certification

Patrol Dog Training Manual List Type

HCD-3

Date

20 Feb 2017

This document is an administrative tool to collect data for POST Staff to update the POST files on Officer and Dog. All blanks must be filled in before submitting to POST. Any Scenarios not performed must be marked as such. Dogs judged via Pass-Fail protocol need only have a “P” recorded in each blank to reflect a 4.00 gpa or better. Each Scenario MUST be passed on its own merits - no False Indications are allowed. Handler

Jake Doe

Dog

Jaeger

Department

Any Police Department

Work Phone

XXX-XXX-XXXX

Address

123 Any Street, Any Town, ST XXXXX

Email

[email protected]

Cell Phone

XXX-XXX-XXXX

Overall Exam Performance Grade 2.19 (B) Chief Judge Wendell Nope Shots Fired Scenario Grade 2.60 (C) Judge Mike Johnson Tracking Scenario Grade 2.20 (B) Judge Mike Chatelain Evidence Search Scenario Grade 3.34 (C) Judge Ken Eatchel Building Search Scenario Grade 2.34 (B) Judge Tom Smith Systematic Search Scenario Grade 2.67 (C) Judge Brett Lawrenson In-Sight Capture Scenario Grade 2.17 (B) Judge Tim Magnuson Courage Test Grade 2.43 (B) Judge Bobby Johnson Recapture Scenario Grade 2.20 (B) Judge Jason Thomas Tactical Windscenting Grade 2.50 (C) Judge Ryan Bauer Pursuit Out-of-Sight Scenario Grade 2.58 (C) Judge Erika Smith Handler Skill Grade 2.34 (B) Shots Fired Scenario - Yard-Yard Search Pass Fail Sociability Grade Pass Fail Gunfire Grade Interview Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Defense Grade Pass Fail Pain Tolerance Grade Disengage Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Guard/Frisk/Trans Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Handler Defense spontaneous and powerful, Disengaged on 2nd command then creeped and whined Scentwork Scenarios - Tracking & Evidence Search Track Start Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Turns Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Legs Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Evidence Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Indicate Target Grade Evidence Search Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Evidence Indicate Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Building Search Scenario - High & Inaccessible Announcements Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Search Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Indicate Grade Release Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Frisk Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Totally focused searching using eyes/nose/ears, immediate barking upon locating the Subject, flinching and multiple barks during the frisk

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 83

Utah POST K-9 Program Handler Control Dog Certification Handler Jake Doe Searching Capture Indicating Release Frisk Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcement Pursuit Capture Frisk Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Transport Recapture Pain Compliance Release Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcement Pursuit Engage Pain Compliance Pain Tolerance Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Windscent Indicate Search Capture Indicate Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcements Search Capture Indicate Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

Patrol Dog Training Manual List Type

HCD-3

Date 20 Feb 2017 Dog Jaeger

Open Area Systematic Search Scenario - Clear-As-You-Go Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Immediate/continuous barking, creeping/whining on frisk Open Area Capture Scenario - In-Sight & Surrendering Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Downed--Recalled--Richey Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U All-out effort on Pursuit Recapture Scenario - Fleeing Escapee Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Lunging/powerful impact, energetic subdue effort, full/stable grip Courage Test Scenario - Combative Subject Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Pass Fail Grade Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Top speed Pursuit, creeping on Frisk, forging on Transport Tactical Windscent Scenario - Strategic Deployment Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Sat/sniffed 1st Indication, immediate barking 2nd, creep/forge on F/T Runaway Out of Sight Scenario - Fleeing & Hiding Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Flinching/whining on Announcements, creeping/forging on Frisk/Trans

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 84

Utah POST K-9 Program Handler Control Dog Certification

Patrol Dog Training Manual List Type

Date

This document is an administrative tool to collect data for POST Staff to update the POST files on Officer and Dog. All blanks must be filled in before submitting to POST. Any Scenarios not performed must be marked as such. Dogs judged via Pass-Fail protocol need only have a “P” recorded in each blank to reflect a 4.00 gpa or better. Each Scenario MUST be passed on its own merits - no False Indications are allowed. Handler

Dog

Department

Work Phone

Address Email

Cell Phone

Overall Exam Performance Grade Chief Judge Shots Fired Scenario Grade Judge Tracking Scenario Grade Judge Evidence Search Scenario Grade Judge Building Search Scenario Grade Judge Systematic Search Scenario Grade Judge In-Sight Capture Scenario Grade Judge Courage Test Grade Judge Recapture Scenario Grade Judge Tactical Windscenting Grade Judge Pursuit Out-of-Sight Scenario Grade Judge Handler Skill Grade Shots Fired Scenario - Yard-Yard Search Sociability Grade Pass Fail Gunfire Grade Pass Fail Interview Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Defense Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Pain Tolerance Grade Pass Fail Disengage Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Guard/Frisk/Trans Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Scentwork Scenarios - Tracking & Evidence Search Track Start Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Turns Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Legs Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Track Evidence Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Indicate Target Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Evidence Search Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Evidence Indicate Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments Building Search Scenario - High & Inaccessible Announcements Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Search Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Indicate Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Capture Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Release Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Frisk Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Obedience Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Handler Skill Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Comments

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 85

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Handler Control Dog Certification Handler Searching Capture Release Frisk Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcement Pursuit Capture Frisk Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

List Type

Date Dog

Open Area Systematic Search Scenario - Clear-As-You-Go Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Grade 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Open Area Grade Grade Downed -Grade Grade Grade Grade

Capture Scenario - In-Sight & Surrendering 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Recalled -- Richey 1/A 2/B 3/C 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U

Transport Recapture Pain Compliance Release Obedience Handler Skill Comments

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

Recapture Scenario - Fleeing Escapee 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U

Announcement Pursuit Engage Pain Compliance Pain Tolerance Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

Courage Test Scenario - Combative Subject 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U Pass Fail 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U

Windscent Indicate Search Capture Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments Announcements Search Capture Release Frisk/Transport Obedience Handler Skill Comments

Tactical Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

Windscent 1/A 2/B 1/A 2/B 1/A 2/B 1/A 2/B 1/A 2/B 1/A 2/B 1/A 2/B 1/A 2/B

Runaway Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade

Out of Sight Scenario - Fleeing & Hiding 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 1/A 2/B 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U

4/D

5/I

6/U

Scenario - Strategic Deployment 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U 3/C 4/D 5/I 6/U

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 86

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Handler Performance Objectives 11.0

Patrol Dog Handler.

11.01

General Information. The skills favorable for successful deployment of a Patrol Dog Handler are recognized within six categories. 1.

Technical Information.

2.

Legal Information.

3.

Basic Patrol Dog Training.

4.

In-Service Patrol Dog Training.

5.

Evaluation/Documentation.

6.

Deployment Concepts.

The Handler can be successfully trained to an appropriate skill level by a qualified Patrol Dog Instructor. The competency can then be evaluated and declared competent by a qualified Judge. The performance objectives listed herein provide handling skills necessary for training and deploying a K-9 according to the International Police Patrol Dog (PSP-1)guidelines. They are also suitable for the optional Patrol Dog guidelines of DH-1, DPO-1, DH-2, DPO-2, and DH. Other behaviors may be considered also. The responsibility of providing other performance behaviors more detailed than those listed within the Patrol Dog Performance Objectives lies with the individual student substituting the exercises. 11.1

Technical Information.

11.1.1

Patrol Dog Psychology.

11.1.1.1

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of K-9 psychology.

11.1.1.2

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of emergency canine First Aid.

11.1.1.3

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of daily care and maintenance of a Patrol Dog.

11.1.1.4

The student shall identify, and exhibit a working understanding of the Karlshorster experiments published in 1928.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 87

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

11.1.1.5

The student shall identify and exhibit a working understanding of the concept of "Trackability."

11.1.1.6

The student shall identify and exhibit a working understanding of the behavioral categories related to Tracking.

11.1.1.7

The student shall identify and exhibit a working understanding of the PSP Patrol Dog Selection Test.

11.2.2

Legal Information.

11.2.2.1

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of Federal sanctions relating to the deployment of a Patrol Dog including Title 42 Section 1983 of the United States Code.

11.2.2.2

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of State/County/Municipal sanctions relating to the deployment of a Patrol Dog including:

11.2.2.3

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of State/County/Municipal statutes relative to criminal behavior against a Patrol Dog, including:

11.2.2.4

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge and ability to testify in courtroom proceedings relative to the deployment of a Patrol Dog.

11.2.2.5

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge regarding current case law relating to the deployment of a Patrol Dog.

11.2.2.6

The student shall identify the unique influence a Patrol Dog may have in a "Consent Search" situation; the student shall also exhibit appropriate measures to take to prevent any possible influence by the Patrol Dog.

11.2.2.7

The student shall identify beneficial "Voir Dire" questions to establish competency and expertise.

11.2.2.8

The student shall identify the placement of a Patrol Dog in the various Guidelines, Matrices, Continuum’s, etc. which are utilized by law enforcement agencies.

11.2.2.9

The Student shall identify the unique elements associated with a Patrol Dog when its deployment results in a use of force.

11.2.2.10 The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as they relate to the deployment of Patrol Dogs. 11.2.2.11 The student shall exhibit the ability to accurately spell words frequently and specifically associated with the training and Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 88

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

deployment of Patrol Dogs. 11.2.2.12 The student shall prepare a research paper on current case law associated with Patrol Dogs. The research paper shall be evaluated as evidence that the student has a reasonable understanding of criminal and civil sanctions involving Patrol Dogs. 11.2.2.13 The student shall identify the “Chain associated with the Utah POST K-9 Program.

of

Certification”

11.3

Basic Training.

11.3.1

The student shall identify and exhibit working skill in Patrol Dog Scentwork training modules.

11.3.2

The student shall identify and exhibit working skill in Patrol Dog obedience/agility training modules.

11.3.3

The student shall identify, and exhibit working skill in Patrol Dog apprehension training modules.

11.4

In-Service Training.

11.4.1

The student shall identify the purpose of In-Service training as maintaining the Patrol Dog's skill level after certification.

11.4.2

The student shall exhibit a working ability to maintain the skill level of a Patrol Dog after certification.

11.4.3

The student shall exhibit a working understanding of the necessity of In-Service Training (a.k.a. Maintenance Training) in order to maintain a Patrol Dog’s competency to function.

11.4.4

The student shall identify the Utah POST K-9 Program recommended amount of K-9 In-Service Training to be four hours per week per discipline. That is to say, four hours for the Patrol Dog function and an additional four hours for any collateral function, such as Narcotics-, Explosive-, or Cadaver-Detection.

11.4.5

The student shall exhibit an understanding that the Utah POST recommend amount of K-9 In-Service Training is established through Task-Analysis and accepted practices across America.

11.4.6

The student shall exhibit an understanding that the Utah POST recommended amount of K-9 In-Service Training is intended to ensure compliance with currently-established federal court rulings, including the US Supreme Court, on maintaining skill/competency after a K-9 goes into service.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 89

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

11.5

Evaluation/Documentation.

11.5.1

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge relative to evaluating the performance of his/her own Dog in order to document its behavior factually.

11.5.2

The student shall identify the evaluation format as a number coefficient for letter grades issued.

11.5.3

The student shall identify the evaluation grading scale or curve as a number coefficient for letter grades averaged.

11.5.3

The student shall identify the need for documentation, from a legal standpoint, as evidence or authentication of a Patrol Dog's performance skills.

11.5.4

The student shall identify valuable statistical data regarding the performance of a Patrol Dog.

11.6

Deployment Concepts.

11.6.1

The student shall identify a Patrol Dog as a "Tool" of law enforcement, except in certain circumstances wherein it is a "Weapon."

11.6.2

The student shall identify "Tool" as an implement which causes bodily injury only when resistance/hostility is exhibited against its utilization.

11.6.3

The student shall identify "Weapon" as an implement which usually causes bodily injury when utilized.

11.6.4

The student shall identify and be able to exhibit acceptable proficiency in the application of a Patrol Dog as a weapon. This shall consist of at least the "Discretionary" application of the Dog to engage a motionless person.

11.6.5

The student shall identify and be able to exhibit acceptable proficiency in the "Disengaging" of a Patrol Dog during a deployment. This shall consist of at least the "Discretionary" application of this behavior when the Dog is engaging an obviously non-hostile person.

11.6.6

The student shall identify Patrol Dog Handler "Safety/Survival Skills."

11.6.7

The student shall identify the legal requirements of any "Announcement" or "Warning" issued by a Patrol Dog Handler prior to an apprehension deployment, in all but exigent circumstances.

11.6.8

The student shall exhibit a working ability in the minimum Patrol

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 90

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Dog deployment skills. 11.6.9

The student shall demonstrate an understanding of "Objective Reasonableness" as addressed in Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989) relating to Patrol Dogs as an instrument of force.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 91

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 92

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Instructor Performance Objectives 20.0

Patrol Dog Instructor

20.1

General Information The skills favorable for successful instruction Dogs/Handlers are found within seven categories. 1.

Technical Information

2.

Legal Information

3.

Basic Patrol Dog/Handler Training,

4.

In-Service Patrol Dog/Handler Training.

5.

Evaluation/Documentation

6.

Deployment Concepts.

7.

Instructor Development.

of

Patrol

The Instructor can be successfully trained to an appropriate skill level by a qualified Patrol Dog Judge, who may then evaluate and declare the Instructor's competency. The performance objectives listed herein provide instructing skills necessary for training Patrol Dogs and Handlers according to the International Police Patrol Dog (PSP-1)guidelines. They are also suitable for the optional Patrol Dog guidelines of DH-1, DPO-1, DH-2, DPO-2, and DH. Agencies, nationally and internationally, utilize a variety of canine behaviors to prepare Patrol Dogs for official service. A Patrol Dog Instructor should become familiar with as many of these behaviors as possible, to develop a wide base of skills. Accordingly, a Patrol Dog Instructor may be exposed, in this course of instruction, to behaviors other than those listed within the PSP/DPO categories. Training principles are the same, regardless of the individual canine behavior or exercise. In addition to training Dogs/Handlers for certification and preparing them for street deployments, it is valuable for the Instructor-candidate to become familiar with Patrol Dog competition guidelines, such as WPO, VSK, and other competitionoriented behaviors.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 93

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

20.2

Technical Information.

20.2.1

Patrol Dog Psychology.

20.2.1.1

The student shall have an in-depth knowledge of Patrol Dog psychology.

20.2.2

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of emergency canine First Aid.

20.2.3

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of emergency human First Aid relative to Patrol Dog training/deployment.

20.2.4

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of daily care and maintenance of Patrol Dogs.

20.2.5

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth understanding of the Karlshorster experiments published in 1928.

20.2.6

The student shall identify and exhibit an in-depth understanding of the concept of "Trackability."

20.2.7

The student shall identify and exhibit a working understanding of the behavioral categories related to Tracking.

20.2.8

The student shall identify and exhibit an in-depth understanding of the Patrol Dog Selection Test.

20.3

Legal Information.

20.3.1

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of Federal sanctions relating to the deployment of Patrol Dogs including Title 42 Section 1983 of the United States Code.

20.3.2

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of State sanctions relating to the deployment of Patrol Dogs including Title 18-1-1 of the Utah Code.

20.3.3

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of State statutes relative to a Patrol Dog.

20.3.4

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge and ability to testify in courtroom proceedings relative to the training/deployment of Patrol Dogs and training of Patrol Dog Handlers.

20.3.5

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge regarding current case law relating to the deployment of Patrol Dogs.

20.3.6

The student shall identify the unique influence a Patrol Dog may

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 94

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

have in a "Consent Search" situation. The student shall also exhibit an in-depth understanding of appropriate measures to take to prevent any possible influence by the Dog. The student shall also exhibit an ability to effectively instruct Patrol Dog Handlers regarding this unique influence and the appropriate measures mentioned. 20.3.7

The student shall identify beneficial "Voir Dire" questions to establish competency and expertise.

20.3.8

The student shall identify the placement of a Patrol Dog in the "Use of Force" Continuum.

20.3.9

The student shall identify the placement of a Patrol Dog in the various Guidelines, Matrices, Continuum’s, etc. which are utilized by law enforcement agencies.

20.3.10

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as they relate to the deployment of Patrol Dogs.

20.3.11

The student shall exhibit the ability to accurately spell words specifically associated with the training and deployment of Patrol Dogs.

20.3.12

The student shall identify the “Chain associated with the Utah POST K-9 Program.

20.4

Patrol Dog/Handler Training.

20.4.1

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth ability to train Patrol Dogs/Handlers in the Scentwork training modules.

20.4.2

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth ability to train Patrol Dog/Handlers in the obedience/agility training modules.

20.4.3

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth ability to train Patrol Dogs/Handlers in the apprehension training modules.

20.4.4

Patrol Dog Training Performance Objectives.

20.5

In-Service Dog/Handler Training.

20.5.1

The student shall identify the purpose of In-Service training as maintaining an appropriate skill level after certification.

20.5.2

The student shall exhibit an in-depth ability to conduct InService training of Patrol Dogs/Handlers.

20.6

Evaluation/Documentation.

of

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Certification”

Ch. 8 Pg. 95

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

20.6.1

The student shall exhibit an in-depth ability to evaluate Patrol Dog performance in order to train Handlers how to document training records accurately.

20.6.2

The student shall identify the evaluation format as a number coefficient for letter grades issued.

20.6.3

The student shall identify the evaluation grading scale or curve as a number coefficient for letter grades averaged.

20.6.4

The student shall identify the need for documentation, from a legal standpoint, as evidence or authentication of a Patrol Dog's performance skills.

20.6.5

The student shall identify valuable statistical data regarding the performance of a Patrol Dog.

20.7

Deployment Concepts.

20.7.1

The student shall identify a Basic/Intermediate Patrol Dog as a "Tool" of law enforcement, except in certain circumstances wherein it is a "Weapon."

20.7.2

The student shall identify an Advanced Patrol Dog as a "Tool" of law enforcement, not a "Weapon," except for certain circumstances.

20.7.3

The student shall identify "Tool" as an implement which causes bodily injury only when resistance/hostility is exhibited against its utilization.

20.7.4

The student shall identify "Weapon" as an implement which usually causes bodily injury when utilized.

20.7.5

The student shall identify and be able to exhibit acceptable proficiency in the application of a Patrol Dog as a weapon. This application shall consist of at least the "Discretionary" deployment of the Dog to engage, when justified, a motionless person.

20.7.6

The student shall identify and be able to exhibit acceptable proficiency in the "Disengaging" of a Patrol Dog during a deployment. This shall consist of at least the "Discretionary" application of this behavior when the Dog is engaging an obviously non-hostile person.

20.7.7

The student shall identify Patrol Dog Handler "Safety/Survival Skills."

20.7.8

The student shall identify the legal requirements of an “Announcement” or “Warning” issued by a Patrol Dog Handler prior

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 96

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

to an apprehension deployment, in all but exigent circumstances. 20.7.8

The student shall demonstrate an in-depth level competency in training Handlers to deploying a Patrol Dog.

20.7.8

The student shall demonstrate an understanding of "Objective Reasonableness" as addressed in Graham v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989) relating to Patrol Dogs as a instrument of force.

20.8

Instructor Development.

20.8.1

The student shall abide by and comply with appropriate Instructor Development concepts. This shall consist of at least graduation from an approved "Instructor Development" course or a suitable training provided by a competent source.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 97

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 98

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Judge Performance Objectives 26.0

Patrol Dog Judge.

26.01

General Information. The integrity of the entire Police K-9 profession rests on the shoulders of its Judges. Accordingly, a Police K-9 Judge is recognized as an individual whose knowledge, skill, and integrity are above reproach. To achieve and maintain this, PSD Judges are scrutinized extensively during training. The skills favorable for successful judging of Patrol Dogs, Handlers, and Instructors are found within seven categories. 1.

Technical Information.

2.

Legal Information.

3.

Basic Dog, Handler, and Instructor training.

4.

In-Service Dog, Handler, and Instructor training.

5.

Evaluation/Documentation/Certification.

6.

Deployment Concepts.

7.

Instructor Development.

The Judge can be successfully trained to an appropriate skill level by a qualified Patrol Dog Teaching Judge, who may then evaluate and declare the Judge's competency. The performance objectives listed herein provide judging skills necessary for evaluating a K-9, a Handler, or an Instructor according to the International Police Patrol Dog (PSP-1)guidelines. They are also suitable for the optional Patrol Dog guidelines of DH-1, DPO-1, DH-2, DPO-2, and DH. Agencies, Nationally and Internationally, utilize a variety of canine behaviors to prepare Patrol Dogs for official service. A Patrol Dog Judge should become familiar with as many of these behaviors as possible, to develop a wide base of skills. Accordingly, a Patrol Dog Judge may be exposed to behaviors, in this course of instruction, other than those listed within the PSP/DPO categories. Training principles are the same, regardless of the individual canine behavior or exercise. In addition to training preparing them for street Judge-candidate to become guidelines, such as WPO,

Dogs/Handlers for certification and deployments, it is valuable for the familiar with Patrol Dog competition VSK, and other competition-oriented

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 99

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

behaviors. 26.2

Technical Information.

26.2.1

Patrol Dog Psychology.

26.2.1.1

The student shall have an in-depth knowledge of Patrol Dog psychology.

26.1.2

The student shall identify and exhibit an in-depth understanding of the Patrol Dog Selection Test.

26.2.2

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of emergency canine First Aid.

26.2.3

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of emergency human First Aid.

26.2.4

The student shall exhibit an in-depth level knowledge of daily care and maintenance of Patrol Dogs.

26.2.5

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth understanding of the Karlshorster experiments published in 1928.

26.2.6

The student shall identify and exhibit an in-depth understanding of the concept of "Trackability."

26.2.7

The student shall identify and exhibit a working understanding of the behavioral categories related to Tracking.

26.3

Legal Information.

26.3.1

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of Federal sanctions relating to the deployment of Patrol Dogs including Title 42 Section 1983 of the United States Code.

26.3.2

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of State sanctions relating to the deployment of Patrol Dogs including Title 18-1-1 of the Utah Code.

26.3.3

The student shall exhibit a working knowledge of State statutes relative to a Patrol Dog, including Title 76-9-306 of the Utah Code.

26.3.4

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge and ability to testify in courtroom proceedings relative to the training/deployment of Patrol Dogs and Handlers.

26.3.5

The student shall exhibit the ability to accurately examine the elements of Patrol Dog deployments, evaluate the propriety, and testify accordingly.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 100

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

26.3.6

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge regarding current case law relating to the deployment of Patrol Dogs.

26.3.7

The student shall identify the unique influence a Patrol Dog may have in a "Consent Search" situation. The student shall also exhibit an understanding of appropriate measures to take to prevent any possible influence by the Dog. The student shall also exhibit an ability to effectively instruct and evaluate Patrol Dog Handlers regarding this unique influence and the appropriate measures mentioned.

26.3.8

The student shall identify beneficial "Voir Dire" questions to establish competency and expertise.

26.3.9

The student shall identify the placement of a Patrol Dog in the various Guidelines, Matrices, Continuum’s, etc. which are utilized by law enforcement agencies.

26.3.10

The Student shall identify the unique elements associated with a Patrol Dog as a "Use of Force" Instrument.

26.3.11

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as they relate to the deployment of Patrol Dogs.

26.3.12

The student shall exhibit the ability to accurately spell words specifically associated with the training and deployment of Patrol Dogs.

26.3.13

The student shall identify the “Chain associated with the Utah POST K-9 Program.

26.4

Basic Dog/Handler/Instructor Training.

26.4.1

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth ability to train Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors in the Scentwork training modules.

26.4.2

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth ability to train Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors in the obedience/agility training modules.

26.4.3

The student shall identify, and exhibit an in-depth ability to train Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors in the apprehension training modules.

26.5

In-Service Dog/Handler/Instructor Training.

26.5.1

The student shall identify the purpose of In-service training as maintaining an appropriate skill level after certification.

of

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Certification”

Ch. 8 Pg. 101

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

26.5.2

The student shall exhibit an in-depth ability to conduct InService training of Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors.

26.6

Evaluation/Documentation.

26.6.1

The student shall exhibit an in-depth ability to evaluate Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors performance in order to train Handlers/Instructors how to document training records accurately.

26.6.2

The student shall identify the evaluation format as a number coefficient for letter grades issued.

26.6.3

The student shall identify the evaluation grading scale or curve as a number coefficient for letter grades averaged.

26.6.4

The student shall exhibit an in-depth knowledge comparative grading chart utilized evaluating Dogs/Handlers/Instructors.

26.6.5

The student shall identify the need for documentation, from a legal standpoint, as evidence or authentication of Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors performance skills.

26.6.6

The student shall identify valuable statistical data regarding the performance of a Patrol Dog.

26.6.7

The student shall exhibit the ability to accurately evaluate and certify Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors.

26.6.8

of the Patrol

1.

Dogs, relating to the specific skills commensurate for professional deployment.

and behaviors

2.

Handlers, relating to the specific skills and behaviors commensurate for professional deployment.

3.

Instructors, relating to the specific skills and behaviors commensurate for professional deployment.

The student shall exhibit the ability to accurately complete certificates or documents relating to Patrol Dogs/Handlers/Instructors/Agencies. 1.

Examination Grade sheets.

2.

Dog Evaluations.

3.

Handler Evaluations.

4.

Instructor Evaluations.

5.

K-9 Unit Operating Procedures.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 102

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

6.

K-9 Unit Training Programs.

7.

K-9 Deployments.

8.

Other Critical Incidents (dog death, accidental bite, etc.)

26.6.9

The student shall demonstrate an understanding of "Objective Reasonableness" as addressed in Graham v. Connor, 109 S.CT. 1865 (1989) relating to Patrol Dogs as an instrument of force.

26.7

Deployment Concepts.

26.7.1

The student shall identify Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced Patrol Dogs as "Tools" of law enforcement, except in certain circumstances wherein they can be utilized as "Weapons."

26.7.2

The student shall identify a Tactical Deployment Dog as a "Tool" of law enforcement, not a "Weapon," except for certain circumstances.

26.7.3

The student shall identify "Tool" as an implement which causes bodily injury only when resistance/hostility is exhibited against its utilization.

26.7.4

The student shall identify "Weapon" as an implement which usually causes bodily injury when utilized.

26.7.5

The student shall identify and be able to exhibit acceptable proficiency in training and evaluating the application of a Basic, Intermediate, or Advanced Patrol Dog as a weapon. This application shall consist of at least the deployment of the Dog to engage, when justified, a motionless person.

26.7.6

The student shall identify and be able to exhibit acceptable proficiency in training and evaluating the "Disengaging" of a Patrol Dog during a deployment. This shall consist of at least the "Discretionary" application of this behavior when the Dog is engaging an obviously non-hostile person.

26.7.6

The student shall identify Patrol Dog Handler "Safety/Survival Skills."

26.7.7

The student shall demonstrate an in-depth level competency in training Handlers, and also Instructors who shall train Handlers, in deploying a Patrol Dog in investigations.

26.8

Instructor Development.

26.8.1

The student shall abide by and comply with appropriate Instructor Development concepts. This shall consist of at least graduation from an approved "Instructor Development" course or a suitable

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 103

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

training provided by a competent source.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 8 Pg. 104

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Physiology

(This chapter is currently in revision) It is valuable to be somewhat familiar with the physiology of a Patrol Dog. The following information is intended to be an overview of important body parts and configuration of the large breed K-9's.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

K-9 Physiological Characteristics 1.

Eyes A K-9's eyes are often referred to as the mirror of its body. This means that illness of the body as a whole are frequently accompanied by changes in the eyes. A K-9's eyes should normally be bright and clear with the surrounding membranes pink in color. Symptoms of trouble which might be detected in the eyes include reddish or yellowish discoloration of the membranes and whites of the eye; paleness of the membranes, the presence of whitish or yellowish discharge from the eyes, and cloudiness or other discoloration of the cornea (clear portion of the eye).

2.

Ears The erect portion of the ear is called the ear flap. Leading downward from the base of the ear flap is the ear canal. The portion of the ear canal which you can see with the unaided eye is the vertical canal. The deeper portion which cannot be seen is called the horizontal canal. Small quantities of brownish wax are frequently seen in the vertical canal and are normal. The presence of reddish discoloration, swelling or large amounts of discharge in the ear canal are abnormal and should be dealt with. Other symptoms which may be observed include a foul odor in the canal, shaking of the head, holding of the ear flap down, holding the head to one side, and pain when the ear is touched. Attempting to clean the ear with a cotton ball is acceptable. Never probe down the ear canal with any object smaller than a cotton ball.

3.

Nose The nose pad at the end of the nose should be shiny and moist. If it is persistently dry and dull it may be a symptom of illness. Other symptoms which may be observed include the presence of a watery yellowish or reddish discharge, sneezing, snorting, or pawing at the nose. Never probe into a dog’s nose with any sized instrument.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program 4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Mouth The dog’s mouth should be odor free, with white teeth and pink gums. The teeth should be firmly planted in the jaw, without an excess of tartar built up. Symptoms of mouth problems are pale gums and membranes, redness/bleeding gums, any type of sores, persistent drooling, bloody saliva, and foul breath. Loose or broken teeth, tartar buildup, foreign objects between teeth, gagging, or pawing at the mouth are all conditions which should be checked.

5.

Skin/Fur Healthy fur conditions will appear glossy and soft, while the skin will be soft and pliable. Climate changes can affect the skin/fur, producing excessive shedding. This is normal. Indications of skin/fur problems are skin reddening, scratching, spotty fur loss, dry fur, and waxy residue on the fur.

6.

Feet A K-9's foot should be tight together and not splayed. Nails should be short enough that they do not touch the ground unless the dog is moving faster than a walk. Dew claws, if present, must be monitored constantly, as they may snag on obstacles when the dog jumps or climbs. Proper attention and care must be given to a K-9's feet. Foreign objects may cause bruising, cuts, or abrasions. Burrs and Goat-Heads are particularly debilitating for a dog. Broken or split nails can be very painful and bloody. Any sign of lameness should be carefully assessed.

7.

Legs The legs of a dog are almost constantly in motion. Often, there is a bald or calloused spot on the outer elbow from lying down on hard surfaces. Open sores sometimes develop which are called Lick Granulomas. These are the result of inadequate air supply to the skin, a skin injury, or even licking due to boredom. Any form of lameness is a direct indicator of a problem.

8.

Genitals Males

The penis is covered by a membrane called a sheath. A small amount of yellowish discharge from the sheath is normal. The penis is subject to injury from climbing or jumping, be observant if the dog begins to show unusual attention to the penis after a climb or a jump. Blood flow from the sheath or bloody urine should be cause for immediate veterinarian attention. The testicles are held in the scrotum and are also subject to injury during training or deployment. Scrotum pain or injury should be readily evident, as the K-9 will

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

show unusual attention to that area. Females

9.

The vagina is normally well protected via a heavy layer of fur in that region. Any discharge, other than normal estrus fluids, should be evaluated by a veterinarian. Obvious indicators or the female K-9 approaching estrus are attention from male dogs, swelling of the vaginal area, bloody discharge, and abnormal friendliness toward male dogs.

Anal Region The exit point of the digestive tract is the rectum, with the anus being the external portion located just under the dog’s tail. Just within the anus are two small glands known as anal glands. These glands lubricate feces as it exits and should be examined at least annually. If the K-9 is observed sliding its anus along the ground, it is usually a sign of an anal problem. Any excessive reddening or swelling in this region is also a sign of a medical problem.

10.

Bodily Functions Urine

The normal color of urine from a healthy dog or cat is transparent yellow. Veterinarians sometimes refer to this color as “straw yellow,” “pale gold,” “amber,” or “clear yellow.” The most accurate way to assess urine color is to examine it in a clear plastic or glass container against a white background. Urine is made as a normal result of metabolism and removal of cellular wastes. Normal urine is sterile and the color can vary depending on what your pet has recently eaten or drunk. If you’re wondering why urine is yellow, it’s due to the presence of a substance called urochrome which is excreted by the kidneys.

The intensity of yellow color in normal, clear urine indicates the concentration or dilution of urine. In simplest terms, dilute urine is associated with increased water excretion and concentrated urine correlates with less water. Dilute urine will be almost colorless while highly concentrated urine is bright yellow, amber or honey colored. Minor daily variations in yellow shouldn’t alarm you. Persistent color changes lasting more than a couple of days should be brought to your veterinarian’s attention. Colorless or bright-yellow urine can also be associated with certain medical conditions. In general, yellowish urine is normal. It’s not unusual for a dog’s urine color to be dark yellow. However, if your dog has dark or bright yellow urine, especially after a long day outdoors, it could signal a need to consume more water.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Dark yellow is typically normal in most pets. If the urine is more orange, it may be associated with a condition known as icterus or jaundice. Orange urine may be the result of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Damaged red blood cells Liver disease Severe dehydration Bile duct problems Gallbladder problems Pancreatic problems

If your pet has orange colored pee, additional blood and urine tests need to be performed immediately. Red or pink urine is often caused by a urinary tract infection. Many times you will also notice the urine is cloudy or turbid. Other reasons for reddish urine include lower urinary tract disorder, cystitis, bleeding or clotting diseases, trauma and cancer. Red urine clearly indicates your dog needs additional diagnostic tests to determine the cause of color change. Brown to black urine can signal something serious has happened. The dark color can be due to blood cell damage releasing hemoglobin, muscle damage from trauma, or toxins such as onions, garlic, zinc, or acetaminophen (Tylenol®). If your dog’s urine changes color, seek veterinary help. If your dog’s urine changes hue, call your veterinarian. A simple urinalysis will determine if your dog requires additional tests, and appropriate treatment. You’re most likely to observe color changes associated with uncomfortable urinary tract infections (UTI’s) and painful cystitis. The sooner you treat, the less discomfort your loved one will suffer. http://www.pethealthnetwork.com/dog-health/dog-checkups-prevent ive-care/what-does-your-dogs-urine-color-mean

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Psychology The canine mentality has, in years past, been a topic of much evaluation and even more speculation. Self-styled backyard experts have made their proclamations alongside elite behaviorists with doctoral degrees. Often the exhaustive research conducted by many of these well-meaning persons has revealed canine behaviors which have been misunderstood, misinterpreted, or mislabeled. The theories and declarations range widely, with some even to the point of being totally outrageous. Through earnest investigation complemented by serious experimentation, Police Dog Trainers in the early 1950's joined with canine psychologists, canine behaviorists, canine scientists (i.e., Dr. Walther Neuhaus, University of Hamburg), and accomplished canine trainers to determine an accurate and functional psychological makeup of Police Dogs, to facilitate efficient training and deployment. The intent was to create scientific labels to canine behavior specific to law enforcement functions, Dr. Walther Neuhaus of the University of Hamburg in order that dogs could be trained (center) conferring with Colonel Alfred Maciejewski of utmost efficiency and the State Police School for Service Dog Handlers with (North Rhine - Westphalia, Germany (left) and Lt. Jan Handlers/Trainers/Judges could utilize Kaldenbach of the Dutch National Police (right). user-friendly training and deployment protocols. That extensive collaborative effort concluded the canine psyche consists of Instincts, Drives, and Character Traits. These can exist in a variety of combinations from dog to dog. Different breeds have particular combinations of Drives and Character Traits, which each breed utilizes for certain tasks. In addition to varying combinations, the Instincts, Drives, and Character Traits may exist in varying degrees within a particular dog. To clarify, a particular dog may or may not have a particular drive, and that drive may be weakly or strongly manifested - if it is even present. The following descriptions of Instincts, Drives, and Character Traits may be considered as an accurate and reliable protocol by which the Police Dog psychology may be categorized.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program Instinct

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Instinct is the genetically based mental blueprint which dictates the total conscious and subconscious behavior of the dog. It may also be referred to as "Geneticallybased Knowledge." Instinct has two categories: (1)Self Preservation, and (2)Species Preservation. Since Instincts are genetically based, they can be genetically altered. An example of alteration is domestication. Most frequently the alteration is seen as loss of some Instinctive behavior. This can be observed in dogs which have been selectively bred for unusual characteristics, such as the "Toy" breeds. Most specimens in such breeds have lost any "Working" usefulness to man and are only interesting curiosities.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Drives

Drives are subconscious compulsions to exhibit a particular response to a particular stimuli. There are numerous drives, each of which can exist in a variety of intensities. Generally, drives are evaluated according to a standard of 100% as ideal, and 0% being a total absence of the drive. 100% of a desirable drive is wonderful, but so is 0% of an undesirable drive. Drives are genetically influenced so they are founded in the gene pool of the breeding specimens. Subsequently, if specimens with a high incidence of a desired drive are bred, the likelihood of offspring with that drive is increased.

Character Traits

Character traits are mental qualities which are not drive related. Some character traits are genetic and others are environmental. Character traits are as clearly exhibited as drives and have just as much influence on the overall performance of the dog. Definitions and examples of the Instincts, drives, and character traits are given below. The example listed for each category is commonly seen but is certainly not the only example possible. The examples relate to behaviors observed in Police K-9s.

Patrol Dogs exhibiting the Character Trait of “Trainability” as they heel excitedly beside their Handlers.

A Patrol Dog exhibiting the Character Trait of “Fear” during a training scenario.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program 1.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Self Preservation Instinct. 1.

D e f i n i t i o n : Genetically-based knowledge or behavior related to the survival of the individual Dog.

2.

Synopsis: Self Preservation Instinct is the genetically based blueprint for behaviors which deal with the past, present, and future life of the individual dog.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 is in the middle of the Selection Test and trying to avoid any contact with the aggressor. It dodges the charging person and tries to engage from a less risky angle.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 is deployed to search in a domicile where the suspects are still known to be inside. It does well until the moment at which the suspects come into view and the dog’s hackles and tail get high and stiff. It begins to growl and its eyes show an abnormal amount of white.

2.

Species Preservation Instinct. 1.

D e f i n i t i o n : Genetically-based knowledge or behavior related to the survival of the Dog species.

2.

Synopsis: Species Preservation Instinct is the genetically based blueprint for behaviors which deal with the past, present, and future life of the (Canine) species.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 may get distracted by the odor of a female dog in estrus and may have difficulty staying on-task.

4.

Example from Deployment:

A K-9 is deployed at a Fed Ex facility

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

and is working out a scent cone near a conveyor belt. The Handler is standing nearby watching when s/he accidentally gets a hand caught in the belt mechanism. The Backup Officer approaches to help but K-9 moves between the two and won’t let anyone near to help. 3.

Hunting Drive. 1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to search using all the senses.

2.

Synopsis: Hunting Drive is the subconscious impulse to search or "Hunt" using the senses of smell, sight, hearing, and/or taste. Hunting is synonymous with "Searching" behavior exhibited by a Police K9. Hunting Drive is extremely desirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: The dog seemed to search well from the first day and probably received an excellent evaluation on the Hunting drive phase of the Selection Test.

4.

Example from Deployment: An example is a dog that seems to be a natural and tireless building searcher.

4.

Prey Drive. 1.

2.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to grasp and vanquish prey; has two subcategories. 1.

Instinctive Prey: natural objects or animals.

2.

Imprinted Prey: objects.

non-natural

Synopsis: Prey Drive is the subconscious impulse to grasp prey and vanquish it. It is especially advantageous in the developmental stages of a Patrol Dog. It may be used to motivate a beginning Patrol Dog in searching tasks, or even combat development, yet it should be at some point suppressed so that Fight Drive becomes the dominant combat drive. It is not advantageous as the primary combat drive for a Patrol Dog, for reasons explained in the Threat Level section. Prey drive applied properly in training/deployment - is extremely desirable

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

for a Police K-9. 3.

Example from Training: It is observed in a Patrol Dog that becomes fixated on a bite sleeve used in the training process. When the Dog grabs onto it, even if the Target drops it, it maintains its grip on the sleeve. The higher the Prey drive the more exaggerated the behavior. Some dogs may even maintain their grip if the Target strikes the dog in a threatening manner with a weapon!

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has been sniffing in a deployment for an extended period of time. It then locates a scent cone and heads toward the suspect. The suspect realizes s/he has been detected and flees on foot. As the K-9 pursues, the suspect’s baseball cap flies off his/her head and the K-9 catches it in its mouth. It then returns happily to the Handler.

5.

Retrieve Drive. 1.

D e f i n i t i o n : Subconscious compulsion to grasp prey and return it to the pack leader (Handler).

2.

Synopsis: Retrieve Drive is the subconscious impulse to find and bring prey to the pack leader. The dog may fetch and drop an object at the Handler's feet. Frequently, the dog may behave as if it wants the object thrown again and again. Retrieve drive is extremely desirable, for future detection training.

3.

Example from Training: During break-time, the Dog finds a stick and drops it at the Handler's feet and starts barking.

4.

Example from Deployment: While making a stealth approach to a building, the Handler’s pager falls off his/her duty belt. The K-9 notices, picks it up, and nudges the Handler’s leg.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program 6.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Air Scent Drive. 1.

D e f i n i t i o n : Subconscious compulsion to hunt body odors using the wind currents.

2.

Synopsis: Air Scent drive is the subconscious impulse to hunt by sniffing windborne odors. This drive prompts the dog to check air currents for odors as opposed to sniffing the ground. Air Scent drive is extremely desirable for a Patrol Dog.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 that will work back and forth through the scent cone with its head held high as it closes in on the exact point where the Target is hidden.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 that frequently keeps its head high and may even stand on its hind legs to sniff air currents during a building search.

7.

Tracking Drive. 1.

D e f i n i t i o n : Subconscious compulsion to hunt ground d i s t u r b a n c e s (footprints) by sniffing the ground

2.

Synopsis: Tracking drive is the subconscious impulse to hunt by smelling ground disturbance odors. A dog engaged in Tracking drive will hunt with its nose very close to the ground. This drive may overpower Air Scent drive or vice-versa. extremely advantageous for a Police K-9.

Tracking drive is

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 that begins sniffing the footsteps on the ground intensely on the very first tracking training session.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has been brought to a retirement home where a resident is believed to have walked away from his/her patio door several hours previous. The dog sniffs around the grass at the patio and begins to advance through the property for over 200 yards, where the disoriented person is found in a fetal position under a bush.

8.

Rank Drive 1.

D e f i n i t i o n : Subconscious compulsion to rise in the pack "Pecking Order"

2.

Synopsis: Rank Drive is the subconscious impulse to rise in status within the pack social order. A dog with a high level of Rank drive will be driven to challenge the authority of the Handler, at every reasonable opportunity. This may be seen as growling, snapping, or biting during a correction. It may also be seen when the Handler teases the dog excessively during playtime. Still another manifestation may be observed when encountering a strange dog. The Rank-driven dog will attempt to dominate the newcomer, often resulting in a dogfight. Rank drive is not desirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 has located the Target in a closet at a school during an after-hours training session. As the Handler begins to open the door to conclude the exercise, the K-9 growls at then bites the Handler, acting as if “it’s mine - stay away.”

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has been deployed to sniff in a domicile after the execution of a search warrant. The dog indicates on a crawlspace in the basement and begins to bark intensely at it. As the Handler approaches the K-9 becomes quiet and motionless, except for its eyes which look sideways at the Handler as it growls at him/her.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program 9.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Subordinate Drive 1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to accept a position in the pack "Pecking Order"

2.

Synopsis: Subordinate drive is the subconscious impulse to "Accept" the rank and will of the pack leader. A dog with high Subordinate drive accepts its position below the Handler and, in some cases, frequently acts "Handler Sensitive." This drive prompts the dog to readily accept tasks required by the Handler. A moderate level of Subordinate drive is extremely desirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 that tries to crawl under the Handler when s/he lays down on the ground or it may roll onto its back when the Handler gives physical praise or corrections.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 with high Subordinate Drive has been deployed in a high-visibility investigation wherein the Handler is under tremendous pressure to locate a piece of evidence in a field. The dog works along and suddenly indicates the evidence in an exemplary manner. Handler and K-9 stand back as investigators check the item. Upon confirmation by the investigators, the Handler shouts “Yesssss” in a loud voice. When s/he looks down to praise the dog, it is belly up with its tail between its legs.

10.

Pack Drive 1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to seek social contact with a pack member

2.

Synopsis: Pack drive is the subconscious impulse for receiving "Social" contact with pack members. This drive is observed in the dog that seeks out the company of its Handler, another person, or another dog, and seldom wants to be alone. Pack drive is extremely desirable for a Patrol Dog.

3.

Example from Training: An example is a K-9 that frequently looks at its Handler during playtime or when out for a leisurely walk.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program 4.

11.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Example from Deployment: A K-9 does not naturally range out of sight of the Handler when sniffing for suspects. The Handler has to literally train the dog to go out of sight. Play Drive

1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to seek physical contact with a pack member

2.

Synopsis: Play drive is the subconscious impulse to have "Physical" contact with the Handler, another person, or even another dog. This drive is most frequently seen in young dogs and is sometimes overwhelmed by other drives when the dog matures. A high Play act just like a puppy when it is out for exercise Sometimes this behavior may be misinterpreted as dogs with low Play drive. Play drive is extremely a Police K-9.

drive dog may or free time. aggression by desirable for

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 that continually puts its paw on the Handler’s foot when they halt after heeling together.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 that jumps up against the Handler while returning to the Patrol Vehicle after making a successful find.

12.

Activity Drive 1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to be physically active; not to be confused with hyperactive

2.

Synopsis: Activity Drive is the subconscious impulse to be constantly and physically active. It is not hyperactivity but rather only active. Although Activity drive is mental, its manifestation is physical. Activity drive enhances all other drives due to its characteristics. An example is a dog that seems to get bored when at home. It may run around constantly, dig up flowers, or just be a nuisance when left alone. A moderate level of Activity drive is extremely desirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 with high Activity Drive may never seem to wear out in the sessions. It’s always ready for another

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

one. A low Activity Drive K-9 may be lethargic and just barely wag its tail, even with strenuous motivation by the Handler. 4.

13.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has sniffed for an extended period of time in a deployment. Its mouth begins to open wide and its breathing begins to be heavy. It resists being taken outside to cool down and wants to continue searching in spite of its discomfort. Fight Drive

1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to measure physical prowess with an opponent

2.

Synopsis: Fight drive is the subconscious impulse to merely measure physical prowess with an opponent. This is exhibited without a vicious or vindictive attitude. It's similar to the human soldier's lust for combat or a human boxer's desire to test his skills against another. It prompts the dog to Engage a suspect without exhibiting behavior that is either cowardly or excessively aggressive. A high level of Fight drive is extremely desirable for a Patrol Dog.

3.

Example from Training: It is manifested when the K-9 attempts to subdue the Agitator. It may be seen by strong side-to-side shaking, downward pulling (not backward pulling or hunkering), driving forward, or wrapping legs around the agitator.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 that is physically engaged with a suspect and wraps its front paws around the suspect’s leg in an effort to wrestle him/her to the ground.

14.

Guard Drive 1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to defend territory by barking, growling or biting

2.

Synopsis: Guard drive is the subconscious impulse to defend territory by barking, growling, or biting. Since this drive is territorial in nature, it is observed only under particular conditions. It can be witnessed in the dog's kennel or surrounding property. It may also be seen in a vehicle or even in its own body space. Guard drive is not at all desirable

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

for a Police K-9. 3.

Example from Training: After the third day of scenario training, a K-9 begins to growl at people other than the Handler who attempt to move into what it perceives to be the search area.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 that barks or growls when an unknown person approaches the Patrol Vehicle.

15.

Protection Drive 1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to defend the pack or pack leader (Handler) from a threat

2.

Synopsis: Protection drive is the subconscious impulse to defend the pack leader or member(s). This drive is observed when either real or imagined danger is perceived. A subtle manifestation is seen when a dog moves between the Handler and a stranger, and then remains alert. An extreme example is a dog that Engages a threatening individual who ambushes the Handler even if it never has had protection training. Protection drive is extremely desirable for a Patrol Dog. It prompts the dog to defend its Handler against unexpected hostility.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 seems to frequently move from beside its Handler to stand between him/her and an approaching stranger. The dog doesn’t act aggressive, but does stare at the person as long as s/he is standing there.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 is guarding a suspect being interviewed when the suspect makes a quick lunge toward the Handler. The K-9 then engages the suspect without command.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program 16.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Survival Drive 1.

Definition: Subconscious compulsion to negate a threat; has three subcategories

1.

2.

Fight-Manifestation ... this is observed as seemingly enraged behavior accompanied by intense growling or even roaring sounds ... it will last only a second or two and then the Dog will back off to assess its effect on diminishing the threat; at this point the Dog may exhibit more Fight Syndrome or resort to Flight- or Freeze-Syndrome; when Fight Syndrome manifested, the Dog is attempting to kill the opponent

is

Flight-Manifestation ... this is observed as tail-tucked fleeing behavior, full of fear and avoidance

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Freeze-Manifestation ... this is observed as the Dog lays on the ground belly-up and exposing its vitals; mother nature has instilled this behavior as a clear indicator to the opponent that the Dog is acting totally subordinate

Dogs lack the human “Predator Mode Manifestation” due to the fact that they lack a neocortex (the portion of the brain where Predator Mode originates) and they have limited higher-brain function.

2.

Synopsis: This drive is sometimes referred to as "Defense Drive" by civilian trainers. It is exhibited as "Fight or Flight or Freeze" behavior. Fight Manifestation is the attempt to negate a threat by engaging in sudden, intense combat, and then retreating before an injury is received; Flight Manifestation is the attempt to negate the threat by escape behavior; Freeze Manifestation is the attempt to negate a threat by displaying an extraordinarily submissive posture, exposing its vital organs. Frequently when a dog is engaged in Survival drive its hackles will be high and/or its tail will be placed between its legs. An example is a "Fear-biter" dog. Survival drive is not desirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 is introduced to a storage closet search area for the first time. There are large water pipes running across the ceiling. During the training session, one of the pipes makes a loud noise and the K-9 bolts out of the room with its tail between its legs.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has located a scent cone on the exterior of a storage shed. It raises up on its back legs to pinpoint the source and a pad on its front paw gets stuck in the seam between the doors. It is yelping in pain as the Handler steps up to help it. When the Handler grabs the foot to lift it up out of the seam the K-9 bites him/her on the forearm but releases when the paw comes free. At this point the K-9 returns to its typical self and only whimpers because of the pain.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program 17.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Trainability 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by spontaneous attempt to perform will of pack leader (Handler)

2.

Synopsis: Trainability is a character trait which is psychological, yet the manifestation of Trainability is physical. It is observed in two manifestations: (1)Spontaneous attempt to perform will of pack leader (Handler), and (2)Volume of behaviors which can be learned. Frequently, a High Trainability dog begins to perform a task after only a few training sessions. Additionally, such a dog learns multiple tasks more soundly. Trainability is extremely desirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A new K-9 has been introduced to barking at doors from which scent is emanating. The Target is behind the door and the dog runs up and sticks its nose underneath, getting a strong odor of the Target. The Handler praises verbally when the Dog makes its first bark, and after five seconds of this the dog begins to bark on its own.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has had several successful finds in a very high point of the search area. The Handler notices on a successive deployment that the K-9 begins to look up high on its own.

18.

Hardness 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited psychologically and physiologically, relating to resiliency to duress

2.

Synopsis: Hardness is a character trait which is both psychologically and physiologically based. It is simply a mental and/or physical resiliency to unpleasant experiences. Hardness is best understood when likened to a pain threshold. A high degree of Hardness dictates that the dog can receive a tremendous amount of pain/stress without lasting negative effects. It also means the dog will need stronger corrections when disobedient. Physiologically, Hardness is in direct relation to the thickness of the sheathing around the nerve fibers in the dog's body. The

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

thicker the sheathing, the harder the dog. Of interest is the fact that a dog can be Hard toward strangers or objects, yet not so toward its Handler. The converse is also true. Most often, Hardness as it pertains to a Police K-9 deals with the pain and stress of handling and deployment. A Hard dog will not be overly stressed by these activities and will readily continue with the task. Also, a Hard dog will feel less trauma when being trained to surmount difficult obstacles. Hardness is extremely desirable for a Police K-9. 3.

Example from Training: This is clearly observed in that sometimes very strong corrections are necessary before the Dog accepts the Handler’s will on a task.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 may burn its paw on hot asphalt and still want to track across it to follow the footsteps of a Target.

19.

Softness 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited psychologically and physiologically, relating to sensitivity to duress

2.

Synopsis: Softness is a character trait which is both psychologically and physiologically based. It is a mental and/or physical sensitivity to unpleasant experiences. Softness is the natural state of the wild dog. Nature has dictated Softness as a survival trait ... it is very effective. The Soft dog perceives pain and stress more intensely than the average dog. Softness is extremely undesirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 is introduced to searching schools and while making a find in a bathroom, it gets its toenail caught in one of the floor drains. It cries out and gets the toenail loose on its own. The Handler takes it outside for a break and then returns. It does not want to continue searching in the bathroom, although it seems normal in other areas.

4.

Example from Deployment: A dog which has a high level of Softness may avoid subsequent encounters of a mentally or physically stressful situation it has previously experienced, such as getting beat up in a crawlspace. This dog might resist entering crawlspaces at any time due to a single unpleasant incident, until remedial training is conducted.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program 20.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Courage 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by absence of fear toward a threat

2.

Synopsis: Courage is a character trait which is psychological and wholly based in genetics. Courage is simply the absence of fear toward real or imagined danger. Courage is the result of domestication since selective breeding practices have removed, to a large degree, the natural fear of man, etc. An example of Courage is a dog observing a charging man with a stick and Engaging him, recognizing the man will inflict pain. Courage is extremely desirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A dog may go through the initial apprehension training and do well-until the phase wherein mental/physical pain is inflicted. The dog that lacks Courage and has only Confidence begins to break down.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 with high Courage may be willing to leap from a Zodiac Boat into the water to pursue a subject is has been alerted to on the shore. This is in spite of the fact the K-9 has never been in a Zodiac on the water before.

21.

Confidence 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by propensity to be brainwashed (socialized)

2.

Synopsis: Confidence is a character trait which is psychological yet is environmentally influenced. Confidence is the propensity to be brainwashed. It is critical to understand that Confidence training is effective only until the dog reaches its "Crisis Point." This is the level of pain/stress at which the dog will fail to respond with its trained behavior and revert to its true character. If it is underlyingly fearful, it will revert to fear. If it is underlyingly strong in Fight drive, it will revert to that as its response to the stimuli. Each dog has a different crisis point. If the dog receives considerable brainwashing (or "Socializing" as it is also known) it will still revert to its true self upon arriving at its crisis level

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

pain/stress. It is an unavoidable and unchangeable situation. Confidence is, however, extremely desirable for a Police K-9. Many training situations can be facilitated with the dog that is high in Confidence. 3.

Example from Training: A dog may go through the initial apprehension training and do well-until the phase wherein mental/physical pain is inflicted. The dog that has high Confidence but low Courage begins to break down.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 may be willing to search deep into confined crawlspaces in residences only after finding suspects there multiple times.

22.

Fear 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by perception of threat

2.

Synopsis: Fear is a character trait that is psychological but genetically based. It is the perception of real or imagined danger. Fear is a natural protective measure to prevent the extermination of the individual and the species. Without Fear, a dog would engage in fatal behaviors with naivete'. A high level of Fear is extremely undesirable for a Police K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 is reluctant and acts afraid of sniffing inside a wall cavity beneath the wash basin in a bathroom. Its behavior is rather unexpected and it never seems to get completely over it.

4.

Example from Deployment: An example is a dog that will not search in a dark basement of a residence and acts unusually shy of the situation.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program 23.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Moodiness 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by inconsistency of behavior from day to day

2.

Synopsis: Moodiness is a genetic defect in a K-9. Inconsistent behavior is, of course, extremely undesirable and may only be suppressed by “high-maintenance” training. Since it is genetic, it may Photo currently unavailable. never be fully controlled. The problem lies in how extreme the condition is. If the Moodiness level is high, it may be very challenging to work with, since consistency and reliability are key issues from the professional and legal perspective.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 has done very well in the first four days of training. On the fifth day, it seems to not know any tasks and acts very frustrated. The following training day it seems just fine.

4.

Example from minutes of a then, after a conditions at

24.

Deployment: A K-9 may deploy in the first 30 night-time High School deployment very well and full hour of rest, it works poorly under similar another site.

Sharpness 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by propensity to react to stimulation with Aggression

2.

Synopsis: Sharpness is the measure of a K-9's response to startling or unanticipated stimulation of practically every kind. It seems like a “Bite first, ask questions later” response. It can be recognized rather easily because the dog will almost always act like “Oops” after it has nipped the Handler or whomever.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 seems startled by a person who brushes up against it in a training session and bites, even though it was a harmless accident.

4.

Example from Deployment:

A K-9 is sniffing a bathroom inside a

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 25

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

school. The quarters are cramped and the Handler accidentally steps on the dog’s foot. The dog suddenly reacts by nipping the Handler rather strongly but lets go instantly and acts like it is thinking “Oops!” The dog returns to its normal self after some affection from the Handler. 25.

(True) Aggression 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by unwarranted vicious behavior

2.

Synopsis: This quality is seldom seen anymore but there is no question when it is manifested. This is not a reference to whether a dog will respond to a challenge or threat, but rather, it is unwarranted and unexpected and unexplainable vicious behavior.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 has performed very well during a Selection Test and the prospective Handler is quite excited. Dog and Handler seem to progress in the course well, for the most part. On random occasions and without provocation, the K-9 has exhibited aggression towards the Handler, especially if the dog is excited or stressed. The K-9 has even nipped the Handler on the arms, sometimes hard. One day, the Handler kneels beside the K-9 and issues announcements to an agitator out in front. When the Handler gives the command to deploy, the K-9 lunges and bites him in the face. This is in spite of the fact the K-9 knows there is an agitator out in front.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has been conducting a building search and has been social and stable among the officers present. After the deployment is concluded everybody is standing close together and debriefing. Someone notices that the K-9 turns its head and looks at the Handler, then suddenly lunges up and bites him/her on the arm. After about three seconds of aggression the dog drops off on its own and seems to be normal again.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 26

Utah POST K-9 Program 26.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Temperament 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by the attitude for life, i.e., full=robust, poor=lethargic; as in temperedsteel

2.

Synopsis: A K-9's Temperament is comparable to the springiness in spring steel. If the dog seems to bounce back from unpleasant experiences and is happy all over again, it is said to have a full Temperament. would be desirable for a K-9.

Of course, this

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 that is attentive, energetic and excited through all parts of the training sessions, even after repeated sessions.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 shows up at a multi-dog deployment with multiple agencies responding. None of the other Handlers knows this officer or his/her dog. It is very noticeable that the Handler has to continually verbal encourage the K-9, since it is acting lethargic. Everyone agrees this dog has poor Temperament.

27.

Feral Tendency 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by a propensity to revert to the state of the wild Dog

2.

Synopsis: Feral Tendency is simply the propensity for a K-9 to revert to wild dog behavior when it is stimulated. The stimulation could be stress or excitement. Of course, this is undesirable, since it is likely to produce unanticipated behavior from the dog. All larger breed dogs exhibited some degree of Feral Tendency, it is only a high degree which becomes challenging for training and deployment.

3.

Example from Training: A new K-9 is undergoing “Door Indication” training. An Agitator is placed very close to the opposite side of the door. The K-9 is deployed and goes to the exact spot where the odor is strongest. Later, the Target is placed further back and when the K-9 detects less odor, it tries to go to another door to see if the odor is stronger there.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 27

Utah POST K-9 Program 4.

28.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Example from Deployment: A K-9 that pinpoints the odor emanating from a door in a building, but rather than immediately indicating, it runs to other doors as if it is looking for another way to get to the Target. Sensory Threshold

1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by the degree of stimulation necessary to elicit a response; the "Trigger Pull" of a Dog

2.

Synopsis: Each K-9 has its own individual “Trigger-Pull” for the amount of stimulation necessary to get the dog to perform. For purposes of K-9 deployments, a moderate level or “balanced” dog is most desirable.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 has learned the ritual of “Announcements” at a point of entry prior to deployment and begins to whine in anticipation when placed in a down position at the point of entry.

4.

Example from Deployment: A very successful K-9 has a quirk which the Handler finds annoying, it lightly whines while it is involved in a surveillance. It is correct in every other way.

5.

Military Terminology:

JUST NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE (JND)

Each sensory system has the capacity to detect differences in the intensity of sensory inputs. The smallest difference between two stimuli (odor, pain, pressure, temperature, etc.) that is detectable by the dog is known as the JUST NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE (JND). Animals pay attention to these differences in that they learn which direction (more or less, higher or lower) requires what type of response. Dogs learn to discriminate certain cues from their environment and respond to detectable differences in those cues. For example, they can locate the source of an odor by detecting differences in the odor by detecting differences in the odor concentration. The higher the odor concentration, the closer it is to the source. The same example (in principle) applies to the other sensing systems as well. Rewarding a dog for responding teaches the dog to use JND to accomplish a task. [____ K-9 Training Manual, ___ Edition, Dated ___]

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 28

Utah POST K-9 Program 29.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Dogfight Tendency 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by the propensity to fight other Dogs; fatal tendencies

2.

Synopsis: This is a mental quality rarely seen in well-bred K-9's anymore. A K-9 with a high level of the Character Trait usually becomes highly stimulated to fight at the presence of another dog, male or female. Usually, a male dog will not willfully fight a female dog, yet a male with high Dogfight Tendency may attempt to kill a female. This is a genetic disorder and may be suppressed only through “high-maintenance” training. Of course, this is an extremely undesirable trait for a K-9.

3.

Example from Training: A regional training day is set up and a particular K-9 seems to have no other interest than to fight the other dogs. Neither Coercive nor Compulsive measures seem to have much effect. The lead trainer of the activity goes to the Handler and suggests the dog be put up, offering some ideas on what to do to suppress the behavior.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 is deployed in a large search area along with K-9's from other jurisdictions. All the Handlers agree to keep the dogs on-leash for an extra measure of safety. One K-9 spends about half its time barking at the other dogs and eventually has to be removed from the deployment because it continues to go off-task.

30.

Distractibility 1.

Definition: Character Trait exhibited by the propensity to lose mental focus on a task

2.

Synopsis: Distractability is one quality which is critical for a K-9. If the dog is highly distractable, it may go off-task easily. If the distractability is low, the dog usually stays ontask in the presence of tempting stimulations very easily.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 is in the middle of an energetic training session of Surveillance and Apprehension when it hears

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 29

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

another K-9 begin to engage a Target over 100 yards away. The first K-9 has difficulty staying on-task because of the other situation, even though a Target is very nearby. 4.

31.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has been deployed to search the garage of a domicile where a burglary-in-progress was reported. The dog is working fine until it gets to a spot where some animal has been urinating. The dog goes off-task and has to be removed from the immediate vicinity to get it back to work. Agility

1.

Definition: exhibited by coordination, movement

2.

Synopsis: Agility comprises two aspects of a K-9's behavior, (1)natural “hand-eye” coordination and (2)mental state of willfully attempting to achieve the objective, i.e., wanting to get up on the kitchen counter because that is where the scent-cone is leading. Agility is highly desirable for a K-9 since search areas can be physically challenging at times.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 in training easily negotiates obstacles and challenging search areas presented to it. It seems to be quite nimble and may even retract its paws and not touch when it raises up on its hind legs to sniff high wind currents in a building.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 is performing a sniff for a suspect in a residence kitchen and, without command, nimbly jumps up onto a slick counter to check a high air current.

32.

Character Trait the degree of also speed of

Hardiness 1.

Physical Trait relating to the resiliency to illness and disease

2.

Synopsis: A K-9 that shows an unusual ability to resist sickness and disease is said to be very Hardy. Of course, this is desirable. There are many K9's around the country who are not Hardy and require constant medical attention for a variety of ailments. This quality seems to be genetic, rather than

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 30

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

environmental. 3.

Example from Training: A K-9 is being trained during the winter months. Even after several hours in inclement conditions, the K9 remains healthy, no sniffles or sneezing.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has been searching a suspect’s domicile and it is very unsanitary. One of the toilets is stopped up and feces is on the floor. The dog gets decayed fecal matter on itself as it negotiates the area. It licks its feet before the Handler can react. The Handler interrupts the deployment to care for the dog. It does not become sick at all over the next several days.

33.

Physical Endurance 1.

Physical Trait relating to the overall muscle tone

2.

Synopsis: This is fundamentally a measure of a K-9's fitness. The K-9 that is not overweight is able to work for longer periods of time before showing fatigue. This is very desirable for a K9.

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 begins the Scenario phase of training and just goes and goes. Its musculature is obvious and it is lean and chiseled. The Handler advises they run five miles each day and the handler throws a toy ten times as far as it will go when they are done.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has been deployed at an industrial site where there are numerous pallets and other

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 31

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

objects the dog has to jump up onto to negotiate its search area. It works for 45 minutes non-stop before its mouth comes open and its tongue begins to hang out. 34.

Pleasure vs. Pain 1.

Psychological concept relating to the limited degree of "Reasoning" by Dogs

2.

Synopsis: This is a concept presented to officers to aid in understanding the K-9 psyche. Dogs lack logical thinking or reasoning powers that humans have. They only understand that something is desirable or undesirable, according to their life experience. Training aids the K-9 in determining what will produce pleasure or pain for them. When they find a target odor, pleasure follows, when they key on a “proofed” odor, no pleasure follows. In other words, “Do it right = Pleasure” and “Do it wrong = Pain.”

3.

Example from Training: A K-9 that recognizes rather easily that sharp corrections in obedience are for being out of position and avoids getting out of position from that point on.

4.

Example from Deployment: A K-9 has obviously picked up on the fact that clearing vehicles at felony traffic stops may produce a find (drive satisfaction). At each stop the dog literally drags the Handler to the front of the K-9 Unit and assumes the position without needing a command., with its tail wagging happily.

35. Coercion vs. Compulsion 1.

Psychological c o n c e p t relating to t r a i n i n g motivations

2.

Synopsis: All K-9 training is conducted by Coercion, Compulsion, or a combination of both. Coercion is attempting to get the dog to function in a task by an inner motivation (i.e., tease with a ball). Compulsion is attempting to get the dog to function in a task by an outer motivation

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 32

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

(i.e., leash corrections). A Handler-Sensitive dog would typically perform better with a higher level of Coercion, since it would feel less stress from the Handler. A “Hard” dog would likely require to Compulsion to be responsive. It is important to be aware that Coercion produces flashier, zestier performance with less stress on the dog but it will only be reliable as long as the task the Handler/K-9 are doing is more enticing to the dog than another distraction which may come along. It is equally important to be aware that Compulsive produces more reliable performance but generally produces less zesty performance, since it is more stressful on the dog. Each K-9 has its own balance. For example, the Handler- Sensitive dog may be an “80-20" dog, meaning 80% Coercion and 20% Compulsion. A Hard dog may be viceversa. One of the greatest challenges to a new Handler is to determine an individual K-9's balance. 3.

Example from Training: A K-9 being taught Passive Indication on a subject found on a track just cannot seem to get it reliably using Coercion, it gets overly excited and lunges repeatedly. It does, however, respond reliably when the Handler introduces the physical enforcement of a moderate tap (Compulsion) on the rearend of the dog with his/her hand.

4.

Example from Deployment: COERCION ... A K-9 has been deployed to search inside a large long-haul trailer facility and quickly enters one trailer. It pops back out with a curious look on its face, wagging its tail. The Handler quickly, enticingly, and quietly calls out “Search.” The K-9 runs back inside and begins barking, indicating a found suspect. COMPULSION ... A K-9 has been deployed to search inside a large long-haul trailer facility and quickly enters one trailer. The Handler hears a cat hiss/spat and verbally commands the Dog to “Search” along with a light stimulation from the electronic collar. The K-9 immediately hops out the trailer and continues its search of the facility.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 33

Utah POST K-9 Program 36.

37.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Crisis Point 1.

The point at which mental or physical duress causes the Feral Tendency and Trainability to conflict.

2.

Synopsis: This is one of the most important of all K-9 qualities to understand. It is the point at which genetics and environment may clash. If the dog has overwhelming Feral Tendency, it may react adversely. it has overwhelming Trainability, it may stay on task.

If

3.

Example from Training: A high drive K-9 is in a training session to attempt to get it to enter crawlspaces. It has been hesitant to do so from day one. It searches well in other situations. The session is set up carefully not to overwhelm the dog yet it cannot seem to improve after multiple sessions, even if a Target taunts the Dog from inside. Feral Tendency (avoid an animal in its cave) has overwhelmed Trainability (drive satisfaction of combat).

4.

Example from Deployment: A veteran K-9 with high Drives has been injured and is limping after a combat with a hostile burglar. A phone call to the vet suggests immediate attention is appropriate. At the vet clinic, it is determined it is not critical and the dog acts as if it wants to continue working. About an hour later it finds another hostile subject and engages as if nothing had ever happened earlier that night.

Threat Levels Perceived 1.

Lower Threat Level a.

The Dog perceives the opponent to be a creature of lesser danger than itself, for example, a Rabbit

b.

The Drive manifested when the Dog perceives a lesser threat is Prey Drive

c.

The Drive satisfaction for Prey Drive is Death to the target

d.

Instinct functions such that Prey Drive only sustains the Dog in combat when the opponent is exhibiting “Prey”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 34

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

behavior 2.

3.

Equal Threat Level a.

The Dog perceives the opponent to be a creature of equal danger as itself, for example, another Dog

b.

The Drive manifested when the Dog perceives an equal threat is Fight Drive

c.

The Drive satisfaction for Fight Drive is Victory w/o Death to the target

d.

Instinct functions such that Fight Drive does sustain the Dog in serious combat, but the defeated opponent is allowed to live.

Higher Threat Level a.

The Dog perceives the opponent to be a creature of greater danger as itself, for example, a Bear

b.

The Drive manifested when the Dog perceives a higher threat is Survival Drive

c.

The Drive satisfaction for Survival Drive is to escape death, even if that means death to the target

d.

Instinct functions such that Survival Drive sustains the Dog in serious combat, but at the point where the Dog perceives itself to be in mortal danger, it will exhibit Fight-, Flight-, or Freeze-Manifestation. 1.

Fight-Manifestation ... this is observed as seemingly enraged behavior accompanied by intense growling or even roaring sounds ... it will last only a second or two and then the Dog will back off to assess its effect on diminishing the threat; at this point the Dog may exhibit more Fight Syndrome or resort to Flight- or

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 35

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Freeze-Syndrome; when Fight Syndrome is manifested, the Dog is attempting to kill the opponent

38.

2.

Flight-Manifestation ... this is observed as tailtucked fleeing behavior, full of fear and avoidance

3.

Freeze-Manifestation ... this is observed as the Dog lays on the ground belly-up and exposing its vitals; mother nature has instilled this behavior as a clear indicator to the opponent that the Dog is acting totally subordinate

Voice Inflections Perceived 1.

Command Tone 1.

2.

Praise Tone 1.

3.

Obvious displeasure

Permission Tone 1.

5.

Pleasing and joyful

Correction Tone 1.

4.

Authoritative without emotion

Gentle Reinforcement

Alert or Entice Tone

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 36

Utah POST K-9 Program 1. 6.

Strong/Loud authoritarian

Praise vs. Correction 1.

40.

Coercing excitement sound

Battle Tone 1.

39.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Critical to maintain a proper ration 1.

Average Dog = 5-1 ratio

2.

Harder Dog = lower ratio possible

3.

Softer Dog = higher ratio necessary

Handler-Dog Relationship 1.

Critical to treat dog as partner, equal, and friend, and only exert superiority or dominance when a command or correction is initiated

2.

Once a dog understands a command, it should be given only once, and failure to comply causes the Handler to firmly enforce the behavior

3.

When a command is initiated, the dog should believe it shall obey or die

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 37

Utah POST K-9 Program 41.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Social Behavior 1.

2.

Dog - Human 1.

Muzzled people

2.

Unmuzzled people

association with association with

Dog - Dog 1.

Socializing or "Dogs being Dogs" 1.

Long walks with dogs on leash muzzled, maintaining sufficient distance between dogs to prevent any physical contact, enforcing tolerance of other dogs, commanding dog to down for aggressive behavior, firm dominance if dog focuses on Handler, "All Sins Forgiven" after corrections

2.

Long walks with dogs onleash muzzled, permitting dogs to make physical contact, enforcing tolerance of other dogs, commanding dog to down for aggressive behavior, firm dominance if dog focuses on Handler, "All Sins Forgiven" after corrections

3.

Long walks with dogs onleash unmuzzled, permitting dogs to make physical contact, enforcing tolerance of other dogs, commanding dog to down for aggressive behavior, firm dominance if dog focuses on Handler, "All Sins Forgiven" after corrections

4.

Long walks with dogs offleash unmuzzled, permitting dogs to make physical contact, enforcing tolerance of

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 38

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

other dogs, commanding dog to down for aggressive behavior, firm dominance if dog focuses on Handler, "All Sins Forgiven" after corrections 42.

Intelligence v. Instinct a.k.a. “How/Why do K-9's Associate so well?” As mentioned in the introduction to this Psychology chapter and also in #34, K-9's have a limited (almost primitive) form of intelligence and lack any capacity to exhibit logical thinking. The simplest form of logic is this mathematical equation If A=B and B=C, what is the relationship of A and C? Of course, our human ability to reason and exhibit logical thinking allows us to recognize that A=C. No dog is able to make that connection. Their mental processing is limited to a “Single-Stage Thought Process” which means they cannot make the connection of A and B, plus B and C, but cannot connect A and C. Nonetheless, K-9's have a phenomenal ability to make simple associations of A to B or B to C or C to D, etc. When we speak of K-9's associating A to B, etc. we are referring to the K-9 recognizing a stimulation and knowing what response is desirable to the Handler. For example, hearing the command to search for evidence induces the trained K-9 to go into action and begin sniffing for objects in an area that have human odor on them. Likewise, for a Police Tracking Dog, (C)detecting the windborne odor of a person a distance down the track induces the trained K-9 to (D)switch to air scenting behavior. So, the K-9 learns as one kind of “association” that (A)hearing the command = (B)initiating tracking behavior ... and as another kind of “association” (C)pinpointing the windborne human odor = (D)locating a target person.

This K-9 has (A)heard the command to sniff for evidence and (B)responds by initiating a search for an object with human odor on it.

This K-9 has now (C)located an object with human odor on it and (D)responds by Indicating (assuming a down position) at the location of the object.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 39

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

What K-9's ARE able to do - at a level that exceeds human capacity is “associate” with all their senses. Their powers of observation and perception exceed the human capacity in several areas, especially in the area of body language or non-verbal communication. This is a survival mechanism instilled by nature that allows the canine species to not only recognize and avoid danger, but also to perceive and act upon situations that are of value to the individual and the species. An example is recognizing body language displayed by pack members and, in the case of Police Dogs, recognizing the body language of the Handler. This remarkable ability is often utilized to the advantage of Police Dog Handlers and Trainers throughout the training process. Hand signals and other body movements are often trained to a K-9, especially in the discipline of Patrol Dogs and SWAT Dogs. Their incredible ability to recognize non-verbal communication adds a tremendous safety factor to Handlers and Backup Officers in high-risk law enforcement encounters.

This SWAT Dog (A)sees its Handler kneel in the SWAT Team lineup and (B)responds by laying down beside its Handler, as it has been trained to do.

This SWAT Dog (A)feels its Handler’s foot on its back and (B)responds by laying still and quiet in spite of gunfire, as it has been trained.

This SWAT Dog (A)feels its Handler’s hands on its chest and neck and (B)responds by sitting quiet in spite of loud warnings to a suspect, as it has been trained.

These wonderful abilities are not without their down-side. The very same “associating” abilities that work in favor of stealth and strategy for Patrol Dogs and SWAT Dogs carry with them certain risks when it comes to Patrol Dog functions. These risks are important to understand and avoid. This becomes an issue when a Handler knows the location of any target odor that a K-9 is searching for. When this is the case, IF the Handler acts subjectively*, the K-9 may possibly detect subtle body language that suggests to the K-9 that the Handler seems to know where the target odor is to be found PRIOR to the K-9 itself detecting the odor source. Although not specifically a study of canine behavior, this phenomenon was extensively researched in the case of “Clever Hans” the horse that could allegedly do mathematics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans#Spectacle). Knowledgeable, competent, and well-trained K-9 personnel exhibit considerable effort Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 40

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

during the Handler training course to teach Handlers how to behave objectively** while the K-9 is performing any search of any kind. *Subjective behavior means that the Handler exhibits some form of non-verbal communication that is perceived by the K-9 to imply that the target odor is at a certain spot. This is only an issue when the behavior is exhibited by the Handler PRIOR to the K-9 itself pinpointing the source of the odor. If subjective behavior is exhibited repeatedly, a K-9 may become “pattern-trained” to watch the Handler for the subjective behavior “cue” that the target odor is at a certain spot. Upon perceiving a “cue,” a K-9 may exhibit the trained final response a.k.a. Indication behavior. Of course, this is undesirable and unacceptable. To clarify psychologically, this may develop into a situation wherein the “subordinate pack member” (K-9) no longer hunts to its full capacity, as it relies on the “pack leader” (Handler) to be the primary hunter instead of itself leading the hunt. **Objective behavior means that the Handler acts in a neutral manner during the entire K-9 search. No subtle behavior is manifested that might suggest to the K-9 that the Handler knows where the target odor is. Psychologically, as the “pack leader” (Handler) exhibits objective behavior, this causes the “pack member” (K-9) to understand it is the primary hunter and cannot rely on “cues” from the “pack leader” (Handler) to direct it to the target odor.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 9 Pg. 41

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Selection Test

(This chapter is currently in revision) 1.

Patrol Dog Field Selection Test This test is most beneficial when conducted at the initial examination of a dog to be considered as a Patrol Dog candidate. It begins with simple exercises and progresses to more difficult. This gives the dog time to develop its drive intensity during the course of the examination. It should be conducted at a location unfamiliar to the dog. Additionally, it may be performed with a muzzled or an unmuzzled dog. If the dog is muzzled, the perpetrator should wear normal clothing that gives no unusual stimulation to the dog If the dog is unmuzzled, the perpetrator should wear protective clothing with as little visual stimulation as possible. 1.

Biting Test (always performed unmuzzled) The dog is tied out on a 10-12 foot chain or cable and the Handler goes completely out of sight. After several minutes a person approaches the dog showing hostile behavior. When directed by the evaluator, the person moves within the dog's perimeter. If the dog bites, the person should shake the dog roughly from side to side. After another few moments, s/he should strike the dog with a flexible stick on the less sensitive parts of the body. Care should be taken not to injure the dog only inflict pain. The person continues to shake the dog until the evaluator tells the Handler to pick up the dog. The dog is then evaluated according to:

2.

1.

Does the dog show interest in combat? Is it secure without the Handler present? Are its ears forward or laid back? Is its tail up and wagging or down and stiff?

2.

Does the dog engage in strong combat? Does it "Fight" or merely "Bite?" Are its eyes open or closed? Does it growl or whine during combat? Are its ears forward or laid back? Is its tail up and wagging or down and stiff?

3.

What happens when it is struck with the stick? Does it disregard the pain or cease combat? Does it growl or whine? Does it fight harder? Are its ears forward or laid back? Is its tail up and wagging or down and stiff?

Handler Defense and Gun Sureness Test The Handler is instructed to walk a certain direction with the dog on leash. The evaluator will have someone fire several shots (blanks) from a gun as the dog is moving away, at a distance of 50 feet. The shots must be unusually loud. The Handler then continues to walk in the direction stated when a person suddenly

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

charges out from a hiding place to attack the Handler. The person fights with the dog if contact is made. After a few moments of combat the person will strike the dog with a flexible stick on the less sensitive parts of its body. Care is taken not to injure the dog - only to inflict pain. After striking the dog the person continues fighting until the evaluator tells the Handler to pick up the dog. No contact between the Handler and attacker is permitted during the entire encounter. The dog is evaluated according to:

3.

1.

What is the dog's behavior when the shots are fired? Is it calm or spooked. Is it merely startled or does it mentally break down? Does it show aggression or genuine fear?

2.

When the hostile person jumps out does the dog engage instantly or flee? Does it avoid the person or pause, then engage?

3.

When the dog is struck, what is its response? Does it maintain combat or flee? Does it fight harder or less? Does it back off momentarily and fight again? Does it avoid being struck?

4.

Does the dog show an overall willingness to endure pain to continue combat?

Courage Test A person stimulates the dog at a distance of about 50 feet. The Handler is instructed to hold the dog while the person runs away at a moderate speed. The Handler may encourage the dog at this time. The evaluator instructs the Handler to send the dog when the person is about 40 yards away and the Handler remains in place. When the dog is about halfway, the person will turn and charge the dog. S/he will yell such things as, "Go Home - Get Back - No - Down." Also, threatening gestures such as when throwing, etc. will be made. This is an attempt to discourage the dog from engaging. The person should continue to charge the dog until contact is made. Then the person will fight with the dog, striking with hands, pulling fur, pinching, kicking, and pushing away. Care should be taken not to injure the dog. The dog is evaluated according to: 1.

How fast does the dog run to catch the person? speed?

2.

What does the dog do as it approaches the charging, threatening person? Does it leap forward or slow down? Does it avoid direct contact completely?

3.

What part of the body does the dog contact first? What part

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Is it top

Ch. 10 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

thereafter? 4. 4.

Does the dog show optimal combat behavior, showing intensity to subdue the person?

Pursuit Test The Handler is instructed to hold the dog as the person again runs away at a moderate speed. The Handler may encourage the dog at this point. When the person is about 40 yards away the Handler will send the dog and then remain in place. The person continues to run away even after the dog makes contact. No further stimulation is given and the person ignores the dog. The dog is evaluated according to:

5.

1.

How fast does the dog run to catch the person? "All-Out" effort?

Is it an

2.

What part of the body does the dog contact first? What part thereafter? Does the dog run past the person and engage from the front? Does the dog continue to engage after about 20 seconds, when it realizes it is not affecting the person?

Hunting and Holding Test At a spot designated by the evaluator, the Handler holds the dog. Shortly, a person emerges from a location about 75 yards in front and begins making threatening gestures. The person then turns and runs out of sight, hiding in a place about 30 yards from where s/he appeared. The person will now be completely still. The Handler may encourage the dog as the person runs away. As soon as the person is out of sight, the Handler sends the dog. The dog is evaluated according to: 1.

How fast does it run from the Handler towards the last place the person was seen? Is it "All-Out?"

2.

Once the dog arrives in the vicinity of the person's disappearance, how does it begin searching? Does it use its eyes, ears, nose, or a combination of these. Which sense is dominant? Does the dog have intensity as it searches? Does it have difficulty locating the person? Is it distracted or lose interest? Does it stop to urinate, etc."

3.

After finding the person, what does the dog do? Does it stay with the person? Does it Detain or Engage? Is it unconcerned about the Handler's absence? Does it attempt to intimidate the person into combat or merely "Bark & Hold" without genuine combat drive? How much drive is the dog REALLY exhibiting?

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program 2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Final Selection Test This test is most beneficial when conducted after the Field Selection Test. A dog showing appropriate potential in the Field may be taken for a probationary period. Some "Orientation" training may be conducted during this probation. Then, when a final decision is to be made, the Final Selection Test should be given. It begins with difficult exercises and goes to simpler. This tests the dog's abilities in such a way that the Handler/Instructor/Agency may project how successful the dog will be in a formal training program. It should be conducted at a location unfamiliar to the dog. Additionally, it may be performed with a muzzled or an unmuzzled dog. If the dog is muzzled, the perpetrator should wear normal clothing that gives no unusual stimulation to the dog. If the dog is unmuzzled, the perpetrator should wear protective clothing with as little visual stimulation as possible. 1.

Hunting and Holding Test At a spot designated by the evaluator, the Handler holds the dog. Shortly, a person emerges from a location about 75 yards in front and begins making threatening gestures. The person then turns and runs out of sight, hiding in a place about 30 yards from where s/he appeared. The person will now be completely still. The Handler may encourage the dog as the person runs away. As soon as the person is out of sight, the Handler sends the dog. The dog is evaluated according to:

2.

1.

How fast does it run from the Handler towards the last place the person was seen? Is it "All-Out?"

2.

Once the dog arrives in the vicinity of the person's disappearance, how does it begin searching? Does it use its eyes, ears, nose, or a combination of these. Which sense is dominant? Does the dog have intensity as it searches? Does it have difficulty locating the person? Is it distracted or lose interest? Does it stop to urinate, etc."

3.

After finding the person, what does the dog do? Does it stay with the person? Does it Detain or Engage? Is it unconcerned about the Handler's absence? Does it attempt to intimidate the person into combat or merely "Bark & Hold" without genuine combat drive? How much drive is the dog REALLY exhibiting?

Pursuit Test The Handler is instructed to hold runs away at a moderate speed. The at this point. When the person Handler will send the dog and then

the dog as the person again Handler may encourage the dog is about 40 yards away the remain in place. The person

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

continues to run away even after the dog makes contact. No further stimulation is given and the person ignores the dog. The dog is evaluated according to:

3.

1.

How fast does the dog run to catch the person? "All-Out" effort?

Is it an

2.

What part of the body does the dog contact first? What part thereafter? Does the dog run past the person and engage from the front? Does the dog continue to engage after about 20 seconds, when it realizes it is not affecting the person?

Courage Test A person stimulates the dog at a distance of about 50 feet. The Handler is instructed to hold the dog while the person runs away at a moderate speed. The Handler may encourage the dog at this time. The evaluator instructs the Handler to send the dog when the person is about 40 yards away and the Handler remains in place. When the dog is about halfway, the person will turn and charge the dog. S/he will yell such things as, "Go Home - Get Back - No - Down." Also, threatening gestures such as when throwing, etc. will be made. This is an attempt to discourage the dog from engaging. The person should continue to charge the dog until contact is made. Then the person will fight with the dog, striking with hands, pulling fur, pinching, kicking, and pushing away. Care should be taken not to injure the dog. The dog is evaluated according to:

4.

1.

How fast does the dog run to catch the person? speed?

Is it top

2.

What does the dog do as it approaches the charging, threatening person? Does it leap forward or slow down? Does it avoid direct contact completely?

3.

What part of the body does the dog contact first? What part thereafter?

4.

Does the dog show optimal combat behavior, showing intensity to subdue the person?

Handler Defense and Gun Sureness Test The Handler is instructed to walk a certain direction with the dog on leash. The evaluator will have someone fire several shots (blanks) from a gun as the dog is moving away, at a distance of 50 feet. The shots must be unusually loud. The Handler then continues to walk in the direction stated when a person suddenly charges out from a hiding place to attack the Handler. The person fights with the dog if contact is made. After a few

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

moments of combat the person will strike the dog with a flexible stick on the less sensitive parts of its body. Care is taken not to injure the dog - only to inflict pain. After striking the dog the person continues fighting until the evaluator tells the Handler to pick up the dog. No contact between the Handler and attacker is permitted during the entire encounter. The dog is evaluated according to: 1.

What is the dog's behavior when the shots are fired? Is it calm or spooked. Is it merely startled or does it mentally break down? Does it show aggression or genuine fear?

2.

When the hostile person jumps out does the dog engage instantly or flee? Does it avoid the person or pause, then engage?

3.

When the dog is struck, what is its response? Does it maintain combat or flee? Does it fight harder or less? Does it back off momentarily and fight again? Does it avoid being struck?

4.

Does the dog show an overall willingness to endure pain to continue combat?

5.

Biting Test (always performed unmuzzled The dog is tied out on a 10-12 foot chain or cable and the Handler goes completely out of sight. After several minutes a person approaches the dog showing hostile behavior. When directed by the evaluator, the person moves within the dog's perimeter. If the dog bites, the person should shake the dog roughly from side to side. After another few moments, s/he should strike the dog with a flexible stick on the less sensitive parts of the body. Care should be taken not to injure the dog only inflict pain. The person continues to shake the dog until the evaluator tells the Handler to pick up the dog. The dog is then evaluated according to: 1.

Does the dog show interest in combat? Is it secure without the Handler present? Are its ears forward or laid back? Is its tail up and wagging or down and stiff?

2.

Does the dog engage in strong combat? Does it "Fight" or merely "Bite?" Are its eyes open or closed? Does it growl or whine during combat? Are its ears forward or laid back? Is its tail up and wagging or down and stiff?

3.

What happens when it is struck with the stick? Does it disregard the pain or cease combat? Does it growl or whine? Does it fight harder? Are its ears forward or laid back? Is its tail up and wagging or down and stiff?

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

Dog **Sample** Exercise Focus on Person Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Pain Tolerance Refocus on Person Overall Performance Control Gunfire Defense Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Pain Tolerance Refocus Overall Performance Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Refocus on Person Overall Performance Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Mental Intimidated Refocus on Person Overall Performance Focus on Person Pursuit Hunting Holding Mental Intimidation Refocus on Person Overall Performance

DOG SELECTION TEST Final Test Date **Sample** -Grade- Remarks - Notes Biting Test - 2 - Stared and barked excitedly - 3 - Paused prior to impact and picked spot - 3 - Adjusted grip but did not release - 1 - Strong shaking and legs wrapped - 1 - Eyes open, ears up, no hackles during blows - 4 - Refocused, sleeve in mouth, subject closed in, dropped - 2 - Commendable; obvious potential Handler Defense/Gunfire - 3 - Anticipating some form of action - 4 - Very excited, not focused on shooter(Aggr) - 2 - Slightly startled, then full intensity - 3 - Unable to achieve powerful impact, startled - 3 - Adjusted grip but did not release - 1 - Powerful side-to-side shaking and wrestling - 1 - Total disregard for blows and yelling - 2 - Refocused, unruliness attempting to engage - 2 - Commendable; gunfire behavior inexperienced Courage Test - 4 - Considerable unruliness, trying to get free - 2 - Fast and energetic - 2 - Strong and slowed slightly prior to contact - 3 - Adjusted grip several times - 1 - Powerful, full-body involvement - 3 - Strenuous effort to break free from Handler - 3 - Typical; moderate Feral Tendency displayed Pursuit Test - 3 - Very excited and moderately unruly - 2 - Fast and energetic - 2 - Strong, leaped forward into subject - 3 - Adjusted grip several times - 1 - Powerful, full intensity attempt to subdue - 1 - Not intimidated at all - 2 - Refocused well, seemingly due to fatigue - 2 - Commendable; obvious raw talent displayed Hunting/Holding Test - 2 - Keenly alert to subject as he fled - 2 - Full speed to 3/4 distance, then bounding - 3 - Predominantly eyes, then tracked to subject - 1 - Held subject entire time, never left - 1 - No intimidation observed at all - 2 - Refocused well, quite fatigued, not unruly - 2 - Commendable; performed well

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

Dog

**Sample**

Slick Floors Umbrella Disposition

DOG SELECTION TEST Final Test Date **Sample** Mental Stability - 2 - Inexperienced on slick floors, not afraid - 2 - Lunged toward umbrella but sniffed only - 2 - Extremely social, slite subdued @ strangers

Suitable for Training: Evaluator

Yes

**Sample**

No Signature

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

Dog Exercise Focus on Person Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Pain Tolerance Refocus on Person Overall Performance Control Gunfire Defense Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Pain Tolerance Refocus Overall Performance Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Refocus on Person Overall Performance Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Mental Intimidated Refocus on Person Overall Performance Focus on Person Pursuit Hunting Holding Mental Intimidation Refocus on Person Overall Performance

DOG SELECTION TEST Final Test Date -Grade- Remarks - Notes Biting Test Handler Defense/Gunfire Courage Test Pursuit Test Hunting/Holding Test -

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

Dog

**Sample**

Slick Floors Umbrella Disposition

-

Suitable for Training: Evaluator

DOG SELECTION Final Test Mental Stability

TEST Date

**Sample**

Yes

No Signature

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 10 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Electronic Collars as a Control Mechanism (This chapter currently in revision)

1.

Modern E-Collars. In years past, electronic devices were not subject to varying electronic intensities. They were mainly a strong shock or no shock. Modern devices have varying intensities, from mild/non-painful to intense/painful. This means the level of stimulation may be adapted to the level of force the dog responds to. The lowest level stimulation possible yet successful should be administered. This also means that only modern devices are suitable for Police K-9s.

2.

Electronic Collar Training Practices. “Punishment Protocol” is the most common training method, especially among civilian trainers. This protocol is based on the practice to punish the dog for bad or disobedient behavior, such as resisting a verbal release command. An example is giving the verbal command, then wait to see if the dog obeys, then shock the dog as a punishment for not letting go fast enough. Punishment Protocol is based in the human psychology that the dog will respond to being punished for bad behavior. It tends to require higher levels of electricity to achieve a result, and tends to create anxiety within the dog. When a dog is

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

trained using this protocol, it may become “Collar-Wise” or CollarDependent.” Punishment Protocol training is subject to misuse/abuse, since human emotions tend to rise when the dog disobeys and it is easy to “hold the button down” on the transmitter when frustrated with the dog. Another common term for this protocol is “Teaching the Dog to Turn Off the Electricity.” “Enforcement Protocol” is the less common training method, and is used primarily by police trainers employing a Zoological approach. This protocol is based on the practice to use the electronic collar the same as the Handler would use the leash. An example is giving the verbal command and the electronic stimulation simultaneously. This is continued until the dog responds to the command willingly and then used only when the dog needs an occasional reminder. Enforcement Protocol is based in the canine psychology that it will be compelled to obey pack leader mandated behavior. It tends to require lower levels of electricity and does not tend to create anxiety in the dog. Enforcement Protocol is not easily subject to misuse/abuse, since the stimulation is attached to a verbal command and it is not logical to “hold the button down” on the transmitter. 3.

Animal Rights Protection.

Any form of correction, whether leash/chain or electronic collar, is an application of force on a dog. Many times, especially in bitework, leash/chain corrections must be very strong to achieve a result. If the dog has high drives or is resistant to corrections, leash/chain Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

corrections may sometimes be very painful to the dog. It is our experience that the minor electronic stimulations which control such dogs are actually less mentally and physically damaging to the dogs than the severe leash/chain corrections. [See Excerpts from the 2008 Doctoral Dissertation, Yasemin Salgirli of Ankara, Turkey, Hannover School of Veterinary Medicine, “Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar, and Quitting Signal”.] 4.

Human Rights Protection. An important aspect when considering the application of an electronic collar for a Police K9 is “Does this create a substantial benefit for human civil rights?” The answer is a resounding “Yes!” When a Police K-9 is controlled in training and deployment by an electronic collar, then the Handler has a “Fail-Safe” device in an exigent circumstance. For example, if the Police K-9 begins to show interest in the wrong person during a pursuit, the Handler has more than just his/her “voice” to control the dog, s/he has the remote control collar or the “invisible leash.” Citizens’ rights to protection against injuries are tremendously enhanced via the use of an electronic collar.

5.

Overall Training Efficiency. Human logic creates an obvious conclusion that training with a remote-controlled collar produces superior results to a leash/chain. Via the application of an Electronic Collar, the dog is controlled by an “invisible leash” and may be corrected at any time and any distance, within the range of the electronic device. This suggests less corrections, overall, since the dog is more likely to accept the Handler’s control due to consistent and reliable corrections, which are realistically impossible for leash/chain trained dogs. Also, in years past, a reed stick was used by the Handler, Trainer, or even the Agitator to train a Police K-9 to learn certain behaviors. Training practices have now

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

evolved to a point wherein it is practically unnecessary for Handlers, Trainers, or Agitators to conduct training via “stick corrections.” [See Excerpts from the 2008 Doctoral Dissertation, Yasemin Salgirli of Ankara, Turkey, Hannover School of Veterinary Medicine, “Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar, and Quitting Signal”.] 6.

Environmental Influences. It is our experience that numerous problematic environmental influences can be diminished via the use of an electronic collar during training and deployment. It happens that Police K-9s engage suspects who are yelling and screaming, sometimes only inches from the dogs’ ears. It may also happen that gunfire erupts. It often happens that loud background noises occur during deployments. Any of these might make so much noise that the Police K-9 literally does not hear the Release commands. In any of these cases, if the dog is trained and deployed with an electronic collar, the Handler only need control the dog with the remote control to prevent excessive injury to the suspect or the dog.

7.

Facilitates Realistic Scenario Training. We have entered an era in law enforcement in which it is necessary to employ as much scenario training as possible. This is because we are experiencing more hostility against the police than ever before. Handlers need to be trained more and more with their “street” equipment in their hands (guns and flashlights) rather than their leashes. The Handler should be trained to focus on the suspect and should minimize any movement necessary to control the dog. A quick touch of a button is unquestionably more efficient than grasping and jerking the leash for a correction.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program 8.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Reduces Handler-Dog Rank Drive Incidents.

We have experienced a tremendous drop in the number of Rank-Drive incidents among Police K-9s, all of which seem to be due to the implementation of the electronic collar in training and deployment. When a Handler must become physical with a dog during a correction and that dog has high Rank Drive, the Handler is sometimes bitten out of frustration or defiance. The Handler is usually immediately next to the dog and within easy access as the target of the dog’s Rank Drive. When the Handler controls such a dog with an electronic collar, there are no exaggerated human body movements which may induce the dog biting the Handler, nor is the Handler immediately accessible to the dog for biting. [See Excerpts from the 2008 Doctoral Dissertation, Yasemin Salgirli of Ankara, Turkey, Hannover School of Veterinary Medicine, “Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar, and Quitting Signal”.] 9.

Reduces Anxiety in Handler-Sensitive Police K-9s. We have experienced that the dog with high Subordinate Drive is less stressed when controlled by the electronic collar. A Handler-sensitive dog frequently becomes stressed when strong corrections are given with a leash/chain. This is due to the physical actions of the Handler, which tend to overly-intimidate the sensitive dog. Touching the transmitter does not intimidate the dog, as does the overt physical jerking actions on a leash/chain. [See Excerpts from the 2008 Doctoral Dissertation, Yasemin Salgirli of Ankara, Turkey, Hannover School of Veterinary Medicine, “Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar, and Quitting Signal”.]

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program 10.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Corrections in Deployment. This is one of the greatest advantages of an electronic collar for Police K-9s. Ever since dogs have been used in law enforcement, the pattern has been to train-train-train, so that we have high confidence that the dog will perform correctly in deployment. Why? Because we had no way of maintaining absolute control of the dog in deployment and we relied on repetition to establish a correct pattern of behavior. With a simple touch of the transmitter, even in deployment, the dog may be controlled just as it is in training. It is now possible to prevent the Police K-9 from learning the difference between “training” and “deployment,” which has been a major challenge from the beginning.

11.

Tactical Advantages. The use of an electronic collar in deployments which require officer-safety tactics allows the Handler to maintain cover and concealment during searches and apprehensions. High-risk suspects present considerable danger to Handlers and other officers. For example, the use of the “invisible leash” to control the dog prevents the Handler from being exposed to the significant threat already engaged with the Police K-9. If it becomes necessary to engage the suspect with firearms, the dog can be more easily removed from the physical conflict, possibly preventing the loss of the dog to “friendly-fire.”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program 12.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Sympathetic-Nerve-Reflex Firearms Discharge. The use of the electronic collar reduces the possibility of an unintentional discharge of a Handler’s firearm due to the “SympatheticNerve-Reflex.” If a Handler has his/her weapon drawn and pointing at a suspect, then a leash correction is needed to control the dog, the jerking action on the leash may produce a “sympathetic” muscle contraction in the gun-hand, leading to an unintentional discharge of the handgun. This SympatheticNerve-Reflex is responsible for multiple unintended suspect deaths in the USA. Touching the transmitter of an electronic collar does not require the use of the same muscle group as squeezing the leash.

13.

Reduces Workers Compensation Claims. The use of the electronic collar reduces Workers Compensation Claims due to the fact that strong physical leash corrections applied to the Dog have lead to fractured fingers, fractured small bones in the hands, loss of nerve sensitivity in the hands and wrist, fractured forearms, elbow joint injuries, shoulder joint injuries, wrenched backs, and a variety of muscle tears. Each of the injuries mentioned herein could have been prevented with the utilization of the electronic collar. Often, these injuries lead to extended absences from the job, requiring additional departmental expense to cover the assignments.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program 14.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Increases Canine Career Longevity. The use of the electronic collar increases the career longevity due to the reduction of physical stressors, such as strong chain collar corrections, strong physical corrections from the Handler, and severe long leash corrections when training the “Calloff from a Pursuit.” Additionally, the quality of life for retired Patrol Dogs is higher and medical expenses are lower due to an overall healthier Dog when finally retired.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Excerpts from the 2008 Doctoral Dissertation Yasemin Salgirli of Ankara, Turkey Hannover School of Veterinary Medicine “Comparison of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Different Training Methods: Electronic Training Collar, Pinch Collar, and Quitting Signal” [Critical text is highlighted in Yellow by W. Nope] [Quitting Signal = “Clicker” + Non-essential text deleted = “. . .”] . . . 1.

Introduction

A bright orange sun is setting on a prehistoric horizon. A lone hunter is on his way home from a bad day at hunting. As he crosses the last ridge before home, a quick movement in the rocks off to his right catches his attention. Investigating, he discovers some wolf pups hiding in a shallow den. He exclaims, "Wow...cool! The predator ... in infant form." After a quick scan of the area for adult wolves, he cautiously approaches. The pups are all clearly frightened and huddle close together as he kneels in front of the den ... all except one. The darkest colored pup shows no fear of the man's approach. "Come here you little predator! Let me take a look at you,” he says. After a mutual bout of petting by the man and licking by the wolf, the man suddenly has an idea. "If I take you home with me tonight, maybe mom and the kids will forgive me for not catching dinner ... again." GRANDIN and DEESING (1998). The partnership between human and the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) has had deep roots ever since the first taming of the wolf. Nowadays, a great Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

number of dogs are kept by humans and, thus, the dogs are accepted as one of the most popular companion animals all over the world. It is for sure that the most of the dogs are trained by using a large variety of training methods. These methods used to train dogs range from the utilization of reward-based methods in the form of “positive reinforcement” to the use of training aids as aversive stimuli such as electronic shock collars, ultra sonic devices, pinch collars etc. in the form of “positive punishment” and “negative reinforcement.” The application of aversive stimuli, in particular via electronic training collars, in training is, however, a highly controversial issue. Even though the use of these devices is forbidden in several European countries, the debate on this issue still continues all around. On one hand, supporters claim that with respect to producing physical damage to the skin and/or the body, electronic training collars are relatively safe than the mechanical training aids (TORTORA 1982, LINDSAY 2005) and, further, they have no adverse effects at all (CHRISTIANSEN et al., 2001b). . . . The aim of this study is to investigate whether any stress is caused by the use of specific conditioned signal, quitting signal, and/or pinch collars as alternatives to electric training collars, and if they do so, whether the stress produced in the process is comparable to the one with electric training collars. Therefore, we set out to investigate the direct behavioral reactions of the dogs upon administration of above mentioned training methods. We are especially interested in finding out which method leads to less stress in dogs by comparing their behavioural effects. Furthermore, this study will examine the learning effects of the above mentioned training methods, i.e., electronic training collar, the pinch collar and the quitting signal. Thus, the compatibility of the learning effect of the quitting signal with the learning effect of the pinch and the electronic training-collar, namely the compatibility of effectiveness of “negative punishment” method with the “positive punishment” method, in a training with high level of arousal and motivation will be assessed. . . . Using of the electronic training collar is a subject causing considerable debates among authorities for years. Therefore, in this section, currently available scientific studies concerning the use of electronic training collars are compiled. Application of Electronic Training Collars in Dog Training SCHWIZGEBEL (1996a) indicated that there are three possible ways to train dogs using electronic training collars: 1.

Punishment Training: in which the chosen target behavior will be punished. TORTORA (1982) described the rules of punishment training as following:

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

1. Punishment should be immediate: In order to achieve the most effective result, punishment should be administered as soon as the behavior starts. 2. Punishment should be an effective dose the first time it is administered: Gradually increasing level of electrical stimulus as a punishment strategy can result in “habituation”. Therefore, it is suggested to start with a punishment aversive enough for the dog (AZRIN and HOLZ 1966, ANGERMEIER 1976, TORTORA 1982). 3. Punishment should be natural: TORTORA (1982) stated that animals experience natural environment punishment all the time and, thus, they associate the punishment with the crime. According to him, it is possible to simulate natural-like punishments with an electronic training collar because the experiencing electrical stimulus has the same learning effect as other natural punishments causing discomfort on animals. 4. Punishment should be administered by nature: According to TORTORA (1982), it is important that the dog learns not to do target behavior which was determined by the owner; otherwise it will be punished by the environment. Therefore, electronic training collars are significant training aids since they can be administered at a distance so that the dogs do not associate receiving the shock with the owner. 5. Punishment should be associated with the misbehavior only: This rule also has the same principle as the previous one, that the dog should not associate the punishment with the presence of its owner. It should learn that whenever it performs the undesirable behavior, it will be punished and the application of this rule is easy with electronic training collars. 6. Punishment should be used as infrequently as possible: TORTORA (1982) suggested that since the electronic training collars eliminate the misbehavior after a few implications, they met also this rule. 7. Punishment should be counterbalanced with a reward: According to TORTORA (1982), it is essential that the dog associates the owner presence with a reward and electronic collars allows owner to reward his dog after the punishment with praise, attention, play etc. so that the dog feels safe near the owner. This application should, however, never immediately follow the punishment in order that the dog does not associate the punishment with the reward.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

7. The Avoidance Training and/or Relaxation Training should be administered in case of eliminating very powerful instinctive behavior before using the punishment: The principle of avoidance training with electronic training collar will be explained as a second training way in the following. 2.

Avoidance and Safety Training: In comparison with punishment training, avoidance training has a different goal. The goal of avoidance training is to motivate determined behavior, whereas the goal of punishment training is to eliminate misbehavior (TORTORA 1982, POLSKY 1994, SCHWIZGEBEL 1996a). In avoidance training, the dogs learn that they can terminate the aversive stimuli such as electric shock and thus avoid the uncomfortable experience by obeying a recently trained command. In safety training, an aversive stimulus follows a warning stimulus such as buzz tone (SCHWIZGEBEL 1996a). It is important that the dog receives the warning of discomfort “right after the command but before he has a chance to respond” (TORTORA 1982). According to TORTORA (1982), there are some important points to be watched in this kind of training. For instance, training of the command before the application of the method and, also, good timing as if in the punishment training is significant in the training. Furthermore, terminating time of the electrical stimuli should be bewared since wrong timing results in incorrect and undesirable response to the command. In case of termination of the aversive stimulus at the wrong moment, dog will associate the particularly performed behavior with turning off the electrical stimulus.

3.

Activation Training: The principle of this training is to reinforce a determined behavior through electrical stimulus in dogs. The basis of activation training involves the following observation: “When a dog, which has an expectation of play with its owner in the determined situation, is stimulated with an electrical stimulus immediately after instruction of a command, it performs the desired behavior without exhibiting submissive signals. In this situation, intensity of the electrical stimulus, namely the optimal intensity, depends on the liveliness of the dog concerning with the play.” Practical application of this observation includes three phases, 1.

Play training: in which the dog is rewarded with the play whenever it performs the desired behavior after the instruction of the command.

2.

Training with mechanical stimulation: in which the pulling of a leash on a normal collar after the instruction of the command leads performing of the desired behavior. This step

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

also includes playing behavior is exhibited. 3.

with

the

dog

after

the

desired

Training with mechanical and electrical stimulation: in which the dog receives an electrical stimulus at the same time with pulling of the leash after the instruction of the command. In this situation, the mechanical stimulation is stronger than electrical stimulation and playing with the dog is the reward as in the previous phases. The principle of applying the mechanical and electrical stimulation is that an additional pulling effect is elicited as a consequence (SCHWIZGEBEL 1996a). . . . Mechanical Training Aids

LANDSBERG et al. (2003) described mechanical devices such as choke, pinch and prong collars as training aids which help training in a manner that causes increasingly discomfort on dogs by pulling on them. They also explained the principle of these collars as follows: “the more forceful the owner’s pull, the more discomfort for the pet.” TORTORA (1982), on the other hand, described these devices as “attached training aids” and the correction applied by these collars as “leash correction”. He further emphasized that the efficiency of these collars are dependent on the experience, strength and motivation of the user. In case of harsh administration of these collars, the dog could be physically damaged. LINDSAY (2005) also suggested that with respect to produce physical damage to the skin and/or the body, electronic training collars are relatively safe in comparison to mechanical training aids. He further explained: “...since mechanical techniques work by forcefully stimulating mechanoceptors and nociceptors, such tools may cause local irritation or muscle strain. Unlike the aversive effect of electrical stimulus; which rapidly dissipates after being discontinued, forceful stimulation of skin and muscle tissue can result in chain of biochemical events that may cause sustained throbbing, local irritation and bruising.” . . . 42 adult police dogs of both genders (33 males and 9 females) and varying ages (3-10 years old) of the breed Belgian Malinois served as subjects for this study. The decision to use only Belgian Malinois was employed in an attempt to avoid the variability, due to breed characteristics. All dogs in the study were previously trained for the official police service dog certification. During the study, dogs participated the sessions with its own handler. 22 dogs which were tested in Muenster were recruited from different Police Departments in Nordrheinwestfalen [Province of North Rhine-Westphalia]. All of these dogs, however, have been trained by the same trainer. Another 20 dogs, which attended the study, belonged to Hannover Police Department.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Since the dogs tested in Hannover and in Muenster had different training histories and were trained by different trainers, they were considered as two different groups. At the end of the study, not only the individual results but also the group results could be compared with each other. The sizes of two main groups were close to each other; therefore it was significant to make this comparison. . . . The helpers [agitators] were responsible for provoking the dogs during the test sessions to urge the dog to make a certain mistake, which was determined mutually by test instructors and dog handlers. With the implementation of this method in the study, behavioral and learning effects of the training methods could be tested. Another responsibility of the helpers during this study was the administration of the electronic training collar. During the sessions in which the electronic training collar was tested, they held the receiver of the collar and gave the electric impulse whenever the dog made the mistake. Each of the helpers provoked one group during the whole experiment, either in Muenster or in Hannover. The aim of using the same person as helper for all dogs in the same group was to minimize the variability arising from the provocation style and, also, to the helper himself. All tests in Hannover were carried out on the same training ground which belonged to Misburg Police Dog Society. The tests in Muenster, however, were conducted on two different training grounds, one of which was in Nottuln/Muenster and the other belonged to “General German Rottweiler Club” in Muenster. Each dog was tested on the same place during the entire experiment, where it initially started to be tested. All test areas were already used as training grounds for the police dog training. Thus, all of the dogs were familiar to the area where they were tested. . . . Comparing the learning effects of the training methods with one another rendered the following results: 1. Electronic Training Collar vs. Pinch Collar: Compared with the electronic training collar, pinch collar appeared to have lower learning effect on the dogs. However, this difference was not found to be significant. 2. Electronic Training Collar vs. Quitting Signal: The learning effect of the electronic training collar was significantly higher than the learning effect of the quitting signal. 3. Pinch Collar vs. Quitting Signal: A significant difference for learning effect between the pinch collar and the quitting signal was found. . . . Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Electronic Training Collar

No significant difference was found in comparison of learning effect of the electronic training collar between Hannover and Muenster. 19 of 20 subjects reliably abandoned the behavior after getting the correction in Hannover and therefore 19 dogs were able to be tested for the learning effect of the method. In Muenster, however, all dogs could be tested for the learning effect since all of them reliably quitted the behavior after getting the correction. As a result, electronic training collar had learning effect on 18 dogs out of 20 subjects in Hannover, while the same method showed learning effect in all dogs from Muenster. Pinch Collar The method showed learning effect in 13 of 20 subjects in Hannover. In Muenster, however, the learning effect of the pinch collar was higher than the one in Hannover, which involved 19 of 22 subjects. As a result, comparison of the groups showed a tendency towards significance for the pinch collar. Quitting Signal Considering the learning effect of quitting signal, significant difference was found between cities. None of the dogs in Muenster could be tested for the learning effect of the quitting signal since none of them reliably abandoned the behavior after the signal had been instructed. In Hannover, however, 4 out of 20 dogs reliably quitted the behavior after getting the signal and thus, could be tested for the learning effect of the method. As a result, the method showed a learning effect in 3 out of 4 dogs in Hannover. . . . Discussion This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of three training methods, namely electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal, considering two parameters: stress and learning effects. In order to achieve this, direct behavioral reactions of 42 police dogs of the breed Belgian Malinois were examined upon the administration of the above mentioned methods. In addition to this, body language of each dog during obedience exercises was filmed and analyzed so that correlations between body posture and experience, body posture and characteristics, as well as between body posture and direct reactions of the dogs to the above mentioned training methods were detected. . . . In the following sections the critics about material and methods that were used during this study will be presented and the implication of the statistical findings to the theory will be discussed. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Subjects

The 42 dogs, which were chosen as subjects of this study, were official police serving dogs. There were two main reasons for choosing police dogs for this experiment: The first reason of using police dogs was to be able to test as many dogs as possible. The second reason was since police dogs are kept and trained in a similar way, it was possible to minimize the variability arising from housing and training conditions. Another important reason why police dogs were preferred to laboratory dogs was the level of arousal in testing of all training methods. The testing of the three methods was performed in a situation requiring high level of arousal and motivation. This procedure is an actual dog training situation, thus a daily situation for police dogs. The laboratory dogs, however, would have to be trained in a certain way for a long time in order to be able to test them in such situation. In addition to that, only the police dogs from a certain breed, Belgian Malinois, were tested in order to avoid the variability due to the breed characteristics. Since these breed of dogs are more frequently used as police dogs than other breeds, police dogs of other breed were excluded from the experiment. As previously mentioned, 22 dogs which were tested in Muenster had the same trainer, although they were recruited from different Police Departments in Nordrhein-Westfalen [Province of North Rhine-Westphalia]. The other 20 dogs attending the study belonged to Hannover Police Department. Since the dogs tested in Hannover and in Muenster had different training histories and were trained by different trainers, they were considered as two different groups. At the end of the experiment, not only the individual result but also the group results were compared with each other. Thus, the factors causing different group results were analyzed. Additionally, a questionnaire was addressed to the handlers in order to reveal the underlying factors, which influence the dogs’ behavior and reaction to the methods. Test Persons . . . Two experienced and proficient dog trainers both of them having absolutely the same training approach participated in the present study as the helpers responsible for provoking the dogs and, also, of the administration of the electronic stimulus. Each of the helper was responsible for only one group during the entire experiment, either in Muenster or in Hannover. The reason of using the same helpers for the same group was to minimize the variability, arising from the provocation style and also, the helper himself. In this way a certain standardization was obtained.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Training aids

As previously mentioned, the use of electronic training collars is a highly controversial subject. Many authors cite that using these devices in a training is more effective and cause less physical damage to the animal than the mechanical instruments, such as pinch and choke collars (TORTORA 1982, LINDSAY 2005), whereas the opponents firmly emphasize the necessity of banning these instruments completely from dog sports (SCHILDER and van der BORG 2003). . . . Therefore, the pinch collar, the electronic training collar and the quitting signal were chosen as training methods for comparison in the present study. Reason of choosing “pinch collar” is first because it is a standard working dog training equipment and used as an alternative method to the “electronic training collar” in daily police dog training and second, since it is a sort of mechanical training aid, it was able to make the comparison between the electronic training- and the mechanical-device. Though both electronic training- and pinch-collar are the application of “positive punishment”, quitting signal is the application of “negative punishment”. Thus, effectiveness of “negative punishment” in dog training was able to be tested. . . . Prior to the main experiment, the “mistake” for each dog was determined by its own handler. The different training methods were only administered, when the dog made the determined mistake. Thus, we were able to evaluate the “learning effect” of the methods considering the repetition of the certain mistake. The main experiment was conducted on three test days for each dog. The time interval between test days was a week. On each training day a different training method, i.e. either the quitting signal or the electronic training collar or the pinch collar, was applied on dogs in accordance with the groups they belonged to. Regardless of which method was tested, each dog should carry the three collars around its neck, which were standard, pinch and electronic training collars, during the entire experiment in order to ensure the standardization among the training methods. . . . During the main test, following instructions were strictly heeded: 1. The helper always carried the same accessories, a protection sleeve and a whip, at each test session during the entire experiment. Using these accessories, however, was depending on the dog. In case of Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

using any provocation accessory in one session, the same accessory was used in the repetition sessions while performing exactly the same provocation. 2. During testing the quitting signal, the handler used a 5m long leash. The reason of using 5m long leash for the quitting signal was to allow reaction time for the dog handler and also for the dog and, thus, to be able to evaluate clearly whether the dog stopped due to the influence of the collar or to the signal. Accordingly, “timing” of the handler while instructing the signal could be assessed. 3. As previously mentioned, in a study conducted parallel to this study the saliva cortisol level of the dogs was evaluated. It is known that cortisol levels normalize within 60 minutes following the administration of a stressor (BEERDA 1997). Therefore the time between the main test sessions was determined as 60 minutes and repetition sessions were applied definitely 60 minutes after the termination of the test session. 4. In the study conducted by SCHALKE et al. (2006) it was stated, that the main test was terminated after the third application of the electric shock. Therefore, maximal three main test sessions were conducted for each method and each dog per day and learning effect of training methods were evaluated considering these three sessions. 5. Since the test was performed as an open-field test, the controllability of external factors would be a disadvantage. In order to minimize this disadvantage, only the test instructors were allowed to be near the test area. The dog cages were placed in a way that no confrontation between test dogs was possible. Furthermore in case of occurrence of any independent factors which cause stress in dogs, the main test was immediately terminated and the same session was repeated after 60 minutes. Discussion of the Results Police dog training is a strict and a rigid training. Many things should be accomplished in a relatively short amount of time, an effective handler and dog partnership must be built and dogs must unconditionally pay attention to its handler and obey the commands of its handler (BRYSON 2002). Therefore an effective training method, which brings success in a short time, is crucial for the training of police dogs. It should be specifically mentioned that the police dog training is a kind of training that requires high level of arousal and motivation. Additionally, dogs used as police dogs come from specific breeding lines, which are ranked high in personality traits such as “aggressiveness” and “playfulness” (SCHILDER and van der BORG 2003, SVARTBERG 2005). All in all, police dog training compels training methods leading to maximal success in highly exciting training situations without causing physical and/or psychological damage on animal. In this section of the study, Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

learning and direct behavioral effects of different training methods in police dog training will be discussed. Learning Effects of the Training Methods In the present study the effectiveness of electronic training collar and pinch collar as an application of “positive punishment” was compared with the conditioned signal, “quitting signal”, as an application of “negative punishment” in police dog training. The results in this study indicate the highest learning effect in electronic training collar when comparing with the other methods, while the quitting signal had the lowest learning effect. In other words, negative punishment was not found to be effective in the training situations requiring high level of arousal and motivation when comparing with positive punishment. These results can be attributed to many factors. In this section, these factors will be discussed within the frame work of the “criteria of punishment training”, which were determined by TORTORA (1982) as follows: 1. Punishment should be immediate 2. Punishment should be associated with the misbehavior only 3. Punishment should be administered by the nature The “trainer” and the “timing” should be considered as the main factors causing different results while evaluating the learning effect of training methods. As previously emphasized, various authors underline the essential value of “good timing” in training since only accurate timing makes it possible for the dog to associate the misbehavior with the punishment (TORTORA 1982, POLSKY 1994, BEERDA 1998, SCHALKE et al., 2006). . . . The other two training methods, i.e. the pinch collar and the quitting signal, were, however, applied by the dog handlers themselves. Therefore, for sure the “timing” of the application of electronic training collar was better than for the other methods during the experiment. This hypothesis was also supported by the video analyses which showed that most of the handlers had timing problems, in particular for giving the quitting signal; whereas the handlers of the dogs, using the methods that had a learning effect, corrected their dogs at the right time. Thus group differences were observed for the learning effect of the pinch collar, as well as, of the quitting signal, while no significant group differences were found for the learning effect of electronic training collar. These results also indicate the significance of the “trainer” and, accordingly, “good timing” factors. According to TORTORA (1982) electronic training collars are significant training aids since they can be administered at a distance so that the dogs do not associate receiving the shock with the owner. Thus, it can be said Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

that for the application of the electronic training collar, the only association is made with the collar, not with the owner. The application of mechanical training aids is, however, directly associated with the handler since the correction made by the owner is visible by the dog. By this way, the visibility of the punishment can cause that the dog reacts in different ways according to the cues given by the handler subconsciously, such as facial expression, body language, holding style of the leash etc.. All in all, even though perfect timing is applied, reaction of the dog and thus the effectiveness of the mechanical training aids depends on the willingness of the handler, as well as his/her proficiency. In addition to that, the factors such as strength and motivation of the handler are also essential for the effectiveness of the mechanical training devices (TORTORA 1982, LANDSBERG et al. 2003, LINDSAY 2005). Beside the “bad timing” during the instruction of the quitting signal, a possible explanation for the low learning effect may be the unsuccessful training procedure, namely an incomplete conditioning of the signal. SCHILDER and van der BORG (2003) stated that the police dog training is relatively short, considering the expectations from the dog and since the severe punishment brings success in such a short time, the willingness to change the training type is not promoted. Parallel to this argument, SCHALKE (personal communication) also pointed out that since the police dog handlers get used to achieve quick results in a short time by using positive punishment in the training, they are not familiar with any training method requiring structured effort, such as quitting signal training. Therefore, most of them do not consider the quitting signal, namely the negative punishment, as an effective method in police dog training. As a result their disbeliefs in a given signal could also be a factor influencing the achievement of the maximal success in the training. She also emphasized on the personality traits of the Belgian Malinois, that they should necessarily be considered in evaluating the learning effect of the quitting signal and further explained it as follows: “The Belgian Malinois could, in general, deal with positive punishment better than negative punishment since it is not a kind of breed which easily copes with frustrate situations”. Since the quitting signal training was mainly conducted by the handlers, it is possible that some mistakes during the training procedure could be overlooked. Though the training in Hannover was regularly supervised because it took place in the same city as the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, only two supervisions could be made during the quitting signal training in Muenster. Accordingly, the quitting signal showed higher learning effect in Hannover than in Muenster. Nonetheless, it should particularly be mentioned that all subjects had been tested for the quitting signal prior to the main test in order to make sure that all dogs completed the training procedure. . . .

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

These results are also in accordance with the theory of LINDSAY (2005), which supports the idea that the electric stimulus used in dog training causes no physical damage, neither to the skin nor to the underlying tissue, whereas mechanical techniques such as pinch collars may cause sustained throbbing, local irritation and bruising. On the other hand, the quitting signal caused the fewest stress effect on the dogs when comparing with the pinch and the electronic training collar. Although the pinch collar caused more behavioral reactions, in the form of distress, than the electronic training collar, the electronic training collar elicits more vocal reactions in dogs than the pinch collars. Since the evaluation of stress, as well as of distress, should be discussed considering the entire picture, namely the postural and vocal reactions, this contradiction between the bodily and vocal reactions raises an important question: How would it be possible that the dogs exhibiting less stress related behavioral reactions vocalize more intensely than the animals showing severe stress related behaviors? The only explanation for this could be that these vocal reactions are elicited as “startle reactions” (BROOM and JOHNSON 1993) rather than “pain-induced vocalizations”. As a matter of fact, the feeling of the leash on the pinch collar could be a signal for the dog as forthcoming punishment while testing the pinch collar, whereas no signal could be perceived by the dog while testing the electronic training collar. Thus, receiving electric shock is unexpected for the dog, in particular, at its first application. Similar to vocal reactions, interesting results were obtained in assessment of the “avoidance reaction” against the pinch- and the electronic-training collar. According to these results, more dogs exhibited “avoidance” as a reaction to the electronic training collar than to the pinch collar. These avoiding reactions were however evaluated as “approaching the owner” in all of the dogs out of 8 dogs avoided from the electronic training collar, while the same reactions were evaluated as “circling” in one dog and as “distance increasing” in the other dog out of 3 dogs avoided from the pinch collar. Furthermore it was observed, that the same dog approached the owner after the application of the electrical shock, while it attempted to flight as a reaction to the pinch collar. The reasonable interpretation of these results is that since the dog does not link the handler with receiving the electrical shock, it considers its handler as a “safety point” near which it can protect itself from the aversive situation. In other words, the dog perceives the punishment by the electronic training collar as the punishment by the environment as a result of not paying attention to the handler’s warning and, thus, to obey the handler is the only solution to avoid the aversive situation (TORTORA 1982, LINDSAY 2005). The application of the pinch collar is on the other hand directly linked to the handler since the correction made by the owner is visible to the dog. Therefore, the only solution for the dog is to avoid from the owner in order to avoid from the aversive situation.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Conclusion

The results of the present study indicate that the electronic training collar induces less distress and shows stronger “learning effect” in dogs in comparison to the pinch collar. The quitting signal is on the other hand not found effective in police dog training although it causes the “least distress” reactions in dogs when comparing with the electronic training- and pinch collar. Altogether, concerning the “bodily reactions”, the pinch collar was evaluated as the most distressful method and considering the “learning effect”, the electronic training collar was found to be the most effective method. These results can probably be explained by that electronic training collar complies completely with the punishment criteria, which were defined by TORTORA (1982), in case of proof of the proficient and experienced user. On the other hand when applying the pinch collar, these criteria cannot be met even though perfect timing is applied since reactions of the dog and effectiveness of the method depends on several different factors such as the willingness, strength and motivation of the handler, as well as his/her proficiency. In addition to that, the visibility of the administrator and, thus, of the punishment is another important factor influencing the efficiency of the pinch collar because the dog directly links the punishment with its owner. Therefore this method does not satisfy the “punishment criteria” at all. The quitting signal on the other hand requires criteria, such as good timing and structured training procedure, on account of complete conditioning in order to achieve effective results. Even if these criteria are met, the personality trait of the dog is another factor, which influences the efficiency of the signal. It should particularly be mentioned, that the quitting signal training was implied only on adult dogs within the frame of this study. Therefore, the results should not be interpreted as that the quitting signal cannot be a suitable method in police dog training. As previously stated training of the quitting signal requires a hard and a structured procedure. Thus, if the training, namely the conditioning, begins at the puppyhood, the quitting signal can also be an effective method in police dog training. Overall, the results of this study show that an efficient training which complies with the animal welfare principles should ensure the following punishment criteria: good timing, association with the misbehavior only and application of correct strength and/or dose. Therefore, the debates about training methods can only be reasonable in case that they comprise not only the training aids, but also all inputs which affect the training, such as the trainer, the training conditions, etc. Summary In the present study stress and learning affect of three training methods, i.e. electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal are investigated. Additionally a questionnaire was addressed to the canine officers, who participated in this research as handlers, in order to gain Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

information about dogs’ characteristics, past experience, health situation etc., and thus, to avoid incorrect assessment of the test results. Furthermore, body language of each dog during obedience exercises was filmed and analyzed, so that correlations between body posture and experience, body posture and characteristics, as well as between body posture and direct reactions of the dogs to the training methods could be detected. The tests were performed on 42 adult police dogs of both genders (33 males and 9 females) and varying ages (3-10 years old) of the breed Belgian Malinois. 22 dogs, which were tested in Muenster, were recruited from different Police Departments in Nordrheinwestfalen [Province of North Rhine-Westphalia], whereas another 20 dogs which participated the study belonged to Hannover Police Department. The dogs tested in Hannover and in Muenster were considered as two different groups. The main experiment took place on three test days for each dog. The time interval between test days was one week. “Within subject design” was used as experimental design for the study. Therefore, on each training day a different training method among the quitting signal, the electronic training collar and the pinch collar was administered to dogs in accordance with the subgroups to which they belonged. The subgroups were established according to the administration order of the training methods by using a randomized crossover design. There was a high learning effect for the electronic training collar and the pinch collar and a low learning effect for the quitting signal. Compared with the electronic training collar, pinch collar appeared to have a lower learning effect in dogs. However, this difference was not found to be significant. No significant difference was found comparing the learning effect of the electronic training collar between Hannover and Muenster, whereas a tendency towards significance was seen between the cities in comparison of learning effect of the pinch collar, as well as of quitting signal. A high learning effect of electronic training collar may be due to that this is the only method in police dog training, which satisfies the punishment criteria completely only if it is administered by a proficient and experienced user. An important part of this study was the detection of stress related behavioral reactions to the above mentioned training methods. In order to achieve this, direct behavioral reactions of the dogs were examined. Comparing the first ear and joint reactions of the dogs to the pinch- and the electronic training collar it was found, that the correction applied by the pinch collar caused lower ear and lower body position than the one in reaction to the electronic training collar. Moreover, 2 dogs exhibited “extremeness of body posture” as a reaction to the pinch collar, whilst in none of the dogs this reaction was observed against the electronic training collar. No statistically significant difference was found when comparing the tail reactions between the electronic training collar and the pinch collar. However, it has been observed, that the dogs lowered their tails Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

more often in reaction to the electronic training collar than to the pinch collar. The results of this study also indicate, that electronic training collar elicits statistically significant more vocal reactions in dogs than pinch collar. Only 4 out of 42 dogs abandoned the behavior after having been given the quitting signal during the first session. Therefore, only the reactions of these 4 dogs to the quitting signal could be tested. Consequently, it was observed that 2 dogs showed low ear positions, while only one dog exhibited low body posture together with low tail position following the signal. The joint reaction of this dog was, however, scored as “extremeness of body posture” and ”crouching”. None of these dogs on the other hand emitted vocal reactions reaction to the instruction of the signal. All in all, considering the bodily reactions, pinch collar was found to be more distressful for dogs when comparing with the other methods. In accordance with the literature it seems possible to draw conclusions from bodily reactions to level of stress in dogs.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 11 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Handler “Safety/Survival” Skills (This chapter currently in revision)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Be a Police Officer first and a Dog Handler second 1.

Dog must not jeopardize Officer safety

2.

Mentality "Officer using dog as an instrument"

3.

Mentality "Dog Lover"

Use a Backup Officer if possible 1.

Divide scope of responsibilities

2.

Assistance during emergency

Remember "Cover" versus "Concealment" 1.

Cover offers physical protection

2.

Concealment is visual barrier only

Don't run immediately behind your Dog 1.

Tunnel vision is hazardous

2.

Clear as you go

"There's a perpetrator behind every door..." 1.

6.

7.

8.

Be prepared to respond to every possibility

Handler next to the wall in building entries 1.

Use all possible cover

2.

Dog senses more accurately

Building Entry with "Lights On" or "Lights Off" 1.

Lights on capitalizes on numbers and strength

2.

Lights off capitalizes on stealth

Issue appropriate warnings 1.

Warnings may create psychological advantage

2.

Warnings reduce likelihood of accidents

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 12 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Handler deploys Dog alone or accompanies it 1.

Dog alone places more discretion on dog

2.

Accompanying places more discretion on Handler

Tactical Advance through search area 1.

Every search area is unique

2.

Clear as you go

3.

Plan movement

Suspects "High" or "Low" 1.

Think multi-dimensional

2.

Perpetrators may try to hide above dog's reach

Multiple Suspects 1.

Accomplices are very common

2.

"It's not over until it's over"

Is this a "Dog deal?" 1.

Graham v. Connor

2.

Less educated officers

Move the suspect to the Handler 1.

15.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Remain at cover position if possible

KEEP YOUR GUN HAND FREE! 1.

Leashes or other equipment

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 12 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments

(This chapter currently in revision) Open Area Searches

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments Building Searches Building search includes, but isn’t limited to: 1.

Alarms

2.

Room to room

3.

Residential

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments Tactical Applications (Non-SWAT) Tactical deployments include, but aren’t limited to: 1.

Vehicle extraction

2.

Target identification

3.

Flashlight/laser light Systematic search)

4.

Passive suspect

5.

SWAT operations

6.

Crawl spaces & attics (drag line with or with out)

7.

Altered environments (CN, CS, OC spray, Flashbang, smoke)

8.

Barricaded suspects

9.

Cell extractions (drag line option)

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments Officer Safety Officer Safety 1.

Handler down

2.

Handler defense

3.

Unknown suspicious activity (patrol route)

4.

Multiple dogs/ containment & deployment procedures

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments Community Oriented Policing or Public Information Community Oriented Policing 1.

How much should we show

2.

What kind of demo

3.

How accessible should the k-9 be to the public (petting, playing)

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments Tracking/Trailing

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments Area search (rural environment)

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments Yard to Yard (urban environment) 4.

High/low (Trees, tops of houses, under decks, window wells)

5.

Visual barricades (blankets, garbage cans, or other obstructions)

6.

Bicyclist, skate board, roller skates, etc.

7.

Fleeing suspect

8. ridges)

All terrain environments (water, swamp, wooded, hills- sloped

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Deployments SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH A Study of Police Canine Search Teams as Compared To Officer Search Teams This study was done by Officer Marie Wolfe of the Lansing Police Department K-9 Unit. Officer Wolfe has been a Lansing Police Officer for over four years. She has been a K-9 handler for three years. Officer Wolfe is a graduate of Michigan State University with a Masters Degree in Criminal Justice. Officer Wolfe is also a graduate of the Michigan State University K-9 Academy along with her partner "Cagney." Officer Wolfe and "Cagney" are assigned to the Uniform Division, Patrol Bureau. Question:

Does the utilization of police K-9 units enhance the Department's efficiency and effectiveness through the reduction of time needed to perform certain tasks?

Theory:

Police K-9 units, by virtue of the canine's olfactory ability, are able to perform certain tasks with a higher degree of efficiency and accuracy than a police officer.

Research Method:

Search scenarios were set-up in several buildings in the Lansing area with "suspect(s)" hidden inside. Both police K-9 units and officer units (2 to 4 officers depending on the building size) performed building searches. Elapsed time and accuracy of the results were measured for comparison.

Results:

The police K-9 units outperformed the officer units both in terms of time required to search buildings and in accuracy of locating the suspects."

Implications:

The utilization of trained police K-9 units for building searches can represent a considerable advantage in time/cost savings to the Lansing Police Department. As the building size increases, the K-9 units' time savings and accuracy far surpasses that of searching officer units. The utilization of police canines provides a multitude of other benefits, e.g., handler protection, enhanced public perception of safety through greater apprehension of criminal suspects, tracking and location of evidence, criminals and lost persons, crowd control, narcotics and explosives detection, arson detection, cadaver detection and asset seizure.

Recommendation:

The Lansing Police Department should continue the current program of maintaining the K-9 Unit within the

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Uniform Division as support for patrol activities. I.

Problem Throughout the country there continues to be an apparent increase in the rate of reported crime, while there is a concomitant decrease in the personnel resources available to police agencies. Police departments nationwide have used trained canines as an effort to "take a bite out of crime" with the canines providing a variety of services to these agencies. A.

Purpose The purpose of this study will be to evaluate the effectiveness and accuracy of a police canine unit in one of its potential uses (building searches). Tests will determine if use of such a unit would reduce the amount of time and personnel needed to search a building. Additional measurements regarding accuracy and certainty of results will be gathered.

B.

Importance It is important to be able to see if a canine team would actually result in savings in terms of time and personnel as resources available to police agencies seem to be decreasing in the face of an increasing crime rate. If, in this singular use of canine unit, greater efficiency can be realized, as well as a grater degree of accuracy in their results, it will result in a reduction of the public’s fear of crime through the enhanced rate of apprehension of criminals.

C.

Limitations The use of police canines is limited in this study to an evaluation of their efficiency and effectiveness in searching buildings. Canines are also capable of being utilized for handler protection, tracking and location of evidence, criminals and lost persons, crowd control, narcotics and explosives detection, arson detection, cadaver detection, and asset seizure. An additional limitation occurs with the degree of certainty measurement that I have used. As this is a subjective measure, there is an inherent problem with reliability. Individuals have a variety of perceptions and experiences, and without a common reference point on which to base a response, objectivity is impossible.

II.

Research A.

Questions

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

B.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

1.

How much time and personnel are required to conduct a building search for officer teams and for K-9 teams?

2.

What is the accuracy of suspect location when a building search is conducted by officer teams versus K-9 teams?

3.

Are there any significant differences in officers' self-reported certainty levels following a building search by officer teams versus K-9 teams?

Definitions 1.

Building search - In this study, a building search involves the active searching of the inside of a building to detect the presence of any persons(s) hiding inside, such as a burglar.

2.

Time and personnel - Refers to elapsed time while a building is being searched and the number of people and canines conducting the search.

3.

Officer teams - Refers to two or more police officers (the exact number to be determined by the size of the building).

4.

Canine teams - Refers to a trained police canine and its officer/handler.

5.

Suspect location - Refers to locating a suspect (s) hiding inside the building.

6.

Self-reported certainty level - The subjective response of the officer on a five-point Likert scale as to his/her degree of certainty as to the results following a building search.

III. Review of the Literature In reviewing related literature concerning the effectiveness of police canines, widely recognized expert Samuel G. Chapman aptly described the situation when he stated that in this field, "...data were lacking and written documentation didn't exist in several places." (Chapman; 1979,78) Much has been written, however, concerning the strengths of some of the canine's sensory abilities relative to humans which assists in rendering them highly useful for some types of police assignments. Syrotuck (19??) reported that a comparison of olfactory cell counts between humans and canines indicates that a dog's sense of smell should at least 44 times better. Several studies that this author has reviewed indicate that a canines olfactory sensitivity is anywhere between 10-100 times greater than that of human's. There is a certain variability present depending on the odiferous material used and the ability and motivation of the canine. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

(Syrotuck; 19??) For example, Hehuas (1953) discovered that a canine's sensitivity to butyric acid was 100 thousand to 100 million times greater than human's. Moulton (1969) believes the most probable advantage canines possess given this increased olfactory area is the enhancement of scent discrimination or the ability to distinguish one scent from others. He continues to report that even a small increase in this ability will enhance the detection of subtle differences in odors. Additionally, Watson (1963) reported that the average German Shepherd's hearing ability has been proven to be ten times greater than that of human beings. Various experts and lay people with great experience in the criminal justice system report the tremendous advantages to using canines in police work. (Chapman; 1960) In terms of crowd control, Watson (1963) stated that a canine team can effectively perform the job that might typically require the services of 15 to 20 police officers. In terms of drug detection, numerous studies have shown that trained canines are generally ten times better than any instrument. (Watson; 1963), (Chapman; 1960), (Bond ;1978) has reported that canine teams have excelled in the area of bomb detection with a "96% surety rate" while lowering search times for airport terminals, baggage areas, cargo areas and aircraft considerably. Chapman (1979) stated that, "Police dogs can do what man and his machines cannot: locate the presence of suspects by sensory means, at all times, anywhere, and under some of the worst conditions." Their speed, thoroughness and accuracy in "...searching sterile areas to detect the presence of unauthorized persons..." has often been demonstrated. (Chapman;1979) The economic benefit of police canines in terms of their effectiveness, has been noted by police executives. (Chapman; 1979) While much has been written about police canine effectiveness, including figures similar to the above, it is hoped that this study would provide some concrete data to the above contentions, filling the void to which Chapman referred. IV.

Method A.

Design The design utilized has been conceptualized below. An explanation of the symbols follows. Officer teams B1 B2 B3 B4

X XX X XX

S S S S

C C C C

S

C

K-9 teams B1

X

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program B2 B3 B4

XX X XX

Patrol Dog Training Manual S S S

C C C

Symbols B = Building to be searched (there will be four different ones and each will be searched five times). X = The number and occurrence of "suspects" hiding in the building. S = The active searching of the interior of the building in the attempt to locate the suspects. C = The officers' response on the degree of certainty scale. As the number and occurrence of "suspects" hiding in the various buildings will be consistently varied for each searching group, this will serve the experiment well. Additionally, the locations of the hidden "suspects" will be the same for both searching groups. This design should control for any anticipated (non-experimental) factors in this situation. B.

extraneous

Population and Sampling --- The canine teams’ population will consist of all the police canine teams from the Lansing Police Department, with the exception of the author, and the canine teams from the Michigan State University Police Department, the East Lansing Police Department and the Eaton County Sheriff's Department for a total access to 15 police canine teams. The officer teams will consist of officers from the Lansing Police Department's Uniform Division with the particular assistance of the Crime Suppression Unit, Crime Scene Investigators, and the Helicopter Unit.

C.

Facilities Utilized --- The buildings utilized for this study were all located in Lansing. They varied in use, content, and size. A brief description and square footage approximation follows. 1.

Lansing Uniform Company--Is a commercial retail store that sells police uniforms, footwear, equipment, etc. and does on-site tailoring. Approximate square footage 5,445.

2.

St. Mary's multi-purpose--An outbuilding for a downtown church that has a gymnasium, social/recreational areas and a complete kitchen set-up. Approximate square footage 11,000.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

3.

Board of Water and Light Water Department--A local utility company building which houses the steam and engineering departments, offices, classrooms, a water meter repair facility , and garage area. Approximate square footage 40,500.

4.

Board of Water and Light Stores Warehouse--A local utility company warehouse containing offices, and equipment for both the electrical and water departments ranging from outlets, valves, and hoses to mastarms, luminaries, and coils of steel. Approximate square footage 138,995.

D.

Instrumentation -- Measurements of elapsed time will be kept and analyzed for each of the searching groups in the four different buildings used. The number of officers and canines utilized to conduct the specific search and the estimated square footage of the buildings searched will also be recorded. A five-point Likert scale has been developed to record the officers' reported degree of certainty level as to their results following their search of a building.

E.

Treatment -- Search situations will differing in size and use (e.g., two church recreational building and officer teams and canine teams will the purpose of locating suspects or

be set-up in four buildings warehouse-type buildings, a a commercial store). Both search these buildings with clearing the buildings.

In each of the scenarios, outer perimeter security will be given as it is consistent for both officer teams and canine teams searching buildings in terms of the number of officers needed for exterior security. There will be total of 20 trials for officer teams for canine teams. In these situations, a "suspect(s)" will hide in the same places for the searching officer teams and the searching canine teams. Elapsed time will be kept for each group searching the building. Also recorded will be the number of personnel and number of canines utilized to search each building. Records will be kept to determine the success rate in locating "suspects." Uniformed officers and officer/handlers will be asked to indicate their degree of certainty as to their results on a five-point Likert scale. F.

Data Analysis--Data will be analyzed to compute the accuracy and efficiency of both officers and canine teams' results, elapsed time required for the various searches, number of personnel and canines utilized, as well as the results relative to each group. The self - reported degree of certainty scale responses will also be examined to see if there is any statistical significance in the responses of searching officers and officer/handlers.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program V.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Results The data, represented in Tables 1-4 below, illustrate a considerable savings in time expended and accuracy of searching when canine teams are utilized for building searchings. One of the first measures that this study evaluated was a comparison of the number of suspects located by the respective searching teams to the number of suspects located by the respective searching teams to the number of suspects hidden. The resulting percentage was calculated to determine the difference in "accuracy" between the canine teams and the officer teams. In Table 1 below, it can be observed that the canine teams had a higher degree of accuracy than the officer teams. Canine teams successfully found 27 out of 29 suspects hidden or 93 percent. This is compared to the much lower accuracy percentage of the officer teams which was 59 percent, or 17 out of 29 suspects located. Table 1 -- Comparison of Suspects Found to Suspects Hidden By Type of Team Team Canine Teams Officer Teams

Suspects Hidden 29 29

Suspects Found 27 17

Accuracy % 93% 59%

In the two circumstances where the canine teams failed to locate suspects in the BW&L Water Department building, it should be noted that there were many chemical/gasoline odors present which may have affected the canines. Additionally, the canine teams were not sent into "clean" buildings in these scenarios. A clean building would be that which was devoid of human scent for an hour or so. Time constraints necessitated each canine team searching buildings relatively back to back with perhaps 15 minutes between searches. It also appears that as the square footage of the buildings increased, the accuracy of the officer teams decreased. This is supported by the data in Table 2. Table 2 -- Searching Units' Accuracy by Building. Building Square Footage Lansing Uniform 5,445

St. Mary's

11,000 BW&L Water Dept. 40,500 BW&L Stores 138,995

Officer Teams' Accuracy

83% 100% 45% 28%

Canine Teams' Accuracy

100% 100% 82% 100%

A second measurement of this study consisted of the average time (in minutes) it took for each unit to locate the suspects. Canine Teams outperformed the officer teams by a wide margin. As indicated in Table 3, the canine teams cleared the various buildings from a low of 1 min. 24 sec. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

to a high 15 min. 51 sec. The officers teams' clearance times ranged from a low of 18 min. 9 sec. to a high 148 min. 15 sec. It should be noted that the time calculated for the officer teams was multiplied by the number of officers actively searching the building (2 to 4 depending on building size) to establish an "officer/hour" time figure. Additional, a time limit of one hour was established per building search. The table below indicates that average time over the five searches performed by each team in each of the four buildings. Table 3 -- Average Time (minutes) to Locate Suspects by Type Unit Location

Square Footage 5,445 St. Mary's 11,000 BW&L Water Dept. 40,500 BW&L Stores 138,995 Lansing Uniform

K-9 Teams 1 min. 24 4 min. 20 14 min. 15 15 min. 51

sec. sec. sec. sec.

Officers 20 min. 18 min. 60 min. 148 min.

Teams 52 sec. 9 sec. 30 sec. 15 sec.

An additional consideration in cost factor analysis is the time expended by perimeter security that is necessary while the searches are being conducted. Perimeter security typically would involve the assistance of at least two additional officers. It is apparent that perimeter security time will also multiply as searching time increases. Table 4 presents data on the officers and officer/handlers' self - reported certainty levels as to the results of their searches. A five-point Likert scale was utilized with 1 being the most certain and 5 being the least certain. Table 4 -- Average Degree of Certainty Results Location Lansing Uniform St. Mary's BW&L Water Dept. BW&L Stores

Square Footage 5,445 11,000 40,500 138,995

K-9 Teams 1 1 1.6 1.3

Officers Teams 2.3 2.1 3.8 4.75

VI Conclusion The utilization of trained police canine teams for building search situations can represent a considerable benefit to police agencies (through a reduction in officers' time spent to search various locations) as well as a reduction in the fear of crime (through an enhanced apprehension rate of criminals). As the building size increases, the canine teams' time savings, accuracy, and subjective reported certainty far surpasses that of searching officers teams. When coupled with the safety factor, the utilization of canine teams is an outstanding addition to police agencies.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 13 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Report Writing (This chapter in revision)

The following pages documentation.

are

reports

of

various

types

which

are

used

for

Patrol

Dog

1.

POLICE PATROL DOG PERFORMANCE DOCUMENTATION, a report which documents the overall performance of a Patrol Dog, in training and also in deployment.

2.

PATROL DOG SELECTION TEST, a report which documents the evaluation of a potential Patrol Dog for its possibility to be trained successfully.

3.

PATROL DOG CERTIFICATION GRADE SHEET, a report which documents the performance of a potential Patrol Dog in a certification test.

4.

PATROL DOG PROFILE, a report which documents a psychological profile of a Patrol Dog or candidate by a competent Patrol Dog Instructor of Judge.

5.

Police K-9 HANDLER EQUIPMENT INVENTORY REPORT, a report of all equipment assigned to a Patrol Dog Handler.

6.

Police K-9 HANDLER DAILY ACTIVITY REPORT, a report of all activities performed by a Patrol Dog Handler while on-duty.

7.

PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT, a report which documents the actions of a patrol Dog and Handler during a deployment.

8.

K-9 USE OF FORCE REVIEW REPORT, a report which documents an evaluation of a Use of Force involving a Patrol Dog.

9.

THREAT ELEMENTS, a list of circumstances Patrol Dog Handlers sometimes face which should be clarified in Deployment Reports.

10.

Blank POLICE PATROL DOG PERFORMANCE DOCUMENTATION sheets for documenting your K-9's performance during this course.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

POLICE PATROL DOG PERFORMANCE DOCUMENTATION Dog Handler Date of Activity Training-Deployment-Exam Man-Hours Saved Community Contact Temperature Time of Day Track Age - Elapsed Time Interior or Exterior Start of Track Legs of Track Turns of Track Length of Track Suspect Indication Evidence #1 Indication Evidence #2 Indication Evidence #3 Indication Evidence #4 Indication Criminal Evidence Search Heeling on Command Right/Left/About Turns Group Heeling Humans/Dogs Jumping Obstacle Down in Motion Down Out of Sight Gunfire Recall to Handler Finish Position Group Heeling Humans Only Field Interview Guarding Handler Defense Reaction Initial Impact Subdue a Hostile Subject Pain Resiliency Pain Compliance Disengage a Subject Recall to Handler Frisk a Subject Building Search Indicate a Subject Transport a Subject Tactical Windscenting Tactical Indication Behavior-Announcements Free Search for a Subject Detain a Passive Subject Behavior-Escaping Subject Release on Command Tactical Release Emergency Release Pursue a Subject “Clear As You Go” Search Dismiss/Remand A Subject Behavior-Surveillance Charging Hostile Subject Richey Technique Dial Technique Behavior-Gunbattle Scentwork Year-to-Date Obedience Year-to-Date Apprehension Year-to-Date

-

-

-

Dept Scentwork Total-to-Date Obedience Total-to-Date Apprehension Total-to-Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

-

Mo/Yr -

-

-

Ch. 14 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Explanation of Elements, Ratings, & Assessments Searching Behavior Grading Elements Searching Behavior Elements are identified as Calm + Methodical + Intense + Focused + Sniffing 1 = Elements displayed concurrently & completely (Searching behavior that is exemplary) 2 = Elements displayed as above with few exceptions (Searching behavior that is commendable) 3 = Elements displayed to a highly reliable degree (Searching that is typical of a veteran K-9) 4 = Elements displayed to a reliable degree (Searching that meets professional standards) 5 = Elements displayed less than a reliable degree (Searching that needs higher display of skill) 6 = Elements displayed very little or not at all (Little or no display of Searching skill) Indication Behavior Grading Elements Indication Behavior Elements are identified as Prescribed + Immediate + Intense + Consistent + Focused 1 = Elements displayed concurrently and completely (Indication behavior that is exemplary) 2 = Elements displayed as above with few exceptions (Indication behavior that is commendable) 3 = Elements displayed to a highly reliable degree (Indication that is typical of a veteran K-9) 4 = Elements displayed to a reliable degree (Indication that meets professional standards) 5 = Elements displayed less than a reliable degree (Indication that needs higher display of skill) 6 = Elements displayed very little or not at all (Little or no display of Indication skill) General Behavior Grading Elements 1=Superior Performance, Behavior which is without flaw..................................Letter 2=Commendable Performance, Behavior which is notably more skillful than Typical.........Letter 3=Typical Performance, Behavior expected from a seasoned Patrol Dog.....................Letter 4=Suitable Performance, Behavior which is consistent with deployment needs..............Letter 5=Improvement Needed, Behavior which reveals substandard performance....................Letter 6=Unskilled Performance, Behavior which reveals little or no training...................Letter 1.00-1.74 1.75-2.49 2.50-3.24 3.25-4.00 4.01-5.00 5.01-6.00

= = = = = =

Grading Curve Superior Performance...........Letter Commendable Performance........Letter Typical Performance............Letter Suitable Performance...........Letter Improvement Needed.............Letter Unskilled Performance..........Letter

Grade....(A) Grade....(B) Grade....(C) Grade....(D) Grade....(I) Grade....(U)

Grade....(A) Grade....(B) Grade....(C) Grade....(D) Grade....(I) Grade....(U)

Comments or Notes

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

PATROL DOG IN-SERVICE PERFORMANCE DOCUMENTATION Dog ____________ Handler _______________ Dept _____________________________________ Section I:

In-Service Statistics (Fill in after Section II is completed)

Type of Training

|Sessions/Hrs Year-to-Date

|Sessions/Hrs Total-to-date

Tracking (Tr)

|

|

Evidence Search (Ev) |

|

Obedience (Ob)

|

|

Apprehension (Ap)

|

|

Section II: In-Service Performance (Record all training/deployment performed) Date

|Tr |Ev |Ob |Ap |Description of Training

HH:MM

Sample

| X |

|

|

|200 yds, suburban terrain, 45 mins old |

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

1:40

|Evaluation* | 3

* 1=Superior, 2=Commendable, 3=Typical, 4=Suitable, 5=Improvement Needed, 6=Unskilled Notes or Explanations on Back

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

Dog **Sample** Exercise -GradeFocus on Person Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Pain Tolerance Refocus on Person Overall Performanc-

2 3 3 1 1 4 2

Control Gunfire Defense Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Pain Tolerance Refocus Overall Performanc-

3 4 2 3 3 1 1 2 2

Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Refocus on Person Overall Performanc-

4 2 2 3 1 3

3

Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Mental IntimidatedRefocus on Person Overall Performanc-

3 2 2 3 1 1 2 2

Focus on Person Pursuit Hunting Holding Mental Intimidatn Refocus on Person Overall Performanc-

2 2 3 1 1 2 2

Slick Floors Umbrella Disposition

-

2

Suitable for Training: Evaluator

**Sample**

2 2

DOG

SELECTION

TEST

Final Test Date **Sample** Remarks - Notes Biting Test - Stared and barked excitedly - Paused prior to impact and picked spot - Adjusted grip but did not release - Strong shaking and legs wrapped - Eyes open, ears up, no hackles during blows - Refocused, sleeve in mouth, subject closed in, dropped - Commendable; obvious potential for development Handler Defense/Gunfire - Anticipating some form of action - Very excited, not focused on shooter or Handler (Aggr) - Slightly startled, then full intensity - Unable to achieve powerful impact, startled - Adjusted grip but did not release - Powerful side-to-side shaking and wrestling - Total disregard for blows and yelling - Refocused, unruliness attempting to re-engage - Commendable; gunfire behavior obviously inexperienced Courage Test - Considerable unruliness, trying to get free to pursue - Fast and energetic - Strong and slowed only slightly just prior to contact - Adjusted grip several times - Powerful, full-body involvement - Strenuous effort to break free from Handler - Typical; moderate Feral Tendency displayed during refocus Pursuit Test - Very excited and moderately unruly - Fast and energetic - Strong, leaped forward into subject - Adjusted grip several times - Powerful, full intensity attempt to subdue - Not intimidated at all - Refocused well, seemingly due to fatigue - Commendable; obvious raw talent displayed Hunting/Holding Test - Keenly alert to subject as appeared/fled, slightly unruly - Full speed to 3/4 distance, then bounding and loping - Predominantly eyes, then tracked to subject - Held subject entire time, never left - No intimidation observed at all - Refocused well, quite fatigued, not unruly at all - Commendable; performed well in spite of fatigue Mental Stability - Inexperienced on slick floors but not afraid - Lunged toward umbrella but sniffed only - Extremely social, slightly subdued @ approach by strangers

Yes Signature

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

Dog Exercise

- Grade -

Focus on Person Initial Hit Pain Compliance Combat Pain Threshold Refocus on Person Overall Performance-

-

Control Gunfire Defense Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Pain Threshold Refocus Overall Performanc-

-

Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Refocus on Person Overall Performanc-

-

Focus on Person Pursuit Initial Impact Pain Compliance Combat Mental Intimidatn Refocus on Person Overall Performanc-

-

Focus on Person Pursuit Hunting Holding Mental Intimidatn Refocus on Person Overall Performanc-

-

s Slick Floors Umbrella Disposition

-

-

Suitable for Training:

Yes

DOG

SELECTION

Field Test Remarks - Notes

TEST

Final Test

Date

Biting Test

Handler Defense/Gunfire Aggr

Fear

Courage Test

Pursuit Test

Hunting/Holding Test

-

No

Mental Stability

Evaluator

Signature

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

DOG

PROFILE

Name of Dog: Otto Breed: Rottweiler Age: 28 mos Handler: John Doe Department: Any Police Department, Anywhere, Any State Date: 30 February 1994 Location: Utah POST Prev. Exams: DPO1 (Utah POST), WPO (Utah Police Olympics) Evaluator:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Signature:

PHYSIOLOGICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS Physical Soundness: Commendable (B); Lean and Solid, Root Canal 1992 Physical Endurance: Typical (C) Speed/Agility: Typical (C) Temperament: Superior (A); Full and Robust Trainability: Typical (C) Sensory Threshold: Typical (C) Distractibility: Commendable (B); Seldom Observed Feral Tendency: None Observed Dogfight Tendency: Commendable (B) Moody Behavior: Commendable (B) Hunting Drive: Typical (C) Combat Drive: Superior (A); Extremely Conducive for Police Service Protection Drive: Typical (C) Rank Drive: Acceptable (D); Protest Growling Only Guard Drive: Typical (C) Pack Drive: Commendable (B) Play Drive: Commendable (B) Survival Drive: Typical (C) Activity Drive: Typical (C) Retrieve Drive: Commendable (B); Drops Items at Handler's Feet Prey Drive: Superior (A); Excellent Detector Potential Air Scent Drive: Superior (A); Rises on Rear Legs Often Tracking Drive: Superior (A); Footstep Oriented TRAINING COURSE PERFORMANCE Tracking: Superior (A) Evidence Search: Not Performed Obedience/Agility: Typical (C) Apprehension: Commendable (B) EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE Date/Type Examination: **Sample**, Intermediate Patrol Dog Examination Grade(s): Scentwork: Superior Obed/Agility: Commendable Apprehension: Typical Suitable for Service:

(DPO2) (A) 1.72 (B) 2.01 (C) 2.65

Yes

REMARKS K-9 Otto has exhibited suitable behavior to function as an Intermediate Patrol Dog in the State of Utah. Otto is remarkably competent in Tracking applications.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

Name of Dog: Handler: Date: Prev. Exams:

DOG

PROFILE

Breed: Department: Location:

Evaluator:

Age:

Signature:

PHYSIOLOGICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS Physical Soundness: Physical Endurance: Speed/Agility: Temperament: Trainability: Sensory Threshold: Distractibility: Feral Tendency: Dogfight Tendency: Moody Behavior: Hunting Drive: Combat Drive: Protection Drive: Rank Drive: Guard Drive: Pack Drive: Play Drive: Survival Drive: Activity Drive: Retrieve Drive: Prey Drive: Air Scent Drive: Tracking Drive: TRAINING COURSE PERFORMANCE Tracking: Evidence Search: Obedience/Agility: Apprehension: EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE Date/Type of Examination: Examination Grade(s): Scentwork: Obed/Agility: Apprehension: Suitable for Service: REMARKS

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program POLICE

SERVICE

Patrol Dog Training Manual DOG

HANDLER

EQUIPMENT

INVENTORY

REPORT

Handler _________________________ Dog _______________________ Date ___________________ ITEM

-Date Issued/Returned

-By Whom

-Comments

1.

-

-

-

2.

-

-

-

3.

-

-

-

4.

-

-

-

5.

-

-

-

6.

-

-

-

7.

-

-

-

8.

-

-

-

9.

-

-

-

10.

-

-

-

Additional Comments

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program POLICE

SERVICE

Patrol Dog Training Manual DOG

HANDLER

DAILY

ACTIVITY

REPORT

Handler _________________________ Dog _______________________ Date _____________________ Beginning/Ending Mileage _______________/_______________ Total Miles _________________ Time

- Activity -

- Disposition -

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

DOG

DEPLOYMENT

Dog Handler Type of Deployment Location Crime/Incident Weapon(s) Used/Found Supervisor(s) Backup Officer(s) Witnesses/Addresses/Telephones

REPORT Date/Time Deployment #

Announcement Given

Yes By No Exigent Circumstance Explanation of Patrol Dog Policy/Procedure Utilized in this Deployment

Handler Injuries, if any Canine Injuries, if any Subject #1 DOB Charge(s) Address/Telephone If Compliant, Explain If Non-Compliant, Explain If Injured, Explain Subject #2 DOB Charge(s) Address/Telephone If Compliant, Explain

Sex

Sex

Descent

Descent

Hgt

Hgt

Wgt

Wgt

DL#/ID#

If Non-Compliant, Explain If Injured, Explain REPORTING OFFICER I have completed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and affirm the actions taken therein are within not within Departmental Policy/Procedure. Handler

Signature Date SUPERVISOR REVIEW I have reviewed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and find the actions taken therein are within not within Departmental Policy/Procedure. Supervisor

Signature Date ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW I have reviewed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and find the actions taken therein are within not within Departmental Policy/Procedure.

Manager

Signature

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Date

Ch. 14 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT Narrative and Details, page

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

DOG

DEPLOYMENT

REPORT

Handler Wendell Nope Dog Chief Date/Time 22 Nov 97 2345 hrs Type of Deployment Pursue fleeing homicide suspect Deployment # 97-121-43-317-102 Location Alley behind Anyplace Bar, 123 Anyplace Street, Anyplace, UT 84XXX Crime/Incident Attempted Murder Weapon(s) Used/Found (1)9mm pistol, (2)Large folding knife Supervisor(s) Sgt. Terry Wilder Backup Officer(s) None Witnesses/Addresses/Telephones None Announcement Given

Yes By Wendell Nope, standard Departmental No Exigent Circumstance Not applicable Explanation of Patrol Dog Policy/Procedure Utilized in this Deployment (1)Certified IV.3.a; (2)Gave Departmental announcement IV.4.c; (3)Pursue homicide suspect IV.5.f; (4)Detain surrendering suspect IV.5.k; (5)Engage hostile suspect IV.5.c; (6)Secure armed suspect prior to Release command IV.6.b; (7)Guarded suspect IV.5.g; (8)Dispatched EMS ASAP IV.8.b; (9)Photographs taken IV.8.f; (10)Arrest-Deployment-Photograph reports turned in. Handler Injuries, if any None Canine Injuries, if any (1)1" laceration on right-front leg just above paw; (2)Torn pad on right-rear paw Subject #1 Michael Edwing Sex M Descent Caucasian Hgt 5-8 Wgt 212 DOB 21 Nov 1957 Charge(s) Attempted Murder Address/Telephone 123 XXX Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84XXX (801) XXX-XXXX If Compliant, Explain Not Applicable If Non-Compliant, Explain (1)Failed to comply to 2 lawful orders to drop pistol; (2)Fled away from scene, attempting escape; (3)Failed to comply to 4 lawful orders to cease furtive movements toward beltline where large folding knife was located If Injured, Explain Punctures and bruises on right arm just below shoulder Subject #2 None Sex Descent Hgt Wgt DOB DL#/ID# Charge(s) Address/Telephone If Compliant, Explain If Non-Compliant, Explain If Injured, Explain REPORTING OFFICER I have completed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and affirm the actions taken therein Departmental Policy/Procedure. are within X not within Signature SAMPLE-SAMPLE-SAMPLE Date 22 Nov 1997 SUPERVISOR REVIEW I have reviewed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and find the actions taken therein are Departmental Policy/Procedure. within X not within Handler

Wendell Nope

Signature SAMPLE-SAMPLE-SAMPLE Date 22 Nov 1997 ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW I have further reviewed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and find the actions taken Departmental Policy/Procedure. therein are within X not within

Supervisor

Manager

Sgt. Terry Wilder

Capt. Steven Groll

Signature

SAMPLE-SAMPLE-SAMPLE

Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

22 Nov 1997

Ch. 14 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL

DOG

DEPLOYMENT

Narrative and Details, page

REPORT 2 of 3

At approximately 11:45pm, I was dispatched to respond as a backup officer on a complaint of a loud disturbance at the Anyplace Bar located at 123 Anywhere Street.

While

en route, I heard Officers AAA and BBB announce their arrival in the front of the building. I drove to the rear exit in the alleyway, advised Dispatch of my arrival, turned on my overhead emergency lights, and exited my patrol car.

I could see the rear exit clearly

due to a bright light above the door, but the alleyway was not lit other than this. Moments later, I heard four loud reports, possibly gunshots, from within the building.

I unholstered my handgun and paused to listen further.

door being opened and

I heard the rear exit

quickly moved behind the cover of my vehicle.

A white male subject

wearing dark jeans and a light-colored pullover burst out into the alley with a handgun in his hand.

I remained behind my vehicle and yelled “Police, drop the gun,”

individual just stood there, looking at me.

but the

His handgun was pointed downward since his

arms were hanging at his sides. My handgun was pointed directly at him, in order to defend myself if necessary.

When I yelled a second time for him to drop the gun, he did so and

slowly raised his hands in the air. I ordered him to step toward my patrol car, to remove him from the proximity of his handgun.

He did not comply and remained steadfast, staring at me.

He then looked down

at the handgun for about two seconds, which caused me grave concern about his possible intent to recover it.

I immediately advised him again to move toward me and he again

refused, looking first at me, then over his shoulder down the alley. Suddenly, he spun around and began running in the opposite direction, down the alley. The time from exiting the building to him runing seemed to be about 10 seconds. immediately yelled “Police!

deploy my Patrol Dog and to offer him the opportunity to surrender. his shoulder but continued to run. control door opener.

I

Halt, or I’ll send my dog,” to advise him of my intent to He looked back over

I then deployed my Patrol Dog “Chief” via a remote-

Chief pursued the subject down the alley.

When Chief was about 20

feet away, the subject suddenly stopped and faced Chief with his hands in the air, yelling “Call the dog off

- don’t let him bite me!”

The subject stopped just at a point in the

alley where I could make out his form but not any further details.

Chief closed the

distance to within about six feet and “Detained” the subject without physical contact. I could see all this happen due to the light above the door. I concluded not to cross the open area without cover. weapon and got back into my patrol car.

Accordingly, I holstered my

I quickly called the dispatcher and advised I was

trying to stop an armed subject in the alley behind the bar. subject and began driving slowly towards him. handgun as I came to it.

I continued to watch the

I reached out and picked up the dropped

I continued to drive slowly, to within about 30 feet from the

subject. He remained motionless, staring at Chief as I drove. I could now see the subject clearly in my headlights. I unholstered by handgun again and opened the car door. I heard

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

PATROL

DOG

DEPLOYMENT

Narrative and Details, page

REPORT

3 of 3

Officer AAA announce over the radio that he needed an ambulance, that a white female victim had been shot twice in the face. exit.

He further stated that the suspect had run out the rear

I quickly announced I had a suspect stopped in the alley behind the building and

requested assistance.

Just then I noticed the subject began moving his right hand slowly

downward toward his right side. I yelled at him, “Don’t move, don’t move!” but he failed to comply. a second time, louder.

I yelled this

The subject looked up at me with a panicked look in his face.

He

suddenly moved his right hand toward his waistband; I feared he had another weapon there. As he made this sudden move, Chief responded by engaging him physically, lunging forward and grabbing his right arm just below the shoulder.

The impact knocked the subject

backwards and both he and Chief ended up on the ground.

The subject began yelling, “Call

off your dog, get him off me!”

I could not see his hands at this point and shouted, “Show

me your hands, show me your hands!”

He made no overt gesture to do so, but after just a

few moments I could see he had no weapon in his hands.

However, I didn’t see any weapon

on the ground and felt he might still be armed. Chief seemed to be effectively controlling the subject and I decided to make a tactical approach. created by my headlights.

I did so, staying in the shadows

I moved along the left side of the alley until I was very close

to the subject. He was now on his back and acted much more subdued, while Chief maintained a firm grip on his upper arm. I could see a shiny object near his waistband, exactly where he had suddenly reached just moments before. folding knife.

It was attached to his waist band via a metal clip.

and placed it in my pocket. handcuff him.

I grabbed the object, which was a large I removed the knife

I grabbed his arms and rolled him on his side, so I might

Once he was handcuffed, I ordered him “Stay Still!”

released his grip on the subject and assumed a guarding posture.

As I did so, Chief

I quickly frisked the

subject for other weapons but found none. He was not resisting at all now and was moaning considerably.

I saw blood flowing from his upper arm and immediately requested the

dispatcher send medical assistance.

I tore his sleeve above the wound and placed firm

pressure in the area of his brachial artery, trying to reduce the blood flow. subject, “You’re bleeding, just stay still and don’t move.” to realize his condition, saying, “OK, OK.”

I told the

He was coherent and seemed

I advised him he was under arrest for

Attempted Murder and also advised him of his Miranda rights.

I then commanded Chief to

get in the patrol car, and I awaited the arrival of the medical services personnel.

In

just minutes, an ambulance arrived and transported the subject to XXX Hospital, accompanied by Officer CCC.

Neither Chief nor I

were injured in the encounter.

I met Evidence

Technician DDD at the emergency room and assisted him in taking several photographs of the subject when the emergency room personnel had finished cleansing the wound.

Officer EEE

arrived to assume custody of the subject and I went back into service.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT

Evaluated according to Threat Elements Dog Chief Date/Time 22 Nov 97 2345 hrs Handler Wendell Nope Type of Deployment Pursue fleeing homicide suspect Deployment # 97-121-43-317-102 Location Alley behind Anyplace Bar, 123 Anyplace Street, Anyplace, UT 84XXX Crime/Incident Attempted Murder Weapon(s) Used/Found (1)9mm pistol, (2)Large folding knife Supervisor(s) Sgt. Terry Wilder Backup Officer(s) None Witnesses/Addresses/Telephones None Announcement Given

Yes By Wendell Nope, standard Departmental No Exigent Circumstance Not applicable Explanation of Patrol Dog Policy/Procedure Utilized in this Deployment (1)Certified IV.3.a; (2)Gave Departmental announcement IV.4.c; (3)Pursued homicide suspect IV.5.f; (4)Detained surrendering suspect IV.5.k; (5)Engaged hostile suspect IV.5.c; (6)Secured armed suspect prior to Release command IV.6.b; (7)Guarded suspect IV.5.g; (8)Dispatched EMS ASAP IV.8.b; (9)Photographs taken IV.8.f; (10)Arrest-Deployment-Photograph reports turned in. Handler Injuries, if any None Canine Injuries, if any (1)1" laceration on right-front leg just above paw; (2)Torn pad on right-rear paw Subject #1 Michael Edwing Sex M Descent Caucasian Hgt 5-8 Wgt 212 DOB 21 Nov 1957 Charge(s) Attempted Murder Address/Telephone 123 XXX Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84XXX (801) XXX-XXXX If Compliant, Explain Not Applicable If Non-Compliant, Explain (1)Failed to comply to 2 lawful orders to drop pistol; (2)Fled away from scene, attempting escape; (3)Failed to comply to 4 lawful orders to cease furtive movements toward beltline where large folding knife was located If Injured, Explain Punctures and bruises on right arm just below shoulder Subject #2 None Sex Descent Hgt Wgt DOB DL#/ID# Charge(s) Address/Telephone If Compliant, Explain If Non-Compliant, Explain If Injured, Explain REPORTING OFFICER I have completed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and affirm the actions taken therein Departmental Policy/Procedure. are within X not within Handler Wendell Nope Signature SAMPLE-SAMPLE-SAMPLE Date 22 Nov 1997 SUPERVISOR REVIEW I have reviewed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and find the actions taken therein are Departmental Policy/Procedure. within X not within Supervisor Sgt. Terry Wilder Signature SAMPLE-SAMPLE-SAMPLE Date 22 Nov 1997 ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW I have further reviewed this PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT and find the actions taken Departmental Policy/Procedure. therein are within X not within Manager

Capt. Steven Groll

Signature

SAMPLE-SAMPLE-SAMPLE

Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

22 Nov 1997

Ch. 14 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual PATROL DOG DEPLOYMENT REPORT Narrative and Details, page

2 of 3

At approximately 11:45pm, I was dispatched to respond as a backup officer on a complaint of a loud disturbance at the Anyplace Bar [4] located at 123 Anywhere Street. While en route, I heard Officers AAA and BBB announce their arrival in the front of the building. I drove to the rear exit in the alleyway, advised Dispatch of my arrival, turned on my overhead emergency lights, and exited my patrol car. I could see the rear exit clearly due to a bright light above the door, but the alleyway was not lit other than this[23]. Moments later, I heard four loud reports, possibly gunshots [5], from within the building. I unholstered my handgun and paused to listen further. I heard the rear exit door being opened and quickly moved behind the cover of my vehicle [36]. A white male subject wearing dark jeans and a light-colored pullover burst out [17] into the alley with a handgun in his hand [6]. I remained behind my vehicle [36] and yelled “Police, drop the gun,” but the individual just stood there, looking at me [10, 14]. His handgun was pointed downward [6] since his arms were hanging at his sides [6, 10]. My handgun was pointed directly at him, in order to defend myself if necessary. When I yelled a second time for him to drop the gun, he did so [10, 14] and slowly raised his hands in the air. I ordered him to step toward my patrol car, to remove him from the proximity of his handgun [6]. He did not comply and remained steadfast, staring at me [6, 10, 12, 14]. He then looked down at the handgun [6, 10, 12, 14, 16] for about two seconds, which CAUSED ME GRAVE CONCERN about his possible intent to recover it [6,10,12,14,16]. I immediately advised him again to move toward me and he again refused, looking first at me, then over his shoulder down the alley [14, 16, 33]. Suddenly, he spun around and began running [14, 17] in the opposite direction [17], down the alley. The period of time from his exiting the building to the moment he began to run seemed to be about 10 seconds. I immediately yelled “Police! Halt, or I’ll send my dog,” to advise him of my intent to deploy my Patrol Dog and to offer him the opportunity to surrender. He looked back over his shoulder but continued to run [10, 14, 17, 33]. I then deployed my Patrol Dog “Chief” via a remote-control door opener. Chief pursued the subject down the alley and was quickly gaining upon him. When Chief was about 20 feet away, the subject suddenly stopped and faced Chief [10, 12, 14] with his hands in the air, yelling “Call the dog off - don’t let him bite me [12]!” The subject stopped just at a point in the alley where I could make out his form but not any further details [23, 24, 31, 32, 36, 37]. Chief closed the distance to within about six feet and “Detained” the subject without physical contact. I could see all this happen due to the light above the door. XXXX I concluded not to cross the open area without cover [. Accordingly, I holstered my weapon and got back into my patrol car. I quickly called the dispatcher and advised I was trying to stop an armed subject in the alley behind the bar. I continued to watch the subject and began driving slowly towards him. I reached out and picked up the dropped handgun as I came to it. I continued to drive slowly, to within about 30 feet from the subject. He remained motionless, staring at Chief as I drove. I could now see the subject clearly in my headlights. I unholstered by handgun again and opened the car door. I heard Officer AAA announce over the radio that he needed an ambulance, that a white female victim had been shot twice in the face. He further stated that the suspect had run out the rear exit. I quickly announced I had a suspect stopped in the alley behind the building and requested assistance. Just then I noticed the subject began moving his right hand slowly downward toward his right side. I yelled at him, “Don’t move, don’t move!” but he failed to comply. I yelled this a second time, louder. The subject looked up at me with a panicked look in his face. He suddenly moved his right hand toward his waistband; I feared he had another weapon there. As he made this sudden move, Chief responded by engaging him physically, lunging forward and grabbing his right arm just below the shoulder. The impact knocked the subject backwards and both he and Chief ended up on the ground. The subject began yelling, “Call off your dog, get him off me!” I could not see his hands at this point and shouted, “Show me your hands, show me your hands!” He made no overt gesture to do so, but after just a Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

few moments I could see he had no weapon in his hands. However, I didn’t see any weapon on the ground and felt he might still be armed. Chief seemed to be effectively controlling the subject and I decided to make a tactical approach. I did so, staying in the shadows created by my headlights. I moved along the left side of the alley until I was very close to the subject. He was now on his back and acted much more subdued, while Chief maintained a firm grip on his upper arm. I could see a shiny object near his waistband, exactly where he had suddenly reached just moments before. I grabbed the object, which was a large folding knife. It was attached to his waist band via a metal clip. I removed the knife and placed it in my pocket. I grabbed his arms and rolled him on his side, so I might handcuff him. Once he was handcuffed, I ordered him “Stay Still!” As I did so, Chief released his grip on the subject and assumed a guarding posture. I quickly frisked the subject for other weapons but found none. He was not resisting at all now and was moaning considerably. I saw blood flowing from his upper arm and immediately requested the dispatcher send medical assistance. I tore his sleeve above the wound and placed firm pressure in the area of his brachial artery, trying to reduce the blood flow. I told the subject, “You’re bleeding, just stay still and don’t move.” He was coherent and seemed to realize his condition, saying, “OK, OK.” I advised him he was under arrest for Attempted Murder and also advised him of his Miranda rights. I then commanded Chief to get in the patrol car, and I awaited the arrival of the medical services personnel. In just minutes, an ambulance arrived and transported the subject to XXX Hospital, accompanied by Officer CCC. Neither Chief nor I were injured in the encounter. I met Evidence Technician DDD at the emergency room and assisted him in taking several photographs of the subject when the emergency room personnel had finished cleansing the wound. Officer EEE arrived to assume custody of the subject and I went back into service.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 25

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 26

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual K-9 USE OF FORCE REVIEW REPORT

Handler ____________________________ Dog ____________________________

Incident _____________________________________ Incident # ______________ Date _______________

The intent of this report is to review the use of force exhibited by a K-9 and/or Handler. The following issues provide detailed insight into the incident and help to establish justification. Synopsis of Incident

Review Questionnaire 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Handler and Dog suitable for service Appropriately trained for incident Deployment within Policy-Procedure-Practice Announcements given, if appropriate Dog Detained, if appropriate Dog Released, if appropriate Subject subdued with minimal force reasonable Subject medicated ASAP Dog examined post-incident All documentation submitted

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

This report suggests that the use of force reviewed is ___ is not ___ justified according to the Civil, Criminal, and Administrative statutes and regulations which have jurisdiction in this matter. _________________________ Use of Force Reviewed By

_________________________ Signature

________________________ Date

Details

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 27

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual K-9 USE OF FORCE REVIEW REPORT Details, page _______

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 28

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual K-9 USE OF FORCE REVIEW REPORT

Handler ____________________________ Dog ____________________________

Incident _____________________________________ Incident # ______________ Date _______________

The intent of this report is to review the use of force exhibited by a K-9 and/or Handler. The following issues provide detailed insight into the incident and help to establish justification. Synopsis of Incident

Review Questionnaire 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Handler and Dog suitable for service Appropriately trained for incident Deployment within Policy-Procedure-Practice Announcements given, if appropriate Dog Detained, if appropriate Dog Released, if appropriate Subject subdued with minimal force reasonable Subject medicated ASAP Dog examined post-incident All documentation submitted

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

This report suggests that the use of force reviewed is ___ is not ___ justified according to the Civil, Criminal, and Administrative statutes and regulations which have jurisdiction in this matter. _________________________ Use of Force Reviewed By

_________________________ Signature

________________________ Date

Details

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 29

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual K-9 USE OF FORCE REVIEW REPORT Details, page _______

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 30

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

POLICE PATROL DOG PERFORMANCE DOCUMENTATION Dog Hero Handler John Jones Dept Anyplace PD Mo/Yr March 2013 Date of Activity 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 Training-Deployment-Exam D T T T D T T E T T Man-Hours Saved - 24 6 Community Contact 6 2 3 5 4 2 2 8 3 3 Temperature - 45 - 68 - 68 - 55 - 42 - 68 - 68 - 68 - 45 - 45 Time of Day -0400 -1830 -1915 -1000 -2330 -1600 -1700 -1730 -0300 -0430 Track Age - Elapsed Time - 60 - 45 - 60 - 45 - 125 - 45 - 45 - 30 - 45 - 20 Interior or Exterior I E I E E I E E E E Start of Track 3 Legs of Track 3 Turns of Track 2 Length of Track - 670 Suspect Indication 2 Evidence #1 Indication 4 3 Evidence #2 Indication 3 Evidence #3 Indication 2 Evidence #4 Indication 3 Criminal Evidence Search 2 Heeling on Command - 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 Right/Left/About Turns 4 3 Group Heeling Humans/Dogs 3 39" Obstacle 1 Down in Motion 2 3 Down Out of Sight 2 2 Gunfire 2 Recall to Handler 4 3 3 3 Finish Position 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Group Heeling Humans Only Field Interview Guarding 2 Handler Defense Reaction 2 Initial Impact 2 1 2 2 Subdue a Hostile Subject 2 2 1 Pain Resiliency 2 2 2 2 Pain Compliance 1 2 2 2 Disengage a Subject 4 Recall to Handler 4 3 3 3 Frisk a Subject 2 3 2 2 Building Search 2 2 Indicate a Subject 1 2 2 Transport a Subject 3 4 3 Tactical Windscenting Tactical Indication Behavior-Announcements 3 3 2 2 Free Search for a Subject 2 Detain a Passive Subject 4 2 Behavior-Escaping Subject 1 3 Release on Command 3 3 Tactical Release 2 Emergency Release 2 Pursue a Subject 2 2 “Clear As You Go” Search 3 2 Dismiss/Remand A Subject 2 3 3 4 3 Behavior-Surveillance 3 3 2 3 Charging Hostile Subject 2 Richey Technique Dial Technique 2 Behavior-Gunbattle 3 Scentwork Year-to-Date Scentwork Total-to-Date Obedience Year-to-Date Obedience Total-to-Date Apprehension Year-to-Date Apprehension Total-to-Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

-

Ch. 14 Pg. 31

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Searching/Indication Behavior Grading Elements & Ratings Searching Behavior Elements are identified as Indication Behavior Elements are identified as Calm + Methodical + Intense + Focused + Sniffing Prescribed + Immediate + Intense + Consistent + Focused 1 = Elements displayed concurrently & completely 1 = Elements displayed concurrently and completely (Searching behavior that is exemplary) (Indication behavior that is exemplary) 2 = Elements displayed as above with few exceptions 2 = Elements displayed as above with few exceptions (Searching behavior that is commendable) (Indication behavior that is commendable) 3 = Elements displayed to a highly reliable degree 3 = Elements displayed to a highly reliable degree (Searching that is typical of a veteran K-9) (Indication that is typical of a veteran K-9) 4 = Elements displayed to a reliable degree 4 = Elements displayed to a reliable degree (Searching that meets professional standards) (Indication that meets professional standards) 5 = Elements displayed less than a reliable degree 5 = Elements displayed less than a reliable degree (Searching that needs higher display of skill) (Indication that needs higher display of skill) 6 = Elements displayed very little or not at all 6 = Elements displayed very little or not at all (Little or no display of Searching skill (Little or no display of Indication skill) Grading Scale or Increments 1=Superior Performance, Behavior which is without flaw..................................Letter Grade....(A) 2=Commendable Performance, Behavior which is notably more skillful than Typical.........Letter Grade....(B) 3=Typical Performance, Behavior expected from a seasoned Narcotics Detector Dog.........Letter Grade....(C) 4=Suitable Performance, Behavior which is consistent with deployment needs..............Letter Grade....(D) 5=Improvement Needed, Behavior which reveals substandard performance....................Letter Grade....(I) 6=Unskilled Performance, Behavior which reveals little or no training...................Letter Grade....(U) Grading Curve 1.00-1.74 = Superior Performance........................................................Letter Grade....(A) 1.75-2.49 = Commendable Performance.....................................................Letter Grade....(B) 2.50-3.24 = Typical Performance.........................................................Letter Grade....(C) 3.25-4.00 = Suitable Performance........................................................Letter Grade....(D) 4.01-5.00 = Improvement Needed..........................................................Letter Grade....(I) 5.01-6.00 = Unskilled Performance.......................................................Letter Grade....(U)

201303010400 Searched/located a suspect of a Pharmacy Burglary. 2013-00987.

See Incident Report

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 32

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

POLICE PATROL DOG PERFORMANCE DOCUMENTATION Dog Handler Date of Activity Training-Deployment-Exam Man-Hours Saved Community Contact Temperature Time of Day Track Age - Elapsed Time Interior or Exterior Start of Track Legs of Track Turns of Track Length of Track Suspect Indication Evidence #1 Indication Evidence #2 Indication Evidence #3 Indication Evidence #4 Indication Criminal Evidence Search Heeling on Command Right/Left/About Turns Group Heeling Humans/Dogs 39" Obstacle Down in Motion Down Out of Sight Gunfire Recall to Handler Finish Position Group Heeling Humans Only Field Interview Guarding Handler Defense Reaction Initial Impact Subdue a Hostile Subject Pain Resiliency Pain Compliance Disengage a Subject Recall to Handler Frisk a Subject Building Search Indicate a Subject Transport a Subject Tactical Windscenting Tactical Indication Behavior-Announcements Free Search for a Subject Detain a Passive Subject Behavior-Escaping Subject Release on Command Tactical Release Emergency Release Pursue a Subject “Clear As You Go” Search Dismiss/Remand A Subject Behavior-Surveillance Charging Hostile Subject Richey Technique Dial Technique Behavior-Gunbattle Scentwork Year-to-Date Obedience Year-to-Date Apprehension Year-to-Date

-

-

Dept -

Mo/Yr Scentwork Total-to-Date Obedience Total-to-Date Apprehension Total-to-Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

-

-

-

Ch. 14 Pg. 33

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Searching/Indication Behavior Grading Elements & Ratings Searching Behavior Elements are identified as Indication Behavior Elements are identified as Calm + Methodical + Intense + Focused + Sniffing Prescribed + Immediate + Intense + Consistent + Focused 1 = Elements displayed concurrently & completely 1 = Elements displayed concurrently and completely (Searching behavior that is exemplary) (Indication behavior that is exemplary) 2 = Elements displayed as above with few exceptions 2 = Elements displayed as above with few exceptions (Searching behavior that is commendable) (Indication behavior that is commendable) 3 = Elements displayed to a highly reliable degree 3 = Elements displayed to a highly reliable degree (Searching that is typical of a veteran K-9) (Indication that is typical of a veteran K-9) 4 = Elements displayed to a reliable degree 4 = Elements displayed to a reliable degree (Searching that meets professional standards) (Indication that meets professional standards) 5 = Elements displayed less than a reliable degree 5 = Elements displayed less than a reliable degree (Searching that needs higher display of skill) (Indication that needs higher display of skill) 6 = Elements displayed very little or not at all 6 = Elements displayed very little or not at all (Little or no display of Searching skill (Little or no display of Indication skill) Grading Scale or Increments 1=Superior Performance, Behavior which is without flaw..................................Letter Grade....(A) 2=Commendable Performance, Behavior which is notably more skillful than Typical.........Letter Grade....(B) 3=Typical Performance, Behavior expected from a seasoned Narcotics Detector Dog.........Letter Grade....(C) 4=Suitable Performance, Behavior which is consistent with deployment needs..............Letter Grade....(D) 5=Improvement Needed, Behavior which reveals substandard performance....................Letter Grade....(I) 6=Unskilled Performance, Behavior which reveals little or no training...................Letter Grade....(U) Grading Curve 1.00-1.74 = Superior Performance........................................................Letter Grade....(A) 1.75-2.49 = Commendable Performance.....................................................Letter Grade....(B) 2.50-3.24 = Typical Performance.........................................................Letter Grade....(C) 3.25-4.00 = Suitable Performance........................................................Letter Grade....(D) 4.01-5.00 = Improvement Needed..........................................................Letter Grade....(I) 5.01-6.00 = Unskilled Performance.......................................................Letter Grade....(U)

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 34

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 14 Pg. 35

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Threat Level Elements

(This chapter currently in revision) THREAT ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN DEPLOYMENT REPORTS 1.

TYPE CALL 1.

Forcible entry pharmacy burglary vs. simple trespassing As I arrived at the scene of the burglary-in-progress, I remembered that I had already responded twice to this clinic and both times the perpetrator was attempting to break into the drug cabinets. Each previous incident resulted in violence displayed towards responding officers. Considering this, I began to prepare a strategy for searching the building using known points of cover, to protect myself and backup officers from possible ambush.

2.

TYPE ALARM 1.

In-progress alarm vs. 20-minute old audible I arrived at the department store approximately 32 minutes after the audible alarm had gone off. It was still ringing and was quite loud. I observed the rear ventilation shaft just above ground level had been pried out and was lying on the ground beside the opening. Scuff marks beneath the opening appeared to be made by shoes. I believed that someone had jimmied the cover off and gained access inside. Just then, the store owner arrived and shut off the alarm via an outside switch. He advised me he had no employees and that nobody else but him was authorized to be inside. I advised him I felt it best to go ahead and have my K-9 search the store, even though the perpetrator was likely long gone. The owner gve me the key to the rear door, which was only about eight feet from the point of entry. Deputy ________ acted as my backup and held the door open as I made three loud K-9 Announcements inside. After about 15 seconds of no response I deployed K-9 Ajax with a "Search" command. Ajax entered the doorway and began sniffing the interior. About ten seconds had gone by when I heard a loud commotion of banging around and a man's voice screaming in a high pitch. I motioned to Deputy ______ and we made a tactical entry, carefully moving towards the noises. The noises seemed to be coming from the office area and we approached very carefully. When we shined our lights in the office I observed that Ajax had a firm grip on a subject in the middle of his back just above the beltline. Ajax was strenuously attempting to subdue the subject, in spite of the man's attempts to hit him with his fists. I could see that the subject had no weapon in his hands and called Ajax to the Heel position. As

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

soon as Ajax disengaged, the man spun around and saw us. He immediately threw his hands above his head in the classic surrender posture. I called out loudly to him to keep his hands up and face away from us. With his left hand, he pointed to his ear and said loudly, "I'm deaf - I can't hear what you're saying." His voice tone was similar to other deaf people I have heard and I suspected he might be telling the truth. I advised Deputy _____ to be ready, in case this was a ruse. I then moved my hand in front of my flashlight and motioned him to move towards us. He then said, "OK, OK, don't shoot, I give up." The subject was compliant and allowed us to handcuff and frisk him without further incident. As soon as he was secured, I began to examine him for injuries. We had to go outside the building before I could get a clear view of his back where I observed four distinct punctures and some peripheral bruising. The site was bleeding freely but not heavily. I called for EMS and they arrived within six minutes. They examined the injury and stated it was not severe enough to transport via ambulance. They stopped the bleeding and Deputy ______ advised them we were going to transport him to emergency room. [This is a re-creation of an actual incident] 3.

LEVEL FORCE USED IN CRIME 1.

Crime at knife-point vs. crime of stealth When I arrived at the scene of the Domestic Violence incident, Sgt. _________ advised me the husband had slashed his wife with a large folding blade knife. The wife described it as his Deer-Skinning Knife that he carried in a belt-holster. Apparently the subject had cut her and then left the mobile home and ran northbound into the wooded area adjacent to the trailer park. Sgt. ____ asked me what I'd need to start a track. I advised that due to the obvious threat, I'd like at least three backups, one with a shotgun and another with a long gun. Within about three minutes, Officers _____, _____, and _____ met me at my vehicle for a briefing. I explained to them that this guy has a deer-skinning knife that he carries in a holster at all times. This causes me to think he is adept at using it and we all have to be very-very alert as we do the track. I stated he has already slashed his wife and shown his willingness to use deadly force.

4.

ALCOHOL/DRUGS INVOLVED 1.

Subject using drugs at time of investigation vs. subject with non-drugged perceptions I arrived at the scene of the Aggravated Rape call at 2335 hrs. Detective ____ was interviewing the victim and I walked up just

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

as she said, "He is capable of anything when he's high on Meth. He even beat my sister unconscious one night when she tried to stop him from raping me like a dog. He's still down in the basement, watch y'all's selves. He brags about how he knocked a cop out one time when he got stopped for speeding in Arkansas." As I heard this description, I knew that we had to be very much on-guard as we made the approach. 5.

SUSPECT SHOTS FIRED 1.

Shots fire by a suspect vs. otherwise As I pulled up behind Trooper _____ to back him up on the DUI stop, I heard a series of shots of different caliber guns. I saw Trooper _____ taking cover behind the engine block area and returning fire in the direction of the wood-line to the east side of the road. I looked that direction and saw two muzzle-flashes and heard the two gunshots. Then everything got quiet and I could hear noises of movement through the dense brush in the woods. It sounded like the subject was fleeing further into the woods. I estimated he went in about 50 yards and stopped. Then it was totally quiet. I called over to Trooper _____ and asked if he was OK. He said, "I'm OK - I'm OK, let's hold up here for backup." I agreed and he called for support. I knew that at any moment the subject might attempt to engage us again with deadly force. I continued to scan forward and to my right along the treeline, just in case the subject tried to double-back on us. In about 12 minutes, eight units arrived and we briefed on a strategy to ....

6.

SUSPECT BELIEVED ARMED 1.

A suspect reported or believed to be armed vs. an unarmed suspect I asked the car-jack victim if she thought the man was armed. She stated she didn't see a weapon but he told her he'd shoot her if she acted out. That being said, I opted to treat this situation as a search for a suspect possibly armed with a handgun. I explained our K-9 procedure point-for-point to the backup officers, almost verbatim from the K-9 policy on this type deployment.

7.

SUSPECT CRIMINAL HISTORY 1.

A suspect with history of violence vs. no history of

hostility

Just before I initiated the track, dispatch advised the owner of this vehicle had a history of resisting arrest and two charges of assault on a police officer. This immediately raised my concerns that I might encounter violence of some type. I took a deep breath to settle myself and stated to the backup officers, "OK, Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

guys ... nobody gets hurt tonight." As I gave the track command to K-9 _____, I felt a distinct disadvantage due to the fact that the subject would know where we were, before we had a chance to know where he was. 8.

SUSPECT HIDING 1.

A suspect hiding is attempting to evade capture, normally prior to police announcements As I approached the salvage yard where the subject has secreted himself, I asked one of the perimeter officers if anyone had issued any orders to come out. She said they had not, that they had secured the perimeter and were waiting for K-9 to arrive. As I got to a position of cover, I hoped he would surrender when I gave the K-9 Announcements.

9.

SUSPECT BARRICADED 1.

A suspect barricaded is further resisting capture, normally subsequent to police announcements After the third K-9 Announcement, it became apparent to me that the subject was not going to come out. I knew the layout of this Jamba Juice store and it was obvious that my K-9 Announcements could be heard throughout the store. I felt he must be very determined not to be taken into custody, if he was willing to risk encountering a trained police dog. This raised my level of concern for my own safety considerably higher. I thought to ask the manager if all the employees were accounted for, in case this had been a closing-time robbery and the employee might be tied up or unconscious. The manager called the employee on the cell phone and got confirmation that she was at home. I now felt that whoever was inside was indeed the subject of this robbery.

10.

SUSPECT EMOTIONAL STATE 1.

An irate or hostile suspect vs. a seemingly coherent suspect During the course of the several minutes we verbally attempted to get Mr. ______ to drop the butcher knife and the skillet, it became apparent to me that he might have some type of mental disorder. He kept blinking his eyes forcefully and seemed to be talking to himself in unintelligle words. Suddenly, he suddenly lunged in my direction with the knife raised over his head in the classic stabbing position. Officer ______ who was my backup, immediately fired four shots which struck Mr. _____ in the chest area. His forward momentum continued in my direction and I was barely able to jump back in time to avoid being stabbed as Mr. ______ fell to the floor.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program 11.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

SUSPECT PHYSICAL PROWESS 1.

A massive/muscular suspect vs. a small/lean suspect As I saw the suspect running from the school building, I could clearly see he was a large, heavily muscled man. As K-9 _____ engaged him in the rear portion of his upper left thigh, he stopped and reached back to grab the K-9. Even though K-9 ____ had a firm grip on his leg, he leaned over and grabbed the Dog by the rear leg and pulled hard enough that K-9 ____ was suspended in the air. I could see that he was attempting to get a better hold on the K-9 and now had one arm around the K-9's lower abdomen, as one might carry a box with one arm. I was alarmed at his ability to withstand the K-9 pain compliance. I immediately realized the K-9 by itself was not sufficient force to subdue the subject and so as I approached him from the rear I discharged my Tazer into the middle of his back. He became rigid and fell forward onto his stomach. I released the stimulation and then he spoke in a very clear and articulate voice, saying "OK, OK, OK, I'm done." I advised him to remain perfectly still with his arms outstretched. He complied and remained in that position for about 10 seconds until Deputy _____ arrived and handcuffed the subject.

12.

SUSPECT TACTICAL KNOWLEDGE 1.

A known martial arts expert vs. a known loud-mouth coward We had surrounded the subject who beat up the store clerk. Our position was just about in the center of the parking lot. I was standing back with K-9 _____ in case we were needed. Officers ______ and ______ approached the subject from the front and he used some type of martial arts maneuver which caused them to crash into each other and fall backwards. I felt like this person was skilled in hand-to-hand combat as both these officers were also skilled in defensive tactics. Just as Sgt. _____ verbally engaged the subject from the front, I deployed K-9 ____ from the rear. K-9 _____ lunged forward and engaged the subject in the buttocks area with a firm grip. The K-9's momentum knocked the subject to the ground, similar to a football tackle. Myself, Officers ______, ______, and ______ each grabbed his arms and legs, while Sgt. ______ grabbed his head. We were able to secure him and get him cuffed without any further injury. During the entire encounter, K-9 ______ maintained his original grip on the subject.

13.

SUSPECT VERBALIZED THREATS 1.

Threats of death or bodily harm vs. absence of verbalized threats Just as I was about to deploy K-9 _______, Officer _____ advised

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

that this subject had made a statement to the effect that he would never go back to prison, even if it meant killing a cop. Immediately, I felt my personal safety was at a much higher risk. 14.

SUSPECT COMPLIANCE/RESISTANCE 1.

An actively and physically defiant suspect vs. a passively noncompliant suspect As I got to place where K-9 _____ had been barking, I could tell this was a closet where the subject had hidden himself. I called K-9 _____ back to me and ordered the subject to slowly open the door and show me his hands. He clearly said, "OK, I'm coming out. Don't let the dog bite me." I responded, "Come out very slowly and carefully and keep your hands where I can see them. As the door opened, I knew this was my most vulnerable point, until I could see his hands.

15.

SUSPECT ATTACK DOGS 1.

A suspect with trained attack dogs vs. one without The pursuit ended in a driveway of a residence and the driver quickly jumped out of the vehicle. He fled into the house just as I got to the front gate with K-9 Nikki at my side. Suddenly, he re-appeared in the doorway and shouted "Get 'im Dog." A large Pitt Bull Dog exited between his legs, ran up to the gate, and lunged to the top of the gate. As the Pitt Bull Dog got to the top of the gate, I fired two shots point-blank into the dog's chest and neck. It fell dead at my feet and I kicked the gate open. I commanded K-9 Nikki to engage the subject and he did so, knocking the subject off his feet on the front porch. K-9 Nikki strenuously struggled with the subject as I attempted to get to a position of cover. I yelled at the subject to show me his hands but he kept trying to reach for his beltline. This continued for what turned out to be seven minutes, at which time the subject was totally fatigued. He placed his hands straight out and I called K-9 Nikki back to me. Deputy _____ had arrived and effected the arrest control. This is a real incident.

16.

SUSPECT SLOW FURTIVE MOVEMENT 1.

Slow reaching for the belt-line as if to grab something The subject was compliant to my commands to climb out from under the house. I had placed K-9 _____ at a position about eight feet from the edge of the house as a contingency if the subject decided to run or whaever. He kept his hands where I could see them and I felt we would be able to take him into custody without incident. At a certain point, he looked up at me and stopped his movement. He was in a half-crouch position, as he was in the

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

process of standing up. I ordered him to stand up slowly and keeps his hands up. He stared at me and began to move his right hand toward his belt line. I called out loudly, Don't move don't move." He continued to move his hand slowly and I immediately feared he might be going for a gun or knife. I then commanded K-9 _____ to engage, which he did. K-9 ____ grabbed the subject from behind by the right shoulder and knocked him forward to his knees. At this point, Officer _____ jumped forward and grabbed the subject's right arm in an arm-bar fashion and forced him to the ground. I grabbed the other arm and we quickly handcuffed the subject. K-9 _____ retained his grip on the subject until I commanded him to release and lay down. K-9 _____ obeyed immediately and remained under control as we frisked the subject. 17.

SUSPECT SUDDEN ESCAPE BEHAVIOR 1.

Sudden movement which causes an officer to feel immediate danger The driver was facing away from us and walking back toward the sound of Officer _____'s voice. Officer _____ then ordered the other passengers to remain face down on the ground until we called for them one at a time. Officer _____then told the driver to keep coming back. At the exact moment he got to the rear quarter panel of his car, he bolted to his left, across the road, in the direction of the woods. I knew that if he got into the woods he would have a distinct tactical advantage that would greatly increase the risk to the officers who would have to search for him. Knowing that he had a felony firearms warrant, that we would be at a genuine risk if he got to the woods, and that he was actively attempting escape, I commanded K-9 _____ to pursue and engage him. I remained behind cover as K-9 ____ chased and knocked the subject down. He yelled out, "Get the dog off - get 'im off!" I ordered him to show me his hands, which he did. He held them high in the air, as he was on his back. I yelled out, "I'll call the dog off, don't make any moves." I then commanded K-9 ____ to come to the Heel position and the dog responded immediately. I was still behind cover. I told Officer ____, "Go ahead and call him to you." Officer ____ did so and the subject complied. Trooper ______ placed handcuffs on the subject and frisked him. We moved to the rear-most vehicle and I checked his injury ....

18.

SUSPECT SUDDEN HOSTILE BEHAVIOR 1.

Sudden hostile or assault behavior which prompts an officer to feel danger Deputy _____, K-9 _____ and I were on foot patrol in the park at about 2350 hrs when suddenly a man came running up to us with a wild look in his eyes. He blurted out that the Hell's Angels

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

were after him and they were going to kill him. Deputy _____ tried to calm him down as I held K-9 _____ close to me. The man refused to settle down and then looked directly at K-9 _____. Suddenly, he lunged forward and attempted to kick K-9 _____ while yelling out "Piece of S*** Dog!" It happened so suddenly I was unable to intervene and K-9 ____ grabbed the man by the ankle in mid-kick. The force of the kick lifted K-9 _____ upwards until his front feet were over a foot off the ground. K-9 ____ maintained his grip and I quickly grabbed him by the collar. Simultaneously, Deputy _____ grabbed both of the man's arms from behind in a double-arm-bar. I tactically released K-9 _____ to diminish further tissue damage. I did not see the man's aggression coming and I was completely surprised that he went from being fearful to aggressive, almost spontaneously. I called for EMS to attend to the man's injuries at Deputy ____ held him on the ground. I examined the bite-site and saw there were punctures and also lacerations, the lacerations obviously occurring due to the kicking action. For the next several minutes, we watched the man as we waited for EMS. Sgt. _____ arrived just as the man began screaming out that aliens had abducted his wife and kids. 19.

SUSPECT HAZARD FLAG BEHAVIOR 1.

A computer-flagged suspect who has previously shown hazardous behavior As I approached the rear of the vehicle which Trooper ____ had stopped for a traffic violation, dispatch advised a "Delta-Sierra" which is cryptic for a dangerous subject. Trooper ____ looked at the subject, who blurted out, 'What? What the f*** is a Delta-Sierra? You Mother-F***ers better call for some help!' At which point he lunged toward Trooper ____ and took a swing at him. Trooper ____ side-stepped the subject and shoved him forward. The man stumbled and then quickly regained his balance. He stood up and smirked as he said, "OK ... Sons-a-B****es, Gimmee-Some!" The thought flashed through my mind that the combination of the Delta-Sierra message and his current behavior cuased me serious concern for both of our safety. I called out, "Stop, or I'll send my Dog!" He looked at me with a serious glare and said, "C'mon, I'll kill that Sum-B**ch too!" I then command K-9 ____ to engage as a diversion, to give Trooper ____ a chance to gain advantage over the subject. This strategy was successful, as the man was pre-occupied as K-9 ____ engaged his lower abdomen area and Trooper ____ grabbed his arms. I quickly approached and gave K-9 _____ a shut-down command, so the K-9 could not re-engage as we handcuffed and secured the subject.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program 20.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

MULTIPLE SUSPECTS 1.

Multiple suspects to encounter vs. a single suspect The four suspects of this burglary must have figured out that the building was being surrounded by the police, as they all exited the same door simultaneously, right in front of Officer ____, me, and K-9 _____. I called out, "Nobody run, or I'll send my K-9." They froze in their tracks and looked around. I then stated in a firm voice, "The first one who runs is gonna get the dog!" I was relieved when they settled down and we were able to take them all into custody without incident.

21.

MOB MENTALITY 1.

Group of incited persons vs. a single suspect As we two officers and my K-9 confronted the unruly crowd, one of them stepped forward and said, "Let's rush 'em. They can't get us all. At this point I was actually fearful that they would all rush us. They were acting frenzied and shaking their fists at us. The same man then stepped even closer and said, "We're gonna kill you fu**ers." When he did this, Officer _____ grabbed him by the arm and spun him around such that he had him in an arm-bar behind his back. He moved a step backward and I moved a step forward. I now felt very-very vulnerable, even though K-9 _____ was barking and lunging to keep the crowd back. Just then several more officers arrived from behind us and one of the officers gave an order to move the crowd back. We got about three feet apart and began moving forward. All their eyes seemed to be on my K-9 and they began to disperse one and two at a time until they were gone. This is a real incident.

22.

POTENTIAL FOR HOSTAGES 1.

Suspect fleeing unpopulated areas

into

residential

or

inhabited

area vs.

As I crossed the third fence, I saw the car-jacking suspect trying to pull open the door to the mobile home. I immediately felt serious alarm that he might take the occupants hostage, since he had already abducted one person during the car-jacking. I commanded my K-9 ____ to engage the suspect, which he did. When K-9 _____ made physical contact, it knocked them both off the small landing and into the flower bed next to the mobile home. Apparently, the fall had knocked the wind out of the man, as he was gasping for breath. I could see his hands had no weapon and I called K-9 _____ back to me. I held the man at gunpoint, it seems for about one minute, until Officer _____ arrived and handcuffed him.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program 23.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

DARKNESS 1.

Vision obscured by darkness vs. broad daylight This is the perfect reason to read the Judge's ruling in Robinette v. Barnes, in which the burglary suspect was killed by the K-9, yet the Judge exonerated the Agency, the Handler, and the K-9.

24.

TERRAIN 1.

Unfamiliar or uneven terrain vs. otherwise Do not fail to articulate the fact that sheds, hot-tubs, shrubbery, etc. which are encountered during a search cause an officer to be critically concerned for personal safety.

25.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 1.

Fog, etc. which obscures an officer’s vision or hearing Do not fail to articulate the fact that sheds, hot-tubs, shrubbery, etc. which are encountered during a search cause an officer to be critically concerned for personal safety.

26.

BIOLOGICAL HAZARDS 1.

Fumes, smoke or other response abilities

hazards

which

diminish

an officer’s

Again, this is a threat element which should be articulated when encountered. 27.

NOISE INTERFERENCE 1.

Loud noises which interfere with an officer’s hearing abilities After we were able to get to the downed and unconscious suspect, I tactically released K-9 ____ and moved him back away from the subject and officers. I didn't understand why he had not released upon my multiple verbal commands, once our officers had neutralized the subject with gunfire. As I took a backup position with the K-9, I spoke his name and he didn't react as if he heard me. I said it loulder and, again, no response. I began to suspect that the multiple gunshots fired at close range by the suspect while K-9 ____ was engaged may have affected his hearing. A hearing test which was administered at the veterinarian's office later that day revealed that K-9_____'s hearing was substantially impacted. The vet suggested this was probably the reason the Dog didn't release on a verbal command.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program 28.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

TIGHT QUARTERS 1.

Close quarters, i.e., halls, crawlspaces, etc., which reduce an officer’s movement Although we four officers knew the auto theft suspect had crawled under the house, we dared not crawl under there. We didn't know if he was armed and we didn't know what his state of mind was. We issued multiple orders to come out and he just looked at us. It was obvious he could hear us, he just refused to come out. I knelt down behind a brick footing and announced that if he didn't come out, I would send my K-9 in there to extract him. I then had the K-9 bark several times in an effort to motivate him to surrender. When the subject still refused, I suggested to Sgt. _____ that I could place a 50' leash on K-9 ______ and send him in to engage. Once engaged, we could use the leash as a drag-line to get the suspect out. Sgt. _____ stated this was less risky than one or more of us crawling under there. I issued another K-9 Announcement, which was disregarded, prior to deploying K-9 _____. Once I deployed him, K-9 _____ went directly to the subject and engaged on his right forearm. The subject started yelling and struggling against the K-9. wehen we began to pull on the leash, however, his demeanor changed completely. He cried out iin pain and let himself be pulled out from uner the house. He even was crawling in our direction in a effort to diminish the pain. As soon as he came out from under the house, he was taken into custody without further incident. this is a real incident.

29.

MULTIPLE AMBUSH SITES 1.

Potential sites for assault from a hiding/barricaded suspect, suspects using surveillance equipment on perimeters of stronghold (meth labs, etc.) Review the Judge's ruling in Robinette v. Barnes to see how influential this issue can be to a Judge ... when it is articulated in the report.

30.

HIGH CRIME AREA 1.

The area being searched has a history of serious crime, i.e., medical complex with pharmacies This issue is almost a no-brainer. Articulate - Articulate Articulate.

31.

UNFAMILIAR AREA 1.

The area being searched is not familiar to the investigating officer

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Most areas a K-9 Handler is called upon to deploy in are unfamiliar. This places us in a distinct disadvantage, not knowing the "lay of the land." Do not fail to articulate the influence this has on a handler's personal concern for safety. 32.

POTENTIAL FOR BEING SILHOUETTED 1.

Lighting conditions which favor a hiding or barricaded suspect This is a critical tactical issue, which if not articulated, is not likely to be perceived by a Judge or a Jury member. They do not live by tactical frames of mind and must be enlightened as the risks associated with being silhouetted.

33.

ESCAPE POTENTIAL 1.

The likelihood for escape or evading capture, due to conditions or lay of land The suspect was standing just outside the window, using what appeared to be a screwdriver to pry open the window. About 20' behind him was an 8' privacy fence. I felt that if I issued a verbal challenge to him it would provide him an opportunity to get over the fence before K-9 ____ had a chance to make contact. I quickly considered my options and chose to deploy K-9 ______ with a whispered command to pursue. As K-9 ______ closed the distance, I verbally issued the departmental K-9 announcement. As I did so, K-9 ______ responded by laying down approximately six feet from the suspect. Simultaneously, the suspect noticed K-9 ______ stopping close by and staring intently at him. Due to the close proximity of the K-9, the suspect opted not to attempt an escape and I was able to approach him safely. I took him into custody without incident and then contacted the home-owner to explain what had occurred. This is a re-creation of a real incident.

34.

OFFICER PHYSICAL PROWESS 1.

Large/muscular officer vs. small/lean officer Especially, if a K-9 Handler is not a former Fullback, articulate the influence of the officer's physical prowess or lack thereof may have in a search or a capture. This is critical!

35.

OFFICER ASSAULTED/AMBUSHED 1.

An officer having been already assaulted/ambushed by the suspect vs. not

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program 36.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

AVAILABILITY OF COVER 1.

The lack of or availability of cover for the investigating officer K-9 _____ tracked up to a position directly at the corner of a house which had a large shrub. I could tell by K-9 ____'s behavior that he was in the scent cone of a target. I quickly assessed my options for a position of cover and realized I had none. I was in the wide open space in front of this shrub. I felt totally vulnerable and felt inner-conflict as to whether I should retreat or not. I motioned to my two backup officers that a target was in the shrubbery. One immediately focused his shotgun on the shrubbery, while the other shined his flashlight on the location. I remained in the dark, behind the light and announced in a loud voice, "_______ Sheriff's Office, sound off or I'll send in my police dog and you may be bitten." There was no response, but I could tell by my K-9's posture that he indeed had a target and it was very close. I announced again, "This is your last chance. Sound off or I'm going to send in my police dog and you may be bitten." Again, no response. I then commanded K-9 ______ to engage and he entered the shrubs. He had not gone in even a full body length when I heard a young female's voice shrieking. She jumped up to a standing position and I could see that K-9 _____ had a solid grip on her upper thigh, just inches below her pubic area. She had no weapon in her hands and I immediately called K-9 _____ back to me and he promptly responded. I recognized the female as the suspect who had lured the robbery victim into a dark shadowy location, with the lure of a sexual encounter but instead into the waiting arms of her accomplices who robbed him at knife point. This is a re-creation of a real incident.

37.

AVAILABILITY OF BACKUP 1.

The lack of or availability of backup The track was initiated at the point in front of the library where the victim was ambushed by her assailant. This is approximately 50' east from the corner of _____ and _____ streets. There is a large bush along the sidewalk, and it is here that the victim states the rapist grabbed her and drug her behind the bush. She was able to describe his face quite clearly as she remained motionless while he held the knife to her throat. She also states she very clearly saw him flee from the bush and he headed in the direction of a water fountain in the grassy area next to the libary. I briefed Deputy ______ and Trooper _____ on their functions as my backups on this track. I instructed them to stay close behind me and not to get in front. I further told them that if we encountered the suspect, they should make first verbal contact as an attempt to take him into custody. If he refused, I

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

would then engage him verbally. Lastly, I told them that if we encountered deadly force, they should, of course, react as the situation dictates. I gave K-9 _____ the track command and she began sniffing intensely. We moved in the direction of the water fountain, just as the victim said. the track continued for approximately 300 yards until I heard a rustle in the large bushes ahead of me, which were next to a brick building. I halted, as did K-9 ____, and we both focused forward. I then heard no verbal challenges from my backup officers but was fearful of looking back to see what they were doing. I heard more rustling sounds and then saw a shoe in a gap at the bottom of the foliage. After another two seconds, perhaps, I gave a lawful order "Police, Stand Still." I had the leash in one hand and my handgun in the other. K-9 ____ dropped into a down position upon my lawful order and I moved to the low-ready position with my handgun. Suddenly, gunshots erupted from behind the bush. I was initially startled and then reflexively returned fire, aiming at the flashes of muzzle-blast I could see. I fired multiple rounds before noticing there were no more shots being fired in my direction. K-9 ____ had stood up but remained in place. I noticed a large tree in my peripheral vision and lunged to get behind it. This all happened in a time-frame of about five seconds. I quickly inserted a fresh magazine and looked for my backup officers. I didn't see them anywhere and held my position as I called over my portable radio that shots were fired at my position. Within a minute or so, my backup officers arrived at the tree and I held my position as they circled around the other side of the building. Sgt. ____ and another officer arrived within about a minute and they all positions of cover as best they could. Sgt. ____ announced to the subject to toss out the weapon but there was no response. After another minute or so, they all moved in unison toward the location and discovered the shooter collapsed in the shrubbery. This is a combination of two similar actual incidents.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 15 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Agitator Training

(This chapter in revision) An Agitator is a sparring partner for a Patrol Dog to refine its abilities in subduing a resisting or fleeing suspect. There are hazards associated with this function and specific training is established for the Agitator to avoid personal injury. Agitators experience physical encounters with Patrol Dogs in the following situations. 1.

Full-Body Bite Suit The Full-Body Bite Suit is designed to offer maximum protection to the Agitator while offering the entire protected area of the human body for the Patrol Dog to physically engage. Although this may seem to be the ideal situation for Patrol Dog training, there are some hazards associated with a Full-Body Suit. 1.

The Agitator’s hands, feet, and head are exposed. These body parts are at a greater risk of injury during combat with the Engaged Patrol Dog.

2.

The Agitator’s physical mobility, sense of balance, and reaction time are considerably diminished.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

The Bite Suit is cumbersome, causing the Agitator to easily & quickly become fatigued. A fatigued Agitator has an increased risk of injury.

Exposed Bite Sleeve

The Exposed Bite Sleeve is designed to offer protection to the Agitator’s arm(s) while offering only the arm(s) for the Patrol Dog to physically engage. There are certain hazards associated with an Exposed Bite Sleeve. 1.

The Agitator’s legs, torso, and head are exposed. Frequently, protective bib-overalls are worn also.

2.

The Agitator’s mobility and sense of balanced are diminished.

3.

The Agitator’s reaction time and ability to protect him/herself when inadvertently falling down is diminished.

The primary application of the Exposed Bite Sleeve is to train the Patrol Dog to exhibit maximum-efficiency “Pain Compliance” via a full-mouth grip. A proper Exposed Bite Sleeve has an anatomically-correct bite bar that promotes the Dog gripping the Agitator with not only its canine teeth, but also its molars. By utilizing proper Agitation procedures as seen below, the Dog learns to hold a subject firmly. For both tactical and humane reasons, it is desirable that the Dog Engage with a full-mouth bite. By this practice, a firm grip causes a subject in a real deployment to submit more readily. Also, if a subject resists the Dog, then only a firm grip will prevent excessive tissue damage as the subject attempts to dislodge the Dog. Finally, a full and firm grip will produce only puncture wounds and peripheral bruising, rather than numerous lacerations which might occur from frontal biting alone or a less-than-firm grip.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

A secondary, but also valuable, reason to use the Exposed Bite Sleeve while training a Patrol Dog is the fact that this piece of equipment is widely used by agencies and officers nationwide. Its frequent use presents a unique attraction to Patrol Dogs. When a Patrol Dog sees the Exposed Bite Sleeve, it may be unusually tempted to break training. Nonetheless, it is critical to maintain the Patrol Dog’s reliability when Detaining and Guarding. Special and additional training with the Exposed Bite Sleeve maintains that reliability and diminishes the possibility that “being dirty” on the Exposed Bite Sleeve will lead to unreliable behavior in a real deployment.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

HIDDEN/UNDERCOVER BITE SLEEVE

The Exposed Bite Sleeve is designed to offer protection to the Agitator’s arm(s) while offering only the arm(s) for the Patrol Dog to physically engage. Its intent is to provide a more realistic image to the Patrol Dog when it engages. There are certain hazards associated with an Exposed Bite Sleeve. 1.

The Agitator’s legs, torso, and head are exposed. Frequently, protective bib-overalls are worn also underneath regular clothing.

2.

The Agitator’s arm(s) mobility is slightly

diminished.

3.

The Agitator’s sense of balance is slightly

altered.

4.

The Agitator’s reaction time is slightly diminished, when the dog does not intend to bite the arm presented.

5.

The Agitator’s ability to protect him/herself when inadvertently falling down is diminished.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program 4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

MUZZLE

The muzzle is a unique piece of equipment for Patrol Dog training. It was originally developed by the ancient Phoenicians when they pitted their WarDogs against Gladiators who traveled into their realm for contests. These dogs were of the Mastiff breeds and were muzzled to prevent them using their teeth against the unarmed Gladiators. Metal was placed in the front of the muzzle to enhance the “impact effect” when the dogs attempted to engage. Impact to the head, spine, knees, groin, etc. was sometimes debilitating to the Gladiator. History records that, most often, the dogs were victorious. Nowadays, the same concept is used to train Patrol Dogs combat skills for times when they must engage suspects, who may strenuously resist being taken into custody. The value of the muzzle today is that a human opponent has no protective gear (which sometimes causes “equipment fixation”) and also, the human has normal appearance and mobility. This means the person can dodge, move, push, grab, etc. as might occur in an actual deployment. Even though the physical encounters with a muzzled Patrol Dog trainee are “controlled,” there are still some risks associated with this function. 1.

The Agitator’s entire body is exposed. Occasionally, groin protectors or mouthpieces are worn to reduce the possibility of an impact injury.

2.

The Agitator must be aware that his/her more sensitive body parts are vulnerable to impact from the muzzle.

3.

The Agitator’s sense of balance is not altered, but if the Agitator falls down, s/he must protect the more sensitive body parts.

4.

The Agitator’s reaction time is not diminished, but s/he must be aware of the superior reaction time of a Patrol Dog trainee and anticipate the dog’s actions.

5.

The Agitator’s ability to protect him/herself is not diminished, unless s/he gets tunnel-vision on “agitating” and s/he fails to be alert to self-protection.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program 5.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

UNMUZZLED

Occasionally, it is desirable to have an unmuzzled Dog encounter an Agitator who has no protective gear on and is dressed in typical clothing. Of course, these encounters are not intended to result in physical contact. Yet, it may very well happen that an Agitator is placed inside a closet with the door closed. This Agitator’s role is to offer as realistic a situation as the Dog may expect in reality. Again, these encounters are not intended to result in physical contact.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills as a Resolution for

First Bite Syndrome & First Battle Syndrome

In years past, a small percentage of Patrol Dogs have experienced two unique and unfortunate problems. The first is First Bite Syndrome which is manifested when a Patrol Dog exhibits less than optimal performance during its first physical encounter with an actual suspect in a deployment. The second is First Battle Syndrome which is manifested when a Patrol Dog exhibits less than optimal performance during its first intensely combative suspect in an actual deployment. Patrol Dogs which exhibit these behaviors tend to act surprised or even a bit fearful, and it is not unusual for a Patrol Dog to auto-release or even check out of the respective encounter. These are very undesirable behaviors and may present dangerous hazards to the Patrol Dog or the Handler. They may also present opportunities for suspects to escape capture or to continue their criminal activity. Patrol Dogs trained using True Combat Agitation are much less likely to exhibit either First Bite or First Battle syndromes. The agitation is designed, as the name implies, to simulate the intensity of real-life encounters with criminal suspects. These encounters often end up on the ground with the suspect grabbing, kicking, striking, or choking the Dog. An important factor in the training is that the person performing True Combat Agitation is subject to additional and unique risks of injury. As an extra effort to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator, a Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Safety Officer has been added to the training exercises. This person is responsible to monitor the safety of the Agitator during the True Combat encounter. The Safety Officer has the authority to stop the exercise at any point in which s/he perceives the Agitator to be at unsafe risk. Special training is necessary for the agitator to prevent injury while performing True Combat Agitation. For the sake of expediency, the training of the Dog and the Agitator has been consolidated. Each progresses at a carefully structured pace, such that the Dog is not placed in a higher threat level encounter than it is mentally prepared for. Additionally, extreme care is taken not to place the Agitator in undue danger. There are hazards associated with this training. If the Agitator fails to follow instructions carefully, s/he may be injured. If the Handler or Safety Officer fails to follow instructions carefully, the Agitator may be injured. If the Trainer fails to instruct the Handler, Agitator, or Safety Officer carefully, the Agitator may be injured. This course is designed to provide safe training for all participants, if instructions are followed carefully. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES The performance objectives of this advanced training are as follows: 1.

Train Dogs in True Combat Agitation to reduce the likelihood of First Bite Syndrome or First Battle Syndrome,

2.

Train Agitators to perform True Combat Agitation in a manner as safe as possible so the risk of an injury to the Agitator is reduced,

3.

Train Handlers to handle their Dogs suitably so the Dog gains the desired skill and the risk of an injury to the Agitator is reduced, and

4.

Train Safety Officers to monitor the safety of Agitators performing True Combat Agitation to reduce the risk of injury to the Agitator. TRAINING CONCEPTS

1.

Prey Drive vs. Fight Drive

2.

Training vs. Reality

3.

Compliant vs. Non-Compliant Suspects

4.

Discussion of Release Commands 1.

Verbal Release

2.

Tactical Release

3.

Emergency Release

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills - First Bite & First Battle Syndrome 1.

Low Threat Level 1.

Objective:

Dog

Engage a hostile simulated suspect and exhibit a strenuous attempt to subdue him/her in spite of low threat level resistance

Handler

Follow directives from the Trainer to deploy the Dog to assist subduing a simulated suspect while monitoring the safety of the suspect, control and praise the Dog as directed by the Trainer

Agitator

Resist the Dog’s attempt to subdue by exhibiting low threat level resistance consisting of a standing body posture, facing the Dog, arms sideways, maintaining balance during impact, and then squeezing the Dog’s head to the torso after it has engaged

Safety Officer Monitor the Agitator carefully as s/he performs low threat level True Combat Agitation to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator 2.

Commands:

At any time any participant may command “Terminate” Trainer to Agitator “Suspect Ready?” Trainer to Handler “Handler Ready?” Trainer to Safety Officer “Safety Officer Ready?” Trainer to Group “Standby!” Trainer to Agitator “Action” Trainer to Handler “Deploy” Handler to Agitator “[lawful order to surrender]” Handler To Patrol Dog “[engage command]” Trainer to Agitator “Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Keep Moving ... Side to Side” Trainer to Agitator “Arms Out” Trainer to Handler “Control Your Dog” Handler to Group “Tactical Release” Handler to Group “Dog Off” Trainer to Agitator “Escape” Trainer to Group “Exercise Finished”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Skills Displayed:

[ [

]

[

]

[

]

[

]

] Agitator suitably explained objective of this stage of training Agitator suitably responded to all commands given by all participants Agitator suitably responded to all performance objectives related to this phase of training Agitator suitably responded to the Dog’s behavior prior, during, and after engaging Agitator displays suitable skill level in this stage of agitation

Adjunct Judge Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills - First Bite & First Battle Syndrome 1.

Moderately Low Threat Level 1.

Objective:

Dog

Engage a hostile simulated suspect and exhibit a strenuous attempt to subdue him/her in spite of moderately low threat level resistance

Handler

Follow directives from the Trainer to deploy the Dog to assist subduing a simulated suspect while monitoring the safety of the suspect, control and praise the Dog as directed by the Trainer

Agitator

Resist the Dog’s attempt to subdue by exhibiting moderately low threat level resistance consisting of a standing body posture, facing the Dog, arms sideways, maintaining balance during impact, hugging the Dog’s head to the torso, and towering over the Dog after it has engaged

Safety Officer Monitor the Agitator carefully as s/he performs moderately low threat level True Combat Agitation to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator 2.

Commands:

Ready?”

surrender]”

Side”

At any time any participant may command “Terminate” Trainer to Agitator “Suspect Ready?” Trainer to Handler “Handler Ready?” Trainer to Safety Officer “Safety Officer Trainer to Group “Standby!” Trainer to Agitator “Action” Trainer to Handler “Deploy” Handler to Agitator “[lawful

order

to

Handler To Patrol Dog “[engage command]” Trainer to Agitator “Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Keep Moving ... Side to Trainer to Agitator “Lean Over ... Tower over the Dog” Trainer to Agitator “Arms Out” Trainer to Handler “Control Your Dog” Handler to Group “Tactical Release” Handler to Group “Dog Off” Trainer to Agitator “Escape” Trainer to Group “Exercise Finished”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

Skills Displayed:

Patrol Dog Training Manual [ [ [ [ [

] Agitator suitably explained objective of this stage of training ] Agitator suitably responded to all commands given by all participants ] Agitator suitably responded to all performance objectives related to this phase of training ] Agitator suitably responded to the Dog’s behavior prior, during, and after engaging ] Agitator displays suitable skill level in this stage of agitation

Patrol Dog Judge Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills - First Bite & First Battle Syndrome 3.

Moderate Threat Level 1.

Objective:

Dog

Engage a hostile simulated suspect and exhibit a strenuous attempt to subdue him/her in spite of moderate threat level resistance

Handler

Follow directives from the Trainer to deploy the Dog to assist subduing a simulated suspect while monitoring the safety of the suspect, control and praise the Dog as directed by the Trainer

Agitator

Resist the Dog’s attempt to subdue by exhibiting moderate threat level resistance consisting of a standing body posture, facing the Dog, arms sideways, maintaining balance during impact, hugging the Dog’s head to the torso, towering over the Dog, and stepping over the Dog’s back after it has engaged

Safety Officer Monitor the Agitator carefully as s/he performs moderate threat level True Combat Agitation to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator 2.

Commands:

surrender]”

At any time any participant may command “Terminate” Trainer to Agitator “Suspect Ready?” Trainer to Handler “Handler Ready?” Trainer to Safety Officer “Safety Officer Ready?” Trainer to Group “Standby!” Trainer to Agitator “Action” Trainer to Handler “Deploy” Handler to Agitator “[lawful order to Handler To Patrol Dog “[engage command]” Trainer to Agitator “Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Keep Moving ... Side to Side” Trainer to Agitator “Lean Over ... Tower over the Dog” Trainer to Agitator “Step over the Dog ... Step Back” Trainer to Agitator “Arms Out” Trainer to Handler “Control Your Dog” Handler to Group “Tactical Release”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Handler to Group “Dog Off” Trainer to Agitator “Escape” Trainer to Group “Exercise Finished”

3.

Skills Displayed:

[ [ [ [ [

] Agitator suitably explained objective of this stage of training ] Agitator suitably responded to all commands given by all participants ] Agitator suitably responded to all performance objectives related to this phase of training ] Agitator suitably responded to the Dog’s behavior prior, during, and after engaging ] Agitator displays suitable skill level in this stage of agitation

Patrol Dog Judge Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills - First Bite & First Battle Syndrome 4.

Moderately High Threat Level 1.

Objective:

Dog

Engage a hostile simulated suspect and exhibit a strenuous attempt to subdue him/her in spite of moderately high threat level resistance

Handler

Follow directives from the Trainer to deploy the Dog to assist subduing a simulated suspect while monitoring the safety of the suspect, control and praise the Dog as directed by the Trainer

Agitator

Resist the Dog’s attempt to subdue by exhibiting moderately high threat level resistance consisting of a standing body posture, facing the Dog, arms sideways, maintain balance during impact, hugging the Dog’s head to the torso, assuming a supine posture, and rubbing the Dog’s torso with the legs after it has engaged

Safety Officer Monitor the Agitator carefully as s/he performs moderate threat level True Combat Agitation to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator 2.

Commands:

At any time any participant may command “Terminate” Trainer to Agitator “Suspect Ready?” Trainer to Handler “Handler Ready?” Trainer to Safety Officer “Safety Officer Ready?” Trainer to Group “Standby!” Trainer to Agitator “Action” Trainer to Handler “Deploy” Handler to Agitator “[lawful order to surrender]” Handler To Patrol Dog “[engage command]” Trainer to Agitator “Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Keep Moving ... Side to Side” Trainer to Agitator “Squat Down ... Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Roll Back ... Legs Up” Trainer to Agitator “Legs Down ... Arms Out” Trainer to Handler “Control Your Dog” Trainer to Group “Tactical Release” Handler to Group “Dog Off”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Trainer to Agitator “Roll Away ... Escape” Trainer to Group “Exercise Finished”

3.

Skill Display:

[ [ [ [ [

] Agitator suitably explained objective of this stage of training ] Agitator suitably responded to all commands given by all participants ] Agitator suitably responded to all performance objectives related to this phase of training ] Agitator suitably responded to the Dog’s behavior prior, during, and after engaging ] Agitator displays suitable skill level in this stage of agitation

Patrol Dog Judge Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills - First Bite & First Battle Syndrome 5.

High Threat Level 1.

Objective:

Dog

Engage a hostile simulated suspect and exhibit a strenuous attempt to subdue him/her in spite of high threat level resistance

Handler

Follow directives from the Trainer to deploy the Dog to assist subduing a simulated suspect while monitoring the safety of the suspect, control and praise the Dog as directed by the Trainer

Agitator

Resist the Dog’s attempt to subdue by exhibiting high threat level resistance consisting of a standing body posture, facing the Dog, arms sideways, maintain balance during impact, hugging the Dog’s head to the torso, assuming a supine posture, and squeezing the Dog’s torso with the legs after it has engaged

Safety Officer Monitor the Agitator carefully as s/he performs high threat level True Combat Agitation to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator 2.

Commands:

At any time any participant may command “Terminate” Trainer to Agitator “Suspect Ready?” Trainer to Handler “Handler Ready?” Trainer to Safety Officer “Safety Officer Ready?” Trainer to Group “Standby!” Trainer to Agitator “Action” Trainer to Handler “Deploy” Handler to Agitator “[lawful order to surrender]” Handler To Patrol Dog “[engage command]” Trainer to Agitator “Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Keep Moving ... Side to Side” Trainer to Agitator “Squat Down ... Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Roll Back ... Legs Up” Trainer to Agitator “Legs Down ... Arms Out” Trainer to Handler “Control Your Dog” Handler to Group “Tactical Release” Handler to Group “Dog Off”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Trainer to Agitator “Roll Away ... Escape” Trainer to Group “Exercise Finished”

3.

Skill Display:

[ [ [ [ [

] Agitator suitably explained objective of this stage of training ] Agitator suitably responded to all commands given by all participants ] Agitator suitably responded to all performance objectives related to this phase of training ] Agitator suitably responded to the Dog’s behavior prior, during, and after engaging ] Agitator displays suitable skill level in this stage of agitation

Patrol Dog Judge Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills - First Bite & First Battle Syndrome 6.

Very High Threat Level 1.

Objective:

Dog

Engage a hostile simulated suspect and exhibit a strenuous attempt to subdue him/her in spite of very high threat level resistance

Handler

Follow directives from the Trainer to deploy the Dog to assist subduing a simulated suspect while monitoring the safety of the suspect, control and praise the Dog as directed by the Trainer

Agitator

Resist the Dog’s attempt to subdue by exhibiting high threat level resistance consisting of a standing body posture, facing the Dog, arms sideways, maintain balance during impact, hugging the Dog’s head to the torso, assuming a supine posture, squeezing the Dog’s torso with the legs, and rolling sideways to take the Dog off balance after it has engaged

Safety Officer Monitor the Agitator carefully as s/he performs very high threat level True Combat Agitation to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator 2.

Commands:

At any time any participant may command “Terminate” Trainer to Agitator “Suspect Ready?” Trainer to Handler “Handler Ready?” Trainer to Safety Officer “Safety Officer Ready?” Trainer to Group “Standby!” Trainer to Agitator “Action” Trainer to Handler “Deploy” Handler to Agitator “[lawful order to surrender]” Handler To Patrol Dog “[engage command]” Trainer to Agitator “Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Keep Moving ... Side to Side” Trainer to Agitator “Squat Down ... Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Roll Back ... Legs Up” Trainer to Agitator “Roll Sideways ... Roll Back” Trainer to Agitator “Legs Down ... Arms Out”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Trainer Handler Handler Trainer Trainer

3.

Skill Display:

[ [ [ [ [

to to to to to

Handler “Control Your Dog” Group “Tactical Release” Group “Dog Off” Agitator “Roll Away ... Escape” Group “Exercise Finished”

] Agitator suitably explained objective of this stage of training ] Agitator suitably responded to all commands given by all participants ] Agitator suitably responded to all performance objectives related to this phase of training ] Agitator suitably responded to the Dog’s behavior prior, during, and after engaging ] Agitator displays suitable skill level in this stage of agitation

Patrol Dog Judge Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Advanced Agitation Skills - First Bite & First Battle Syndrome 7.

Extremely High Threat Level 1.

Objective:

Dog

Engage a hostile simulated suspect and exhibit a strenuous attempt to subdue him/her in spite of extremely high threat level resistance

Handler

Follow directives from the Trainer to deploy the Dog to assist subduing a simulated suspect while monitoring the safety of the suspect, control and praise the Dog as directed by the Trainer

Agitator

Resist the Dog’s attempt to subdue by exhibiting high threat level resistance consisting of a standing body posture, facing the Dog, arms sideways, maintain balance during impact, hugging the Dog’s head to the torso, assuming a supine posture, squeezing the Dog’s torso with the legs, and rolling until the Dog is beneath the suspect after it has engaged

Safety Officer Monitor the Agitator carefully as s/he performs extremely high threat level True Combat Agitation to reduce the possibility of injury to the Agitator 2.

Commands:

At any time any participant may command “Terminate” Trainer to Agitator “Suspect Ready?” Trainer to Handler “Handler Ready?” Trainer to Safety Officer “Safety Officer Ready?” Trainer to Group “Standby!” Trainer to Agitator “Action” Trainer to Handler “Deploy” Handler to Agitator “[lawful order to surrender]” Handler To Patrol Dog “[engage command]” Trainer to Agitator “Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Keep Moving ... Side to Side” Trainer to Agitator “Squat Down ... Secure the Head” Trainer to Agitator “Roll Back ... Legs Up” Trainer to Agitator “Roll Sideways ... Roll on Top” Trainer to Agitator “Roll Back”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual Trainer Trainer Handler Handler Trainer Trainer

3.

Skill Display:

[ [ [ [ [

to to to to to to

Agitator “Legs Down ... Arms Out” Handler “Control Your Dog” Group “Tactical Release” Group “Dog Off” Agitator “Roll Away ... Escape” Group “Exercise Finished”

] Agitator suitably explained objective of this stage of training ] Agitator suitably responded to all commands given by all participants ] Agitator suitably responded to all performance objectives related to this phase of training ] Agitator suitably responded to the Dog’s behavior prior, during, and after engaging ] Agitator displays suitable skill level in this stage of agitation

Patrol Dog Judge Date

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 16 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Emergency Canine First Aid (This chapter currently in revision)

DISCLAIMER:

0.

The Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training K-9 Program provides ONLY general guidelines for the emergency medical treatment of Police K-9s. Each student is advised to refer to his/her own respective Veterinarian for specific guidelines regarding canine physiology and medical treatment for his/her respective Dog. "Normal" data and guidelines listed below are averaged among Police K-9s. Utah POST accepts no responsibility nor liability for any application of this material by any student who utilizes this information for the emergency medical treatment of a Dog without first approving its application by the respective Veterinarian.

General Information 1.

Normal temperature 1010 Fahrenheit

2.

Normal respiration 15-20 breaths/minute

3.

Normal pulse 70-90 beats/minute

4.

Normal coat condition shiny, no flakes

5.

Perspiration in tongue and pads only

6.

Eyes clear, free of discharge

7.

Ears clean, no foul odor, free of wax or discharge

8.

Nose wet, free of discharge

9.

Teeth clean, free of plaque/tartar, 85% of adult Dogs have some degree of dental disease

10.

Gums pink/smooth, capillary refill within one second

11.

Breath no foul odor

12.

Bowels regular, effortless, well formed, never black/green/white

13.

Urine yellow and effortless

14.

Injury Evaluation System 1.

Very Severe (act within seconds) 1.

Rapid hemorrhage

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

2.

3.

4.

1.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

2.

Cardiac arrest

3.

Respiratory arrest

4.

Penetrating chest wound

Severe (act within one hour) 1.

Deep cuts, penetrating abdominal wounds

2.

Head wounds with progressive loss of consciousness

3.

Shock

4.

Paralysis following injury

5.

Difficulty breathing

Serious (act within 2 hours) 1.

Open fractures

2.

Massive muscle injury

3.

Open wounds involving joints, nerves, tendons

Major (act within 24 hours) 1.

Closed fractures

2.

Lameness without bleeding

3.

Superficial puncture wounds, deep and non-bleeding

Hemorrhage(Bleeding) 1.

Arterial is bright red; venal is dark red

2.

Must be quickly controlled, may lead to shock or death

3.

D i r e c t p r e s s u r e San Diego PD K-9 Earp was stabbed severely in with sterile pad, the neck by a suspect with a large knife and firm and snug, required eight hours of surgery to survive. watch for swelling below wound, indicates impaired circulation, loosen if possible

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual 4.

Use Tourniquet only for life-threatening situations, consider the limb may be lost due to tissue death immediately around tourniquet

5.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

Heat Stress 1.

Caused by inadequate body heat dissipation

2.

Immediate reaction mandatory

3.

Indicators 1.

Poor response to commands

2.

Weakness, unsteady gait

3.

Difficult breathing

4.

High Temperature, 105 Fahrenheit or higher

or labored

This K-9 died of heat stroke as a result of not being treated quickly enough.

1.

1050 or higher:

2.

1070 or higher: soak Dog in water, ice pack on top of head, ice bath if possible

3.

Monitor temperature continuously

4.

Stop cooling at 1030 F

5.

If temperature falls below 1000 F, warm Dog until temperature stabilizes at 1010 F, monitor temperature every 10 minutes for two hours

6.

Do not let Dog overdrink

7.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

cool Dog off immediately

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Shock 1.

Frequently seen after injuries or trauma

2.

Glassy eyed appearance

3.

Subnormal temperature

4.

Rapid or weak pulse

5.

Slow capillary seconds or more

6.

Lower Dog's head, necessary to move

7.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

4.

refill keep

time, 3 Dog

quiet

and

warm,

use

litter if

Artificial Respiration 1.

Mouth to Nose 1.

Open Dog's mouth, check for obstructions

2.

Extend throat

3.

Clear mouth of mucus and blood, close mouth, seal Dog's lips

tongue

and examine

Photo courtesy of Denise Fleck.

4.

Inhale and cover Dog's nose with your mouth

5.

Exhale gently - DON'T blow hard, watch for chest expansion, 15 breaths per minute

6.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program 5.

6.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Heart Massage 1.

Heart in l o w e r chest, just b e h i n d elbow joint

2.

Both hands a b o v e h e a r t , b e g i n compressions

3.

60 compressions per minute

4.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

Fractures 1.

Swelling, deformity, limited use of body part, protruding bone

2.

Restrain Dog's movement, muzzle if needed

3.

Immobilize injury with gauze and wrapping

4.

Splint in natural position

5.

Bandage gently yet firmly, above and below injury - bandage whole limb if possible

6.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

7.

Burns 1.

Seldom seen among K-9s

2.

Most common are pavement, electrical

3.

Minor: apply cold packs for minimum 20 minutes, watch for complications

4.

Major: apply loose bandage and transport Dog to Vet immediately

water, grease,

This K-9 sustained a serious burn on its back.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program 8.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Bloat 1.

Stomach/bowel enlargement due to gas, water, or food - enlargement just behind ribs, primarily on left side

2.

Most frequent incidents occur if food/water given immediately before or after strenuous physical exertion - two hour safety period advised, soaking food also advised

3.

Older Dogs more susceptible

4.

Higher incidence with "Expanding" food

5.

Indicators 1.

Abnormal restless behavior

2.

Pain in abdominal region

3.

Shallow labored breathing

4.

Attempts defecate

5.

Withhold further food/water, walk Dog if possible

6.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

to

vomit and/or

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program 9.

10.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Foreign Objects in Mouth 1.

Patrol/Detector Dogs particularly susceptible

2.

Gagging, coughing, difficulty swallowing, drooling, ropy saliva, pawing at mouth

3.

Cautiously open Dog's mouth, look for obstruction

4.

Gently attempt to dislodge

5.

If no visual, transport Dog to Vet immediately

Poisonous Substances 1.

Antifreeze is Patrol Dogs. 1.

a

special

hazard to

The United States Secret Service conducted a medical survey which included numerous agencies across the USA and determined that far more incidents of antifreeze poisoning occurred than anyone imagined. The typical profile is that the dog contacts during training or deployment, then gets back in the vehicle, then licks its feet as it notices the antifreeze, then becomes ill, then is often misdiagnosed due to only mild display of symptoms.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program 2.

3.

4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Chocolate Toxicosis. 1.

Theobromine is found in chocolate and cocoa.

2.

Milk chocolate - 44mg/oz; baking chocolate - 390mg/oz.

3.

Causes powerful release of epinephrine and norepinephrine; affects calcium use by muscles.

4.

Indicators include vomiting, diarrhea, excessive urination, heart rate/rhythm changes, staggering, muscle twitching, or coma.

Warfarin Poisoning. 1.

Rodent baits

2.

Interferes with normal clotting process, results in fatal hemorrhage.

3.

Indicators include bleeding in the skin, gums, eyes, blood in stool or urine, labored breathing, possible depression.

Toad Poisoning. 1.

Over 16 species in the USA, all have rough-warty skin.

2.

Skin glands secrete milky substance called bufotoxin.

3.

Indicators include rapid headshaking, immediate/profuse salivating, cardiac irregularities, lips/gums turn blue, depression, seizures, possible death from some species.

4.

A toad soaking in a dog’s water bowl can leave behind enough poison to kill a dog. The toads’ weapon is a milky venom housed in

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

glands on their neck and thighs secreted when threatened, but even their skin is poisonous. 5.

Ibuprofen Toxicosis. 1.

Human anti-inflammatory, pain reliever, fever reducer (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, Rufen).

2.

Causes internal bleeding, may c a u s e s t o m a c h ulceration/perforation.

3.

Indicators include bloody or black vomit, depression, diarrhea, loss of appetite, staggering, dark tarry stool.

6.

DO NOT treat for poison without certainty of ingestion.

7.

Ascertain type and quantity if possible, keep the container, read hazard advice.

8.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately while contacting Animal Poison Control. 1.

National Animal Poison Control Center College of Veterinary Medicine University of Illinois. 1. 2.

11.

(800) 548-2423. (900) 680-0000.

Snakebite 1.

Dogs more susceptible than humans

to snakebite

2.

Increased likelihood of facial bites

3.

Fang marks, immediate rapid swelling

4.

Identify snake if possible, keep Dog quiet as possible

5.

If bite near throat, swelling may impair airway, position head to allow maximum ventilation

6.

If bite on extremity, restrict movement and blood flow - as last resort, use tourniquet

7.

Transport Dog to Vet immediately

severe pain,

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Emergency Human First Aid 1.

2.

3.

Dog training/deployment related puncture wounds 0.

May appear minor, could be deep or penetrate vital organs

1.

Cover wound with clean dressing

2.

Control pressure

3.

Treat for shock if necessary

4.

Arrange for definitive care if necessary

bleeding

with direct

Dog training/deployment related lacerations 0.

May range from small cuts to massive wounds, such as eviscerations

1.

Cover wound with clean dressing

2.

Control pressure

3.

Treat for shock if necessary

4.

Arrange for definitive care

bleeding

with direct

Dog training/deployment related bleeding 0.

Arterial = bright red, venous = dark red

1.

Apply direct pressure to control bleeding

2.

Elevate bleeding portion of body if possible

3.

Utilize pressure control bleeding

4.

Apply Tourniquet as last resort; rarely needed and is likely to have impact on limbs, etc.

points to

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program 5. 4.

5.

6.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Arrange for definitive care if necessary

Dog training/deployment related bruising 0.

Bleeding from capillaries and small vessels under the skin

1.

Apply ice packs to reduce or prevent swelling

2.

Tylenol or Aspirin may also help reduce pain

3.

Arrange for definitive care if necessary

Dog training/deployment related heat exhaustion 0.

Profuse sweating, nausea, weakness, or fainting

1.

Remove subject environment

2.

Allow subject to rest

3.

Give fluids IF SUBJECT CAN HOLD GLASS

4.

Arrange for definitive care

to

a cool

Dog training/deployment related heat stroke 0.

Rapid heart rate, decreased level of consciousness, may or may not sweat; LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCY

1.

Protect subject's airway

2.

Reduce body temperature IMMEDIATELY

3.

Arrange for definitive care

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program 7.

Dog training/deployment related fractures 0.

Two types: Open Closed or Simple

1.

Open or Compound

2.

8.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

or Compound,

1.

Cover wound and any exposed bone with clean dressing

2.

Control bleeding

3.

Splint the fracture as it lies

4.

Apply cold packs to reduce swelling

5.

Treat for Shock

6.

Arrange for definitive care

Closed or Simple 1.

Splint the fracture as it lies

2.

Apply cold packs to reduce swelling

3.

Treat for shock

4.

Arrange for definitive care

Dog training/deployment related shock 0.

Inadequate perfusion of blood to the brain

1.

Lay subject down

2.

Elevate legs possible

3.

Keep subject warm

4.

Arrange for definitive care

8-12

inches if

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 17 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Daily Care and Maintenance (This chapter is currently in revision) 1.

2.

Feeding 1.

Digestibility of dog food is critical to a Police K-9. This refers to the amount of food eaten which actually provides nutrients. Some dog foods have very low, and others very high digestibility. The "Premium" dog foods on the market almost exclusively utilize "Meat-based Protein" rather than "Plant-based Protein. K-9s should be fed premium-quality meat based dog foods.

2.

Time of Day for feeding is a crucial issue. For health and safety reasons, do not feed within two hours before or after a shift of duty. Also, if a Handler is called out frequently after his/her shift is over, a feeding time should be established that reduces the risk that a dog will deploy with a full stomach. It may be necessary to establish two feeding times, so that a dog has only half rations of food at any one time.

Grooming 1.

Daily Brushing is important for a dog for physiological and psychological reasons. Health-wise, brushing helps to detect and remove burrs, etc. which the dog may have picked up during the previous tour of duty. Psychologically, brushing gives the dog "Warm Fuzzies" and stimulates bonding behavior with the Handler.

2.

Daily Body Exams as with brushing, provide health and mental benefits to the dog. Parasites may be detected only by thorough physical exams. Likewise, swelling, lumps, feverish spots, etc. may be detected at early stages by examining the dog's body daily. A Handler learns the "feel" of the dog after several weeks and is quick to notice anything abnormal. Psychologically, rubbing and touching the dog extensively each day is reassuring, similar to "Pruning Behavior" exhibited by pack members in the wild.

3.

Bathing is a hotly contested issue in the world of dog fanciers. Simply stated, a Police K-9 should be bathed as often as needed to maintain a professional demeanor. Shampoos are available which replace the dog's natural skin oils. Therefore, professionalism suggests that a Handler NEVER allow a K-9 to be dirty or stinky.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program 4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Trimming Nails is an important part of grooming. Different types of trimmers are available commercially and only high quality instruments should be used. Styptic powder is also suggested, in case of bleeding. To prevent bleeding, cut back only 1/8" at a time until the "Quick" is visible. Cutting into the Quick often causes pain and bleeding. If bleeding occurs, apply Styptic powder and direct pressure.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program 3.

4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Socializing 1.

Humans are the dominant creature in our society. It is unthinkable that a Police K-9 would not be sociable with the community it services. Some dogs have a natural sociability, while others must be trained to be tolerant. Nonetheless, the minimum standard of sociability is that the dog is tolerant of neutral persons.

2.

Dogs must be tolerated by a properly trained Police K-9. It is not uncommon during deployment that neighborhood dogs will confront a K-9 "intruding" into their domain. A "Dog-Aggressive" K-9 tends to incite altercations of this type. A tolerant K-9 remains on-task during these confrontations, allowing the Handler to dispatch the encroaching dog appropriately. Additionally, the increase in multi-dog deployments requires that a K-9 remain ontask, even when partnered with another.

Immunizations 1.

Rabies is a feared deadly virus that attacks nerve tissue. It develops slowly over 10-50 days and is almost always fatal to dogs. Once symptoms are displayed, a dog seldom lives over 10 days. This disease is easily transmitted to humans and extreme caution must be exercised when Rabies is suspected. Feral animals are occasionally diagnosed. In wilderness areas the potential of encounters with feral animals is higher and caution should be exercised when K-9s are known to have encountered wild animals in training or deployment. Infected Dogs exhibit noticeable behavior. This ranges from radical salivating which is common to water avoidance to viciousness. Diagnosis must be made by a veterinarian.

2.

Distemper is a common viral disease that often results in death. It is seen more often in young unvaccinated dogs, but it can occur in unvaccinated dogs at any age. Initial symptoms usually include vomiting, listlessness, fever, and a loss of appetite. These symptoms may be followed by sticky, yellowish discharges from the nose and eyes, muscle twitches, convulsions, diarrhea, thickening nose skin and footpads,

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

coughing,

and

Ch. 18 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

pneumonia. There is no specific progression of symptoms. They may occur all at once, in groups, or singly. A dog that survives distemper is often left with hard footpads, teeth discoloration, and muscle tremors. Distemper virus is shed by body secretions, excretions, and is also airborne. Bodily contact is not necessary for infection. Distemper must be diagnosed and treated by a veterinarian. Prevention is obtained through immunization. 3.

Hepatitis is a viral disease which affects dogs (and bears) at any age. The virus is initially shed in the saliva and feces of infected dogs and in later stages, the urine. The animal may continue shedding the virus for several months after recovery. This virus is not transmitted to humans. Symptoms of the virus are high fever, bloody diarrhea, and vomiting blood. Less severe symptoms are an abnormal intolerance to light, abdominal pain, and lack of appetite. Diarrhea without blood may also be present. Death often occurs and hospitalization is required for treatment. Prevention is acquired through yearly vaccination.

4.

Leptospirosis is a bacterial disease spread by contaminated urine which recovered animals may excrete for as long as one year. Lepto may be shed by rats, cattle, and other dogs, and may be passed on to humans. Infection is acquired by ingestion, breaks in the skin or mucous membranes, and breeding. Symptoms include loss of appetite, fever, kidney failure, diarrhea, vomiting, depression, increased fluid intake and urination, dehydration, and weight loss. The dog may walk "hunched up" due to muscular or kidney pain. Leptospirosis must be diagnosed and treated by a veterinarian. It requires hospitalization and is prevented by vaccination.

5.

Parainfluenza is an airborne virus which affects the respiratory system of dogs. It is extremely contagious and may infest a dog that simply breathes air in which the viruses are present. Symptoms are coughing or hacking, similar to Kennel Cough. Parainfluenza is resistant to treatment and may take weeks to cure.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Extra vaccinations are suggested when it is known a K-9 may go into a locality known for infestations. 6.

Parvovirus is a very deadly disease that became a notable problem in the summer of 1978. Although all ages of dogs have been affected, puppies appear to be more susceptible. The disease is characterized by dehydration, inactivity, vomiting, and often bloody diarrhea. The abdomen will be painful when touched. The temperature will range from subnormal, normal, to as high as 106 degrees Fahrenheit. Some dogs develop a cough or "Blue Eye" (Corneal Edema). This disease is difficult to distinguish from hepatitis and must be diagnosed by a veterinarian. Diagnosis is obtained by examination of the dog's stool. Although vaccination is a desirable preventative, no vaccines to date are 100% effective. Vaccination should be at least annually.

7.

Bordatella also known as "Kennel Cough," is one of the most common contagious diseases in dogs. It is an airborne disease and is most contagious. Vaccination does not completely immunize the dog against Kennel Cough, but the risk is greatly reduced. Infection is not usually fatal, but can be debilitating. Symptoms are sever hacking/coughing or nasal discharge, but can include dry heaves and vomiting. Diagnosis is possible only by a veterinarian. K-9s are at greater risk of infection, due to yard searches, etc. and should be vaccinated twice yearly. Extra vaccinations are suggested when it is known a K-9 may go into a locality known for infestations.

8.

Coronavirus is similar to Parvovirus, in symptoms and treatment. The disease is characterized by dehydration, inactivity, vomiting, and often bloody diarrhea. The abdomen will be painful when touched. In addition, dogs may become emaciated and exhibit jerking movements. When a dog is infested with both viruses simultaneously, the results may be fatal. Diagnosis and treatment must be made by a veterinarian.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program 9.

5.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Lyme Disease was discovered in Lyme, Connecticut just several years ago. It is transmitted via the Deer Tick and is an inflammatory disorder in dogs. It may be transmitted to humans also. Symptoms are bright red skin lesions, arthritis, fever, and joint inflammation. Diagnosis by only by veterinarian or medical personnel. Treatment for dogs is with ampicillin or tetracycline. This disease is predominantly in northeast, southeast, and midwest USA.

Parasites 1.

Heartworms are the most dangerous of all internal parasites. The adult heartworm ranges from six to twelve inches and lives in the arteries and ventricles of the heart. Infection is acquired when a dog is bitten by an infective mosquito. Heartworm infestation symptoms include coughing, difficulty breathing, loss of weight in spite of a healthy appetite, and tiring easily. Detection is obtained by examination of a blood sample. Infected dogs must be treated by a veterinarian and requires lengthy hospitalization and convalescence. Modern veterinary medicine has numerous preventatives which may be administered ONLY after a blood exam.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

2.

Roundworms are quite common in dogs. The most common of these is called "Ascarid." They are more commonly seen in puppies than in adult dogs. They are white, roundbodied, and pointed at both ends. They may be small and thread-like or as long as five or six inches and resemble earthworms. Dogs usually acquire roundworms by ingesting infected stools or infected rodents. Puppies are usually born with roundworms passed on by the mother prior to whelping. Roundworms usually do not cause any outward symptoms in the adult dog, other than sometimes being visible in the stool. Roundworm infestation should be treated by a veterinarian.

3.

Hookworms are common. These are small intestinal parasites 1/4 to 1/2 inch long and are small enough to be overlooked even when present in the stools. Dogs become infected by ingesting infective larvae from the ground or by penetration of the skin. Symptoms of hookworm infestation are diarrhea, scratching, severe anemia, weakness, and emaciation. It may cause death. Hookworms must be diagnosed and treated by a veterinarian. 4.

Whipworms are common. These are intestinal parasites and symptoms include diarrhea, weight loss, and a change in the coat. Whipworms are acquired by ingesting infective larvae from contaminated soil. Diagnosis and treatment must be made by a veterinarian.

5.

Tapeworms are flat, rectangular shaped, o p a q u e , a n d white/pinkish colored. They may be seen in the dog's stool or clinging to the anal area. Egg segments are discharged in the intestinal tract and usually look like grains of rice in the stool. They are not always visible, however, and may take several microscopic stool examinations to detect.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Symptoms of tapeworm infestation include a change in the coat appearance, weight loss, gastrointestinal disturbances, or change in appetite. Tapeworm infestation should be treated by a veterinarian. 6.

Ringworm is a misnomer for a variety of fungi which invade dogs and also humans. It manifests itself in a ring shape on the skin. A Handler can contract this disorder from his/her dog. The symptoms are hair loss around a circular lesion, inflammation, and scaling. The predominant areas affected are the head, legs, and tail. Diagnosis and treatment is by veterinarian only and consists of creams applied over a lengthy period.

7.

Fleas are probably the most prevalent external parasite. They are not hostspecific and will feed on most animals, including humans. Fleas are wingless, dark brown insects capable of jumping great distances in proportion to their size. Fleas obtain nourishment through the host's blood. Fleas are a common carrier of disease, i.e., tapeworm, plague, and may cause allergic dermatitis. Flea eggs are white and about the size of a grain of salt. Eggs may be found in the dog's coat mixed with flea feces (partially digested blood) which are the same size but colored black. The eggs may take from two days to two weeks to hatch into larvae. The larvae are about 1/4 inch long, white or cream color, and resemble fly maggots. They are usually found in the dog's bedding, cracks in floors, or under carpets. Depending on the environment, larvae may take from ten days to several months to reach adulthood. Unfed fleas can live for several months. A major portion of the flea life cycle is spent off the dog. Therefore, any attempt to control fleas only on the dog will not solve the problem. Flea control must be practiced on the dog, in the living quarters, in the vehicle, on any other pets, in the yard and also in the house. This can be accomplished by bathing or dipping the dog and any other pets, spraying the yard and the dog kennel with a proper insecticide, and fumigating the house weekly for four weeks. Finally, be sure to remove any dead fleas or eggs from the dog's or pet's coat with a flea comb. Because of the many uncontrolled and unsanitary areas a K-9 must work in, flea infestation requires constant attention.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

8.

Ticks can cause serious disease such as anemia and tick paralysis and can carry organisms causing diseases in dogs (babesia, rickettsia, etc.). Their presence should never be ignored. The adult female tick looks different before and after she has taken blood from a dog. Male ticks do not swell. Most ticks are picked up in woody or rural areas and usually cause a skin irritation. The easiest removal is by hand. Use the thumb and first finger to grasp the tick as close as possible to where its mouth parts insert into the dog's skin. Attempt to remove the entire tick using a firm, but gentle, constant pull. There is no need to twist the tick. If the mouth parts remain, do not worry, rarely on a dog does a tick bite become infected. The site of the bite usually becomes red and thickened in reaction to a substance in the tick's saliva. This will usually heal in approximately two weeks. Do not try to burn the tick off or use any substance other than flea/tick dip or powder. If the dog works or lives in a tick-infested area, it should be examined daily. A deployment in a rural or remote area merits a thorough examination for ticks prior to allowing the dog back into the vehicle.

9.

Lice are light colored and about 1/10" long. They spend their entire lives on the host and attach their eggs to the hair. Lice may ingest blood or skin scales of the dog. Lice cause intense itching and can carry certain tapeworm larvae. Lice can be killed with a thorough bath followed by a flea/tick dip. There are two species of canine lice: Biting (feed on skin flakes, and skin); and Sucking (feed on dogs blood, and are more irritating).

10.

Mites are very small parasites which may not be visible at all to the human eye. The most troublesome mite causes a condition known as Demodectric Mange. This is cause by a variety of mite which is present in the small hair

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

follicles in almost all dogs. Puppies acquire this mite from the mother during nursing. The localized form usually occurs in dogs under one year of age and causes small patches of hair loss, exposing healthy looking skin that appears not to itch. These symptoms usually occur on the legs and face. After the patches have reached their maximum size, the hair tends to grow back. Most cases heal spontaneously. Generalized demodectric mange occurs in dogs of all ages. The hair loss progresses from the small patches to eventually involve the entire body. It is extremely difficult to treat and can cause death. Another variety of mite infests the ears of dogs and is extremely bothersome. Symptoms are tenderness, holding the infested ear sideways, shaking the head as if to dislodge something, and a foul odor in the ear canal. Veterinarian care is essential for each of these conditions.

6.

11.

Coccidiosis (a.k.a. Coccidia) is a protozoa which invades the intestinal tract. It is contracted by ingesting infective stools, soil, water, or other materials. Coccidiosis is usually caused by poor sanitation or overcrowding. The symptoms are severe diarrhea, intestinal hemorrhage, and emaciation. Coccidiosis must be diagnosed and treated by a veterinarian.

12.

Giardia is an intestinal protozoa causing acute diarrhea. Giardia used to be a problem found in mountainous areas and in Europe. However, it is becoming more common. Giardia symptoms are almost identical to Coccidiosis and is sometimes misdiagnosed. Giardia is much easier to treat, taking only one to two weeks.

Examinations 1.

Daily A daily head to tail examination may be performed while brushing. After several days a Handler will “memorize” the feel of the dog and quickly perceive a new lump, swelling, or other abnormality. This daily interaction has a bonding effect on the dog, and it will begin to welcome these examinations.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program 2.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Monthly A monthly fecal examination will reveal parasites which have invaded the dog’s body during training and deployment. Fecal sample collection kits are usually provided by the veterinarian without cost and offer a more precise and discreet manner of collecting and delivering the sample. Due to the many different areas a Patrol Dog traverses, exposure to parasites is to be expected.

3.

Annual A Patrol Dog should have a c o m p l e t e examination at least annually. This should include a manual head to tail examination to detect obvious abnormalities, a clinical blood scan to detect internal maladies, and scaling the dog’s teeth to remove tartar/plaque .

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 18 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Patrol Dog Case Law

(This chapter currently in revision) Synopsis This canine case law presentation was developed as a tool to assist canine units understand court rulings on canine deployments. It deals specifically with federal case law that mandates policy on canine use, deployment and control. The cases at issue have been broken down into two general categories: 1.

United States Supreme Court decisions, which affect all fifty states.

2.

United States Court of Appeals decisions, which are broken down into the thirteen federal judicial circuits, then further listed by states affected by those individual circuit courts’ decision. (Note that not all thirteen circuit courts have had case law applicable to canine use and deployment).

Also, canine tracking decisions have been addressed as well. There are eight cases from the United States Court of Appeals. They address tracking, evidence recovery and scent discrimination. In all these cases, in addition to the canine evidence, there was also either direct or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the canine evidence. There are three areas where canine units nationwide have either been terminated or the units reduced in size: 1.

Deployment Issues: The issue of not deploying the dog properly, which led to litigation, which resulted in either a settlement or a jury verdict against the agency.

2.

Accidental Bites: Either civilians or other officers have been accidentally bit by a Police K-9 or contraband detector dog. This led to agency liability for that accidental bite. Unfortunately, numerous police dogs have been shot and killed by fellow officers while they were being accidentally bit by a police dog.

3.

Handler Compensation Issues: The United States Department of Labor (DOL) mandates the compensation of “at-home care” of police dogs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). An agency’s failure to compensate a handler has resulted in litigation where the agency was found liable for 2-3 years of back pay for each canine handler.

To summarize the reasonable conclusions drawn by these case decisions, eight key guidelines governing the use of Police K-9s are presented in Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 1

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

brief: 1.

Canines are a locating tool. Upon the location of the suspect, a use of force by either the handler or the dog may or may not be necessary. The suspect controls this decision. The handler and the dog merely react and respond to what the suspect dictates. Law enforcement is simply a reactive business. The suspect dictates and controls his own destiny. One court concluded the criminals can largely control the circumstances of their crimes and can thus minimize the risk that force will be necessary.

2.

The use of Police K-9s is governed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Connor. Excessive force must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness test. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, using the information available to the officer(s) at the time of the incident, a three-part test should be used to satisfy and justify a canine deployment:

3.

A.

The severity of the crime at issue;

B.

Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the law enforcement officers or others;

C.

And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

Graham v. Connor has been used in all canine excessive force cases to evaluate the “reasonableness” of that force. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, using only the information available to the officer(s) at the time of the incident and allowing for the fact that officers are often forced to make split second judgements, Graham’s three-prong test is applied as follows: A.

The Eleventh Circuit Court held in Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach that using a dog against a minor misdemeanant, who posed no threat to the officer, was unreasonable.

B.

The First Circuit Court held in Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth that using a dog against a minor misdemeanant, who posed no threat to the officer, was unreasonable.

C.

The First Circuit Court held in Gill v. Thomas that using a dog against a misdemeanant who posed a threat to the officer and was actively resisting arrest, was reasonable.

D.

The Sixth Circuit Court held in Matthews v. Jones that using a dog against a misdemeanant who posed a threat to the officer and was actively resisting arrest, was reasonable.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 2

Utah POST K-9 Program

4.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

E.

The Ninth Circuit Court held in Fikes v. Cleghorn that using a dog against a misdemeanant who posed a threat and fought officers was reasonable.

F.

The Ninth Circuit Court held in Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido that using a dog against a misdemeanant who posed a threat to officers and was actively evading arrest by flight was reasonable.

G.

The Ninth Circuit Court held in Mendoza v. Block that using a police dog to find Mendoza, an armed, fleeing, hiding felony suspect, and to secure him until he stopped struggling and was handcuffed, was objectively reasonable under these circumstances.

H.

The Sixth Circuit Court held in Robinette v. Barnes that using a dog to find a hidden, un-searched, felony suspect who was actively evading arrest by hiding was reasonable.

I.

The Ninth Circuit Court held in Quintanilla v. City of Downey that using a dog to find a fleeing, hidden, un-searched felony suspect and to secure him until he stopped struggling and was handcuffed, was objectively reasonable.

J.

The Ninth Circuit Court held in Brewer v. City of Napa that using a dog to find a fleeing, hidden, un-searched felony suspect was reasonable.

K.

The Eighth Circuit Court held in Mettler v. Whitledge that using a dog to search for an armed, hidden felon was reasonable.

Seven cases, two from the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, Robinette v. Barnes and Matthew v. Jones, and five from the Ninth Circuit, Gilliam v. County of Los Angeles, Fikes v. Cleghorn, Quintanilla v. City of Downey, Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido and Brewer v. City of Napa, all specifically state that… “…Police K-9s are not deadly force…” “…Police K-9s can often help prevent officers from having to resort to, or be subjected to, deadly force…”

5.

Regarding the issue of “bite ratio” as discussed in two cases, Ninth Circuit’s Chew v. Gates (L.A.P.D.) and Eleventh Circuit’s Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, their conclusions were non-directional. A.

Kerr: A high ratio of bites to apprehensions may strongly indicate a misbehaving dog or a misbehaving handler. On an

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 3

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

average, less than 30% of apprehensions should result in a bite; the average bite ratio in the West Palm Beach department was 50%. Thus, canine units with an average bite ratio of 20% or higher should be reviewed. B.

Chew: The City of Los Angeles Police Canine Unit had a bite ratio average of 40%. Since this case has been resolved by an out-of-court settlement, this case offers little guidance. Every use of force, canine or otherwise, must be reviewed to determine the constitutionality of that force. A separate investigation into each use of force to insure it was proper, must be completed after that use of force. This investigation into each use of force makes bite ratio a mute topic, since each bite, as a use of force, is reviewed for its constitutionality under Graham v. Connor. The policy of reviewing each use of force must be articulated in writing, in the form of a policy or general order.

6.

And, although the issue of “bark and hold” versus “bite and hold” was also discussed in Kerr, Chew and Watkins v. City of Oakland, the court conclusions were: A.

Kerr: The department had a “bite and hold” policy; the court ruled that in the bite and hold method of training, the handler must have complete control over the actions of the dog. With such control the handler can recall and restrain the dog before a bite occurs. Alternately, the handler can quickly remove the dog from the apprehended suspect. There was no discussion of a “bark and hold” method.

B.

Chew: This department also had a “bite and hold” policy. Since this case has been resolved by an out-of-court settlement, this case offers little guidance. L.A.P.D. has returned to a “find and bark” policy.

C.

Watkins v. City of Oakland: This department also had a “bite and hold” policy. The court ruled that “Oakland’s bite and hold policy did not violate clearly established law concerning the use of excessive force at the time of the incident”, in 1998. Since this case has been resolved by an out-of-court settlement, this case offers little guidance. Oakland has gone to a “find and bark” policy. A few of the cases presented here were “positive control”

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 4

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

cases, that is the dog was deployed and controlled on lead. There are approximately 14,000 police dogs in the United States. Approximately 60-70% of these dogs are using the “bite and hold” philosophy of training. The balance, 30-40% of these dogs are using the “bark and hold” philosophy of training. To summarily debate the “bark and hold” versus “bite and hold” issue is irrelevant. Court decisions dictate that in any type of search condition the handler must have complete control over the actions of his dog. Handler control dictates to the dog what type of response is appropriate for the situation. The handler makes the decision to escalate or de-escalate the dog’s level of response, not the dog. In either the bark and hold or bite and hold, the decision to deploy the dog will be evaluated under Graham v. Connor. In addition, the courts have been emphasizing the “immediate” release of a suspect once the handler commands it. The courts have also been emphasizing handler control. In three recent cases: Fikes v. Cleghorn, Quintanilla v. City of Downey, and Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido, the courts emphasized control by stating that the police dog was trained to immediately release arrestees on command, as it did so in these cases. Due to the fact the courts are mandating “complete control” of the dog and the “immediate release” of a suspect, once the handler commands it, it is time to consider new tactics and training philosophies: 7.

As indicated in the section concerning “Police K-9s and Use of Force Continuum,” a written policy should exist in all canine units, specifying departmental policies regulating the control of canine units, consistent with case law, for canine usage and deployment in felony and misdemeanor actions.

8.

Training was strongly addressed in the Eleventh Circuit Court case, Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach. The court stated: Police Dogs must be subject to continual, rigorous training in law enforcement techniques. Such training ensures that the dogs will continue to respond with alacrity to the commands of their handlers; without such training, the dogs’ responsiveness to their handlers’ commands will deteriorate, resulting in more frequent and more serious injuries to apprehended suspects than might otherwise occur. Training is further discussed in vicarious liability under negligent training and in City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris and in Davis v. Mason County.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 5

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Lastly, plaintiff’s attorneys in these canine cases are now focusing on seven areas: 1.

Training and Supervision: Plaintiff’s attorneys are focusing their suits in these two areas: A.

Negligent Training: In Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, the court concluded that police dogs must be subject to continual rigorous training in law enforcement techniques. Such training ensures that the dogs will continue to respond with alacrity to the commands of their handlers; without such training, the dogs’ responsiveness to their handlers’ commands will deteriorate, resulting in more frequent and more serious injuries to apprehended suspects than might otherwise occur. Training is further addressed in vicarious liability under negligent training and in City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris and in Davis v. Mason County.

B.

Negligent Supervision: In Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, the court concluded that supervisors failed to adequately supervise the performance of members of the canine unit to ensure that both misbehaving dogs and officers exhibiting bad judgement in the use of canine force received corrective training. Supervision applies to all supervisors and includes supervision of standards; training, testing and evaluation to those standards; appointment, entrustment and retention of both the dog and handler; deployment and the use of canine force. Supervision is further addressed in vicarious liability under negligent supervision and in Davis v. Mason County.

2.

Police K-9s as Deadly Force: Plaintiff’s attorneys are pushing to have Police K-9s classified as deadly force. No Federal Court has ruled that Police K-9s are deadly force. In fact, seven cases specifically state that Police Dogs are not deadly force. (See Sixth and Ninth Circuit case recaps).

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 6

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Tennessee v. Garner does not affect police dogs, since they are not deadly force. Photographs of any injury to the suspect should be taken to document the injury. Since the suspect will take a photo that is most advantageous to him, we should take the photo that is most advantageous to us. That will normally be after medical treatment, prior to bandaging. 3.

Canine Deployment Warnings: There have been several cases where the suspect claims he did not hear the canine deployment warning. These warnings must be made unless you can articulate specific officer safety issues. Warnings must be: A.

Loud, clear and documented being heard at the far side of the building/area.

B.

The text of the warning must be documented.

C.

The warning must be in the language of the community you are deploying in.

In a large building/area, multiple warnings must be made while progressing through your search to ensure the warning was heard. If made, these additional warnings must be documented. You are a canine handler, not a canine warning giver. someone else make the warning tactically. 4.

Have

Repeated applications of force: As with any application of force, particularly pain compliance force, if that force is not working, do not continue with the same application of force. Utilize another application or a combination of applications. Do not use the dog multiple times when that pain compliance force has not worked thus far.

5.

Report writing: Utilize this update to prepare you to articulate your actions into words. Refer to the “Example Canine Deployment Report” in this update.

6.

Post Bite Interviews: You must marry suspect(s), witnesses and non-witnesses to

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 7

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

their statements immediately after the incident. This must be corroborated on video tape or minimally on audio tape. It is the handler’s responsibility to either do this or insure it was done. As an example, this is a list of post bite interviews that should be done: A.

the suspect;

B.

other officers;

C.

witnesses and non-witnesses on scene;

D.

EMS personnel on scene;

E.

transporting officer(s)

F.

hospital personnel:

G.

admitting clerk;

H.

nurses;

I.

doctors;

J.

transporting officer(s);

K.

jail personnel:

L.

booking officers;

M.

medical personnel;

N.

housing officers.

Once you lock suspect(s), witnesses and non-witnesses immediately into their statement, this will prevent false accusations or statements in a potential lawsuit.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 8

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Utilization of Canines as an Alternative to Deadly Force The United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit has decided in two cases that Police Dogs are an alternative to having to resort to deadly force. This was specifically stated in Robinette v. Barnes, and in Matthews v. Jones (see those recaps under “United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit” section). Five other cases out of the Ninth Circuit: Gilliam v. County of Los Angeles, Fikes v. Cleghorn, Quintanilla v. City of Downey, Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido, and Brewer v. City of Napa, all specifically state that Police Dogs are not deadly force (see those recaps under the Ninth Circuit section). At least one city, San Diego, California, researched this issue and agreed with the court: In 1990, officers in the San Diego Police Department shot 22 suspects, killing 12 of them. Public outcry denounced the department because many of the suspects were not armed with firearms, but instead wielded non-traditional weapons such as a trowel, baseball bats and assorted knives. As a result, the Police Chief expanded the canine unit to increase the available number of teams. The handlers and dogs were specifically trained to be “… AN ALTERNATIVE TO USE OF DEADLY FORCE…”, thereby expanding the dogs’ previous responsibilities, which included building and area searches, finding evidence, narcotics or explosives. In the ensuing years people armed with all types of non-traditional weapons have been taken down by dogs, and… many incidents have been resolved without either the dog biting the suspect, or the officer having to resort to deadly force. The San Diego Police Department has witnessed firsthand proof that… the use of Police K-9s does, in fact, reduce the likelihood of either the officer or suspect resorting to deadly force.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 9

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 10

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Recommendations on Police K-9s Prior to August of 2000, no United States canine association, national law enforcement association, state law enforcement or state canine standard took a stance on recommending a training philosophy of “bark and hold” over “bite and hold.” The three largest United States canine associations, United States Police Canine Association (USPCA), North American Police Work Dog Association (NAPWDA) and National Police Canine Association (NPCA) did not recommend either philosophy. No state Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) recommended one philosophy over the other. In August 2000, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) published their “Law Enforcement Canine Model Policy.” This was the first time in the history of police canine where a law enforcement association recommended a training philosophy of “bark and hold.” Their model policy stated “Training and deployment of police canines shall employ the ‘guard and bark’ rather than the ‘guard and hold’ method.” IACP has re-issued this model policy in September 2001. IACP still remains the only law enforcement association that has recommended a training philosophy. In April 2000, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division, reviewed the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGCPD) Canine Unit. In October 2001, DOJ also reviewed the Cincinnati, Ohio Police Department (CPD). During that process, they also reviewed Cincinnati’s Canine Unit. DOJ made these written recommendations to both PGCPD and CPD: • The agency should adopt a “find and bark” policy and eliminate undefined terms from its canine policy. It should also provide more guidance to its officers regarding when canines are to be deployed. Moreover, we recommend that the agency track and monitor the frequency with which its canines bite civilians when making apprehensions. • The agency canine policy should require verbal warnings before releasing a canine. • In general, canine deployment for purposes of apprehending a person should be limited to searches for serious felons or to cases where a subject is armed or has the potential to use force or cause harm to the officer, the subject or others. •The agency should document deployments and apprehensions to determine a bite ratio. Bite ratios enable a police department to assess its canine unit and individual canine teams. •The agency should provide standardized training procedures to all supervisors deploying canines.

in

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

canine

handling

Ch. 19 Pg. 11

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

DOJ recommended the “find and bark” policy based upon IACP’s Law Enforcement Canine Model Policy. While DOJ agrees that the sole issue in a constitutional deployment is the deployment decision, they appear to be mirroring IACP’s recommendation on “find and bark.” PGCPD had already switched to the “find and bark” training philosophy. They adopted the other DOJ recommendations as listed. The unit’s maintenance training increased dramatically. CPD took objection to DOJ’s recommendations as listed. As a result, DOJ backed down from the recommendation of the “find and bark” training philosophy and allowed CPD to continue with their current “find and bite” training philosophy. Below is the “U.S. Department of Justice Agreement Cincinnati” as it applies to their canine unit:

With

City

of

DEFINITIONS: • The term “canine apprehension” means anytime a canine is deployed and plays a clear and well-documented role in the capture of a person. The mere presence of a canine at the scene of an arrest will not be counted as an apprehension. • The term “canine bite ratio” means the number of apprehensions accomplished by means of a dog bite divided by the total number of apprehensions (both with and without a bite). • The term “canine deployment” means any situation, except in cases involving an on-leash article search only, in which the canine is brought to the scene and either: 1) the canine is released from the police car; or 2) the suspect gives up immediately after an announcement is made that if they do not surrender, the canine will be released. CANINES: The CPD shall revise and augment its canine polices and procedures as follows: 1.

The CPD will revise and augment, subject to DOJ review and approval, its canine policies. CPD will continue to make significant improvements in its canine operations, including the introduction of an improved handler-controlled alert curriculum and the use of new canines, consistent with the CPD’s policy as revised by this Agreement.

2.

The policy shall limit off-leash canine deployments, searches and other instances where there is otherwise a significant risk of a canine bite to a suspect, to searches of commercial buildings or instances in which the suspect is wanted for an offense of violence or reasonably is suspected to have a weapon.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 12

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

3.

The policy shall require canine officers to have approval from an immediate supervisor before the canine can be deployed, except in cases involving only an on-leash article search. If the handler is unable to contact a canine unit supervisor, approval must be sought from a supervisor in charge at the scene, before the canine can be deployed. The approving supervisor shall not serve as a canine handler in the deployment.

4.

The policy shall require loud and clear announcement(s), appropriate for the particular deployment area at issue, that a canine will be deployed and advising the suspect to surrender and remain still if approached by a canine. The policy shall require a sufficient interval between announcement and deployment to allow the suspect to surrender (2 minutes).

5.

The policy shall require that canine handlers will not allow a canine to bite a suspect except where the suspect poses a risk of imminent danger (i.e., is armed with a weapon or other instrumentality capable of producing significant bodily injury) to the handler or others or is actively resisting or escaping.

6.

The policy shall also require that in all circumstances where a canine is permitted to bite or apprehend a suspect by biting, the handler shall call off the dog at the first possible moment the canine can be safely released, taking into account that the average person will struggle if being seized or confronted by a canine and the policy shall specify that struggling alone, shall not preclude the release of the canine. The policy shall prohibit canines from biting nonresistant subjects. Whenever a canine-related injury occurs, immediate medical treatment either by rescue ambulance, transportation to an emergency room, or admission to a hospital must be sought.

7.

The policy shall require CPD to track canine deployments and canine apprehensions and to calculate and track the canine bite ratios on a monthly basis to assess its canine unit and individual canine teams.

8.

CPD shall include as an element of the risk management system described in this Agreement, canine bite ratios, and provide for the review, pursuant to the protocol for that system, of the performance of any handler or canine whose bite ratio exceeds 20 percent during a 6-month period, or the entire unit if the unit’s bite ratio exceeds that threshold.

While the United States Federal Courts do not endorse a training philosophy, DOJ has based its findings upon the IACP recommendation. In the event DOJ investigates your agency for Civil Rights violations, canine handlers should be aware of DOJ’s recommendations. The United States Police Canine Association (USPCA) and the North American Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 13

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Police Work Dog Association (NAPWDA) expressed several concerns with the IACP model policy in a meeting with IACP in August 2001. The IACP chose to ignore those concerns.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 14

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 15

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 16

Utah POST K-9 Program

U.S.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Supreme Court Case Law Tennessee v. Garner U.S. Supreme Court

TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) 471 U.S. 1 TENNESSEE v. GARNER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 83-1035. Argued October 30, 1984 Decided March 27, 1985 * A Tennessee statute provides that if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed. Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] (a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 17

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

(b) The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common-law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. Changes in the legal and technological context mean that that rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. Whereas felonies were formerly capital crimes, few are now, or can be, and many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Also, the common-law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. And, in light of the varied rules adopted in the States indicating a long-term movement away from the common-law rule, particularly in the police departments themselves, that rule is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. There is no indication that holding a police practice such as that authorized by the statute unreasonable will severely hamper effective law enforcement. Pp. 12-20. (c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22. 710 F.2d 240, affirmed and remanded. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 22. [ Footnote * ] Together with No. 83-1070, Memphis Police Department et al. v. Garner et al., on certiorari to the same court. Henry L. Klein argued the cause for petitioners in No. 83-1070. With him on the briefs were Clifford D. Pierce, Jr., Charles V. Holmes, and Paul F. Goodman. W. J. Michael Cody, Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the cause for appellant in No. 83-1035. With him on the briefs were William M. Leech, Jr., former Attorney General, and Jerry L. Smith, Assistant Attorney General. [471 U.S. 1, 3] Steven L. Winter argued the cause for appellee-respondent Garner. With him on the brief was Walter L. Bailey, Jr.Fn Fn [471 U.S. 1, 3] Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Florida Chapter of the National Bar Association by Deitra Micks; and for the Police Foundation et al. by William Josephson, Robert Kasanof, Philip Lacovara, and Margaret Bush Wilson. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 18

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. I At about 10:45 p. m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to answer a "prowler inside call." Upon arriving at the scene they saw a woman standing on her porch and gesturing toward the adjacent house. 1 She told them she had heard glass breaking and that "they" or "someone" was breaking in next door. While Wright radioed the dispatcher to say that they were on the scene, Hymon went behind the house. He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was appellee-respondent's decedent, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner's face and hands. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was "reasonably sure" and "figured" that Garner was unarmed. App. 41, 56; Record 219. He thought Garner was 17 or 18 years old and [471 U.S. 1, 4] about 5' 5" or 5' 7" tall. 2 While Garner was crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon called out "police, halt" and took a few steps toward him. Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that if Garner made it over the fence he would elude capture, 3 Hymon shot him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body. 4 In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that "[i]f, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Tenn. Code Ann. [471 U.S. 1, 5] 40-7-108 (1982). 5 The Department policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute, but still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. App. 140-144. The incident was reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm's Review Board and presented to a grand jury. Neither took any action. Id., at 57. Garner's father then brought this action in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of Garner's constitutional rights. The complaint alleged that the shooting violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It named as defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, its Director, and the Mayor and city of Memphis. After a 3-day bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the Mayor and the Director for lack of evidence. It then concluded that Hymon's actions were authorized by the Tennessee statute, which in turn was constitutional. Hymon had employed the only reasonable and practicable means of preventing Garner's escape. Garner had "recklessly and heedlessly Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 19

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

attempted to vault over the fence to escape, thereby assuming the risk of being fired upon." App. to Pet. for Cert. A10. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted in good-faith reliance on the Tennessee statute and was therefore within the scope of his qualified immunity. 600 F.2d 52 (1979). It remanded for reconsideration of the possible liability of the city, however, in light of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), which had come down after the District Court's decision. The District Court was [471 U.S. 1, 6] directed to consider whether a city enjoyed a qualified immunity, whether the use of deadly force and hollow point bullets in these circumstances was constitutional, and whether any unconstitutional municipal conduct flowed from a "policy or custom" as required for liability under Monell. 600 F.2d, at 54-55. The District Court concluded that Monell did not affect its decision. While acknowledging some doubt as to the possible immunity of the city, it found that the statute, and Hymon's actions, were constitutional. Given this conclusion, it declined to consider the "policy or custom" question. App. to Pet. for Cert. A37-A39. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 710 F.2d 240 (1983). It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, 6 and is therefore constitutional only if "reasonable." The Tennessee statute failed as applied to this case because it did not adequately limit the use of deadly force by distinguishing between felonies of different magnitudes - "the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment." Id., at 246. Officers cannot resort to deadly force unless they "have probable cause . . . to believe that the suspect [has committed a felony and] poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community if left at large." Ibid. 7 [471 U.S. 1, 7] The State of Tennessee, which had intervened to defend the statute, see 28 U.S.C. 2403(b), appealed to this Court. The city filed a petition for certiorari. We noted probable jurisdiction in the appeal and granted the petition. 465 U.S. 1098 (1984). II Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). While it is not always clear just when minimal police interference becomes a seizure, see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. A A police officer may arrest a person if he has probable cause to believe Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 20

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

that person committed a crime. E. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). Petitioners and appellant argue that if this requirement is satisfied the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about how that seizure is made. This submission ignores the many cases in which this Court, by balancing the extent of the intrusion against the need for it, has examined the reasonableness of [471 U.S. 1, 8] the manner in which a search or seizure is conducted. To determine the constitutionality of a seizure "[w]e must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983); see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 555 (1976). We have described "the balancing of competing interests" as "the key principle of the Fourth Amendment." Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 700, n. 12 (1981). See also Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536 -537 (1967). Because one of the factors is the extent of the intrusion, it is plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried out. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 895 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 28 -29 (1968). Applying these principles to particular facts, the Court has held that governmental interests did not support a lengthy detention of luggage, United States v. Place, supra, an airport seizure not "carefully tailored to its underlying justification," Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion), surgery under general anesthesia to obtain evidence, Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985), or detention for fingerprinting without probable cause, Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985). On the other hand, under the same approach it has upheld the taking of fingernail scrapings from a suspect, Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973), an unannounced entry into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence, Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), administrative housing inspections without probable cause to believe that a code violation will be found, Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, and a blood test of a drunken-driving suspect, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966). In each of these cases, the question was whether [471 U.S. 1, 9] the totality of the circumstances justified a particular sort of search or seizure. B The same balancing process applied in the cases cited above demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect's fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interests in effective law enforcement. 8 It is argued that overall violence will be reduced by encouraging the peaceful submission of suspects who know that they may be shot if they flee. Effectiveness in making arrests Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 21

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

requires the resort to deadly [471 U.S. 1, 10] force, or at least the meaningful threat thereof. "Being able to arrest such individuals is a condition precedent to the state's entire system of law enforcement." Brief for Petitioners 14. Without in any way disparaging the importance of these goals, we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects. Cf. Delaware v. Prouse, supra, at 659. The use of deadly force is a self-defeating way of apprehending a suspect and so setting the criminal justice mechanism in motion. If successful, it guarantees that that mechanism will not be set in motion. And while the meaningful threat of deadly force might be thought to lead to the arrest of more live suspects by discouraging escape attempts, 9 the presently available evidence does not support this thesis. 10 The fact is that a majority of police departments [471 U.S. 1, 11] in this country have forbidden the use of deadly force against nonviolent suspects. See infra, at 18-19. If those charged with the enforcement of the criminal law have abjured the use of deadly force in arresting nondangerous felons, there is a substantial basis for doubting that the use of such force is an essential attribute of the arrest power in all felony cases. See Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn. 446, 472, 240 N. W. 2d 525, 540 (1976) (Rogosheske, J., dissenting in part). Petitioners and appellant have not persuaded us that shooting nondangerous fleeing suspects is so vital as to outweigh the suspect's interest in his own life. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects. It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster. III A Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 22

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

It is insisted that the Fourth Amendment must be construed in light of the common-law rule, which allowed the use of whatever force was necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon, though not a misdemeanant. As stated in Hale's posthumously published Pleas of the Crown: "[I]f persons that are pursued by these officers for felony or the just suspicion thereof . . . shall not yield themselves to these officers, but shall either resist or fly before they are apprehended or being apprehended shall rescue themselves and resist or fly, so that they cannot be otherwise apprehended, and are upon necessity slain therein, because they cannot be otherwise taken, it is no felony." 2 M. Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae 85 (1736). See also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *289. Most American jurisdictions also imposed a flat prohibition against the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing misdemeanant, coupled with a general privilege to use such force to stop a fleeing felon. E. g., Holloway v. Moser, 193 N.C. 185, 136 S. E. 375 (1927); State v. Smith, 127 Iowa 534, 535, 103 N. W. 944, 945 (1905); Reneau v. State, 70 Tenn. 720 (1879); Brooks v. Commonwealth, 61 Pa. 352 (1869); Roberts v. State, 14 Mo. 138 (1851); see generally R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 1098-1102 (3d ed. 1982); Day, Shooting the Fleeing Felon: State of the Law, 14 Crim. L. Bull. 285, 286-287 (1978); Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 798, 807-816 (1924). But see Storey v. State, 71 Ala. 329 (1882); State v. Bryant, 65 N.C. 327, 328 (1871); Caldwell v. State, 41 Tex. 86 (1874). [471 U.S. 1, 13] The State and city argue that because this was the prevailing rule at the time of the adoption of the Fourth Amendment and for some time thereafter, and is still in force in some States, use of deadly force against a fleeing felon must be "reasonable." It is true that this Court has often looked to the common law in evaluating the reasonableness, for Fourth Amendment purposes, of police activity. See, e. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418 -419 (1976); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111, 114 (1975); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 -153 (1925). On the other hand, it "has not simply frozen into constitutional law those law enforcement practices that existed at the time of the Fourth Amendment's passage." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 591, n. 33 (1980). Because of sweeping change in the legal and technological context, reliance on the common-law rule in this case would be a mistaken literalism that ignores the purposes of a historical inquiry. B It has been pointed out many times that the common-law rule is best understood in light of the fact that it arose at a time when virtually all 11 "Though effected without the felonies were punishable by death. protections and formalities of an orderly trial and conviction, the killing of a resisting or [471 U.S. 1, 14] fleeing felon resulted in no greater consequences than those authorized for punishment of the felony of which the individual was charged or suspected." American Law Institute, Model Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 23

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Penal Code 3.07, Comment 3, p. 56 (Tentative Draft No. 8, 1958) (hereinafter Model Penal Code Comment). Courts have also justified the common-law rule by emphasizing the relative dangerousness of felons. See, e. g., Schumann v. McGinn, 307 Minn., at 458, 240 N. W. 2d, at 533; Holloway v. Moser, supra, at 187, 136 S. E., at 376 (1927). Neither of these justifications makes sense today. Almost all crimes formerly punishable by death no longer are or can be. See, e. g., Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977). And while in earlier times "the gulf between the felonies and the minor offences was broad and deep," 2 Pollock & Maitland 467, n. 3; Carroll v. United States, supra, at 158, today the distinction is minor and often arbitrary. Many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Wilgus, 22 Mich. L. Rev., at 572-573. These changes have undermined the concept, which was questionable to begin with, that use of deadly force against a fleeing felon is merely a speedier execution of someone who has already forfeited his life. They have also made the assumption that a "felon" is more dangerous than a misdemeanant untenable. Indeed, numerous misdemeanors involve conduct more dangerous than many felonies. 12 There is an additional reason why the common-law rule cannot be directly translated to the present day. The common-law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. Deadly force could be inflicted almost solely in a hand-to-hand struggle during which, necessarily, the safety [471 U.S. 1, 15] of the arresting officer was at risk. Handguns were not carried by police officers until the latter half of the last century. L. Kennett & J. Anderson, The Gun in America 150-151 (1975). Only then did it become possible to use deadly force from a distance as a means of apprehension. As a practical matter, the use of deadly force under the standard articulation of the common-law rule has an altogether different meaning - and harsher consequences - now than in past centuries. See Wechsler & Michael, A Rationale for the Law of Homicide: I, 37 Colum. L. Rev. 701, 741 (1937). 13 One other aspect of the common-law rule bears emphasis. It forbids the use of deadly force to apprehend a misdemeanant, condemning such action as disproportionately severe. See Holloway v. Moser, 193 N.C., at 187, 136 S. E., at 376; State v. Smith, 127 Iowa, at 535, 103 N. W., at 945. See generally Annot., 83 A. L. R. 3d 238 (1978). In short, though the common-law pedigree of Tennessee's rule is pure on its face, changes in the legal and technological context mean the rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. C In evaluating the reasonableness of police procedures under the Fourth Amendment, we have also looked to prevailing [471 U.S. 1, 16] rules in individual jurisdictions. See, e. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S., at 421 -422. The rules in the States are varied. See generally Comment, 18 Ga. L. Rev. 137, 140-144 (1983). Some 19 States have codified the Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 24

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

common-law rule, 14 though in two of these the courts have significantly limited the statute. 15 Four States, though without a relevant statute, apparently retain the common-law rule. 16 Two States have adopted the Model Penal Code's [471 U.S. 1, 17] provision verbatim. 17 Eighteen others allow, in slightly varying language, the use of deadly force only if the suspect has committed a felony involving the use or threat of physical or deadly force, or is escaping with a deadly weapon, or is likely to endanger life or inflict serious physical injury if not arrested. 18 Louisiana and Vermont, though without statutes or case law on point, do forbid the use of deadly force to prevent any but violent felonies. 19 The remaining States either have no relevant statute or case law, or have positions that are unclear. 20 [471 U.S. 1, 18] It cannot be said that there is a constant or overwhelming trend away from the common-law rule. In recent years, some States have reviewed their laws and expressly rejected abandonment of the common-law rule. 21 Nonetheless, the long-term movement has been away from the rule that deadly force may be used against any fleeing felon, and that remains the rule in less than half the States. This trend is more evident and impressive when viewed in light of the policies adopted by the police departments themselves. Overwhelmingly, these are more restrictive than the common-law rule. C. Milton, J. Halleck, J. Lardner, & G. Abrecht, Police Use of Deadly Force 45-46 (1977). The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department, for example, both forbid the use of firearms except when necessary to prevent death or grievous bodily harm. Id., at 40-41; App. 83. For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where "the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury." Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies 1-2 (1983) (italics deleted). A 1974 study reported that the police department regulations in a majority of the large cities of the United States allowed the firing of a weapon only when a [471 U.S. 1, 19] felon presented a threat of death or serious bodily harm. Boston Police Department, Planning & Research Division, The Use of Deadly Force by Boston Police Personnel (1974), cited in Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007, 1016, n. 19 (CA8 1976), vacated as moot sub nom. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977). Overall, only 7.5% of departmental and municipal policies explicitly permit the use of deadly force against any felon; 86.8% explicitly do not. K. Matulia, A Balance of Forces: A Report of the International Association of Chiefs of Police 161 (1982) (table). See also Record 1108-1368 (written policies of 44 departments). See generally W. Geller & K. Karales, Split-Second Decisions 33-42 (1981); Brief for Police Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae. In light of the rules adopted by those who must actually administer them, the older and fading common-law view is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute now before us. D Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 25

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Actual departmental policies are important for an additional reason. We would hesitate to declare a police practice of long standing "unreasonable" if doing so would severely hamper effective law enforcement. But the indications are to the contrary. There has been no suggestion that crime has worsened in any way in jurisdictions that have adopted, by legislation or departmental policy, rules similar to that announced today. Amici note that "[a]fter extensive research and consideration, [they] have concluded that laws permitting police officers to use deadly force to apprehend unarmed, non-violent fleeing felony suspects actually do not protect citizens or law enforcement officers, do not deter crime or alleviate problems caused by crime, and do not improve the crime-fighting ability of law enforcement agencies." Id., at 11. The submission is that the obvious state interests in apprehension are not sufficiently served to warrant the use of lethal weapons against all fleeing felons. See supra, at 10-11, and n. 10. [471 U.S. 1, 20] Nor do we agree with petitioners and appellant that the rule we have adopted requires the police to make impossible, split-second evaluations of unknowable facts. See Brief for Petitioners 25; Brief for Appellant 11. We do not deny the practical difficulties of attempting to assess the suspect's dangerousness. However, similarly difficult judgments must be made by the police in equally uncertain circumstances. See, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 20, 27. Nor is there any indication that in States that allow the use of deadly force only against dangerous suspects, see nn. 15, 17-19, supra, the standard has been difficult to apply or has led to a rash of litigation involving inappropriate second-guessing of police officers' split-second decisions. Moreover, the highly technical felony/misdemeanor distinction is equally, if not more, difficult to apply in the field. An officer is in no position to know, for example, the precise value of property stolen, or whether the crime was a first or second offense. Finally, as noted above, this claim must be viewed with suspicion in light of the similar self-imposed limitations of so many police departments. IV. The District Court concluded that Hymon was justified in shooting Garner because state law allows, and the Federal Constitution does not forbid, the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felony suspect if no alternative means of apprehension is available. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A9-A11, A38. This conclusion made a determination of Garner's apparent dangerousness unnecessary. The court did find, however, that Garner appeared to be unarmed, though Hymon could not be certain that was the case. Id., at A4, A23. See also App. 41, 56; Record 219. Restated in Fourth Amendment terms, this means Hymon had no articulable basis to think Garner was armed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals accepted the District Court's factual conclusions and held that "the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force." 710 F.2d, at 246. [471 U.S. 1, 21] We agree. Officer Hymon could not reasonably have believed that Garner - young, slight, and Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 26

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

unarmed - posed any threat. Indeed, Hymon never attempted to justify his actions on any basis other than the need to prevent an escape. The District Court stated in passing that "[t]he facts of this case did not indicate to Officer Hymon that Garner was `nondangerous.'" App. to Pet. for Cert. A34. This conclusion is not explained, and seems to be based solely on the fact that Garner had broken into a house at night. However, the fact that Garner was a suspected burglar could not, without regard to the other circumstances, automatically justify the use of deadly force. Hymon did not have probable cause to believe that Garner, whom he correctly believed to be unarmed, posed any physical danger to himself or others. The dissent argues that the shooting was justified by the fact that Officer Hymon had probable cause to believe that Garner had committed a nighttime burglary. Post, at 29, 32. While we agree that burglary is a serious crime, we cannot agree that it is so dangerous as automatically to justify the use of deadly force. The FBI classifies burglary as a "property" rather than a "violent" crime. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1 (1984). 22 Although the armed burglar would present a different situation, the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night does not automatically mean he is physically dangerous. This case demonstrates as much. See also Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 296 -297, and nn. 22-23 (1983). In fact, the available statistics demonstrate that burglaries only rarely involve physical violence. During the 10-year period from 1973-1982, only 3.8% of all burglaries involved violent crime. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Household [471 U.S. 1, 22] Burglary 4 (1985). 23 See also T. Reppetto, Residential Crime 17, 105 (1974); Conklin & Bittner, Burglary in a Suburb, 11 Criminology 208, 214 (1973). V. We wish to make clear what our holding means in the context of this case. The complaint has been dismissed as to all the individual defendants. The State is a party only by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 2403(b) and is not subject to liability. The possible liability of the remaining defendants - the Police Department and the city of Memphis - hinges on Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and is left for remand. We hold that the statute is invalid insofar as it purported to give Hymon the authority to act as he did. As for the policy of the Police Department, the absence of any discussion of this issue by the courts below, and the uncertain state of the record, preclude any consideration of its validity. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So ordered. Footnotes [ Footnote 1 ] The owner of the house testified that no lights were on in Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 27

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

the house, but that a back door light was on. Record 160. Officer Hymon, though uncertain, stated in his deposition that there were lights on in the house. Id., at 209. [ Footnote 2 ] In fact, Garner, an eighth-grader, was 15. He was 5' 4" tall and weighed somewhere around 100 or 110 pounds. App. to Pet. for Cert. A5. [ Footnote 3 ] When asked at trial why he fired, Hymon stated: "Well, first of all it was apparent to me from the little bit that I knew about the area at the time that he was going to get away because, number 1, I couldn't get to him. My partner then couldn't find where he was because, you know, he was late coming around. He didn't know where I was talking about. I couldn't get to him because of the fence here, I couldn't have jumped this fence and come up, consequently jumped this fence and caught him before he got away because he was already up on the fence, just one leap and he was already over the fence, and so there is no way that I could have caught him." App. 52. He also stated that the area beyond the fence was dark, that he could not have gotten over the fence easily because he was carrying a lot of equipment and wearing heavy boots, and that Garner, being younger and more energetic, could have outrun him. Id., at 53-54. [ Footnote 4 ] Garner had rummaged through one room in the house, in which, in the words of the owner, "[a]ll the stuff was out on the floors, all the drawers was pulled out, and stuff was scattered all over." Id., at 34. The owner testified that his valuables were untouched but that, in addition to the purse and the 10 dollars, one of his wife's rings was missing. The ring was not recovered. Id., at 34-35. [ Footnote 5 ] Although the statute does not say so explicitly, Tennessee law forbids the use of deadly force in the arrest of a misdemeanant. See Johnson v. State, 173 Tenn. 134, 114 S. W. 2d 819 (1938). [ Footnote 6 ] "The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." U.S. Const., Amdt. 4. [ Footnote 7 ] The Court of Appeals concluded that the rule set out in the Model Penal Code "accurately states Fourth Amendment limitations on the use of deadly force against fleeing felons." 710 F.2d, at 247. The relevant portion of the Model Penal Code provides: "The use of deadly force is not justifiable . . . unless (i) the arrest is for a felony; and (ii) the person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a peace officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized to act as a peace officer; and (iii) the actor believes that the force employed creates no Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 28

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; and (iv) the actor believes [471 U.S. 1, 7] that (1) the crime for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force; or (2) there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily harm if his apprehension is delayed." American Law Institute, Model Penal Coded 3.07(2)(b) (Proposed Official Draft 1962). The court also found that "[a]n analysis of the facts of this case under the Due Process Clause" required the same result, because the statute was not narrowly drawn to further a compelling state interest. 710 F.2d, at 246-247. The court considered the generalized interest in effective law enforcement sufficiently compelling only when the the suspect is dangerous. Finally, the court held, relying on Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980), that the city was not immune. [ Footnote 8 ] The dissent emphasizes that subsequent investigation cannot replace immediate apprehension. We recognize that this is so, see n. 13, infra; indeed, that is the reason why there is any dispute. If subsequent arrest were assured, no one would argue that use of deadly force was justified. Thus, we proceed on the assumption that subsequent arrest is not likely. Nonetheless, it should be remembered that failure to apprehend at the scene does not necessarily mean that the suspect will never be caught. In lamenting the inadequacy of later investigation, the dissent relies on the report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding its awareness of this problem, the Commission itself proposed a policy for use of deadly force arguably even more stringent than the formulation we adopt today. See President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Police 189 (1967). The Commission proposed that deadly force be used only to apprehend "perpetrators who, in the course of their crime threatened the use of deadly force, or if the officer believes there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily harm if his apprehension is delayed." In addition, the officer would have "to know, as a virtual certainty, that the suspect committed an offense for which the use of deadly force is permissible." Ibid. [ Footnote 9 ] We note that the usual manner of deterring illegal conduct - through punishment - has been largely ignored in connection with flight from arrest. Arkansas, for example, specifically excepts flight from arrest from the offense of "obstruction of governmental operations." The commentary notes that this "reflects the basic policy judgment that, absent the use of force or violence, a mere attempt to avoid apprehension by a law enforcement officer does not give rise to an independent offense." Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-2802(3)(a) (1977) and commentary. In the few States that do outlaw flight from an arresting officer, the crime is only a misdemeanor. See, e. g., Ind. Code 35-44-3-3 (1982). Even forceful resistance, though generally a separate offense, is classified as a misdemeanor. E. g., Ill. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 29

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Rev. Stat., ch. 38, 31-1 (1984); Mont. Code Ann. 45-7-301 (1984); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 642:2 (Supp. 1983); Ore. Rev. Stat. 162.315 (1983). This lenient approach does avoid the anomaly of automatically transforming every fleeing misdemeanant into a fleeing felon - subject, under the common-law rule, to apprehension by deadly force - solely by virtue of his flight. However, it is in real tension with the harsh consequences of flight in cases where deadly force is employed. For example, Tennessee does not outlaw fleeing from arrest. The Memphis City Code does, 22-34.1 (Supp. 17, 1971), subjecting the offender to a maximum fine of $50, 1-8 (1967). Thus, Garner's attempted escape subjected him to (a) a $50 fine, and (b) being shot. [ Footnote 10 ] See Sherman, Reducing Police Gun use, in Control in the Police Organization 98, 120-123 (M. Punch ed. 1983); Fyfe, Observations on Police [471 U.S. 1, 11] Deadly Force, 27 Crime & Delinquency 376, 378-381 (1981); W. Geller & K. Karales, Split-Second Decisions 67 (1981); App. 84 (affidavit of William Bracey, Chief of Patrol, New York City Police Department). See generally Brief for Police Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae. [ Footnote 11 ] The roots of the concept of a "felony" lie not in capital punishment but in forfeiture. 2 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, The History of English Law 465 (2d ed. 1909) (hereinafter Pollock & Maitland). Not all felonies were always punishable by death. See id., at 466-467, n. 3. Nonetheless, the link was profound. Blackstone was able to write: "The idea of felony is indeed so generally connected with that of capital punishment, that we find it hard to separate them; and to this usage the interpretations of the law do now conform. And therefore if a statute makes any new offence felony, the law implies that is shall be punished with death, viz. by hanging, as well as with forfeiture . . . ." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *98. See also R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 14-15 (3d ed. 1982); 2 Pollock & Maitland 511. [ Footnote 12 ] White-collar crime, for example, poses a less significant physical threat than, say, drunken driving. See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984); id., at 755 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring). See Model Penal Code Comment, at 57. [ Footnote 13 ] It has been argued that sophisticated techniques of apprehension and increased communication between the police in different jurisdictions have made it more likely that an escapee will be caught than was once the case, and that this change has also reduced the "reasonableness" of the use of deadly force to prevent escape. E. g., Sherman, Execution Without Trial: Police Homicide and the Constitution, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 71, 76 (1980). We are unaware of any data that would permit sensible evaluation of this claim. Current arrest rates are sufficiently low, however, that we have some doubt whether in past centuries the failure to arrest at the scene meant that the police had missed their only chance in a way that is not presently the case. In 1983, 21% of the offenses in the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime index were cleared by arrest. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 30

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 159 (1984). The clearance rate for burglary was 15%. Ibid. [ Footnote 14 ] Ala. Code 13A-3-27 (1982); Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-510 (1977); Cal. Penal Code Ann. 196 (West 1970); Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-22 (1972); Fla. Stat. 776.05 (1983); Idaho Code 19-610 (1979); Ind. Code 35-41-3-3 (1982); Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3215 (1981); Miss. Code Ann. 97-3-15(d) (Supp. 1984); Mo. Rev. Stat. 563.046 (1979); Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.140 (1983); N. M. Stat. Ann. 30-2-6 (1984); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, 732 (1981); R. I. Gen. Laws 12-7-9 (1981); S. D. Codified Laws 22-16-32, 22-16-33 (1979); Tenn. Code Ann. 40-7-108 (1982); Wash. Rev. Code 9A.16.040(3) (1977). Oregon limits use of deadly force to violent felons, but also allows its use against any felon if "necessary." Ore. Rev. Stat. 161.239 (1983). Wisconsin's statute is ambiguous, but should probably be added to this list. Wis. Stat. 939.45(4) (1981-1982) (officer may use force necessary for "a reasonable accomplishment of a lawful arrest"). But see Clark v. Ziedonis, 368 F. Supp. 544 (ED Wis. 1973), aff'd on other grounds, 513 F.2d 79 (CA7 1975). [ Footnote 15 ] In California, the police may use deadly force to arrest only if the crime for which the arrest is sought was "a forcible and atrocious one which threatens death or serious bodily harm," or there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily harm if apprehension is delayed. Kortum v. Alkire, 69 Cal. App. 3d 325, 333, 138 Cal. Rptr. 26, 30-31 (1977). See also People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal. 3d 470, 476-484, 526 P.2d 241, 245-250 (1974); Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. Long Beach, 61 Cal. App. 3d 364, 373-374, 132 Cal. Rptr. 348, 353-354 (1976). In Indiana, deadly force may be used only to prevent injury, the imminent danger of injury or force, or the threat of force. It is not permitted simply to prevent escape. Rose v. State, 431 N. E. 2d 521 (Ind. App. 1982). [ Footnote 16 ] These are Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. Werner v. Hartfelder, 113 Mich. App. 747, 318 N. W. 2d 825 (1982); State v. Foster, 60 Ohio Misc. 46, 59-66, 396 N. E. 2d 246, 255-258 (Com. Pl. 1979) (citing cases); Berry v. Hamman, 203 Va. 596, 125 S. E. 2d 851 (1962); Thompson v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 116 W. Va. 705, 711-712, 182 S. E. 880, 883-884 (1935). [ Footnote 17 ] Haw. Rev. Stat. 703-307 (1976); Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1412 (1979). Massachusetts probably belongs in this category. Though it once rejected distinctions between felonies, Uraneck v. Lima, 359 Mass. 749, 750, 269 N. E. 2d 670, 671 (1971), it has since adopted the Model Penal Code limitations with regard to private citizens, Commonwealth v. Klein, 372 Mass. 823, 363 N. E. 2d 1313 (1977), and seems to have extended that decision to police officers, Julian v. Randazzo, 380 Mass. 391, 403 N. E. 2d 931 (1980). [ Footnote 18 ] Alaska Stat. Ann. 11.81.370(a) (1983); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-410 (1978); Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-1-707 (1978); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, 467 (1979) (felony involving physical force and a substantial risk that the suspect will cause death or serious bodily injury or will never be Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 31

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

recaptured); Ga. Code 16-3-21(a) (1984); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, 7-5 (1984); Iowa Code 804.8 (1983) (suspect has used or threatened deadly force in commission of a felony, or would use deadly force if not caught); Ky. Rev. Stat. 503.090 (1984) (suspect committed felony involving use or threat of physical force likely to cause death or serious injury, and is likely to endanger life unless apprehended without delay); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, 107 (1983) (commentary notes that deadly force may be used only "where the person to be arrested poses a threat to human life"); Minn. Stat. 609.066 (1984); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 627:5(II) (Supp. 1983); N. J. Stat. Ann. 2C-3-7 (West 1982); N. Y. Penal Law 35.30 (McKinney Supp. 1984-1985); N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-401 (1983); N. D. Cent. Code 12.1-05-07.2.d (1976); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 508 (1982); Tex. Penal Code Ann. 9.51(c) (1974); Utah Code Ann. 76-2-404 (1978). [ Footnote 19 ] See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:20(2) (West 1974); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, 2305 (1974 and Supp. 1984). A Federal District Court has interpreted the Louisiana statute to limit the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects to situations where "life itself is endangered or great bodily harm is threatened." Sauls v. Hutto, 304 F. Supp. 124, 132 (ED La. 1969). [ Footnote 20 ] These are Maryland, Montana, South Carolina, and Wyoming. A Maryland appellate court has indicated, however, that deadly force may not be used against a felon who "was in the process of fleeing and, at the [471 U.S. 1, 18] time, presented no immediate danger to . . . anyone . . . ." Giant Food, Inc. v. Scherry, 51 Md. App. 586, 589, 596, 444 A. 2d 483, 486, 489 (1982). [ Footnote 21 ] In adopting its current statute in 1979, for example, Alabama expressly chose the common-law rule over more restrictive provisions. Ala. Code 13A-3-27, Commentary, pp. 67-63 (1982). Missouri likewise considered but rejected a proposal akin to the Model Penal Code rule. See Mattis v. Schnarr, 547 F.2d 1007, 1022 (CA8 1976) (Gibson, C. J., dissenting), vacated as moot sub nom. Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977). Idaho, whose current statute codifies the common-law rule, adopted the Model Penal Code in 1971, but abandoned it in 1972. [ Footnote 22 ] In a recent report, the Department of Corrections of the District of Columbia also noted that "there is nothing inherently dangerous or violent about the offense," which is a crime against property. D.C. Department of Corrections, Prisoner Screening Project 2 (1985). [ Footnote 23 ] The dissent points out that three-fifths of all rapes in the home, three-fifths of all home robberies, and about a third of home assaults are committed by burglars. Post, at 26-27. These figures mean only that if one knows that a suspect committed a rape in the home, there is a good chance that the suspect is also a burglar. That has nothing to do with the question here, which is whether the fact that someone has committed a burglary indicates that he has committed, or might commit, a violent crime. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 32

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

The dissent also points out that this 3.8% adds up to 2.8 million violent crimes over a 10-year period, as if to imply that today's holding will let loose 2.8 million violent burglars. The relevant universe is, of course, far smaller. At issue is only that tiny fraction of cases where violence has [471 U.S. 1, 23] taken place and an officer who has no other means of apprehending the suspect is unaware of its occurrence. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE REHNQ UIST join, dissenting. The Court today holds that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from using deadly force as a last resort to [471 U.S. 1, 23] apprehend a criminal suspect who refuses to halt when fleeing the scene of a nighttime burglary. This conclusion rests on the majority's balancing of the interests of the suspect and the public interest in effective law enforcement. Ante, at 8. Notwithstanding the venerable common-law rule authorizing the use of deadly force if necessary to apprehend a fleeing felon, and continued acceptance of this rule by nearly half the States, ante, at 14, 16-17, the majority concludes that Tennessee's statute is unconstitutional inasmuch as it allows the use of such force to apprehend a burglary suspect who is not obviously armed or otherwise dangerous. Although the circumstances of this case are unquestionably tragic and unfortunate, our constitutional holdings must be sensitive both to the history of the Fourth Amendment and to the general implications of the Court's reasoning. By disregarding the serious and dangerous nature of residential burglaries and the longstanding practice of many States, the Court effectively creates a Fourth Amendment right allowing a burglary suspect to flee unimpeded from a police officer who has probable cause to arrest, who has ordered the suspect to halt, and who has no means short of firing his weapon to prevent escape. I do not believe that the Fourth Amendment supports such a right, and I accordingly dissent. I The facts below warrant brief review because they highlight the difficult, split-second decisions police officers must make in these circumstances. Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright responded to a late-night call that a burglary was in progress at a private residence. When the officers arrived at the scene, the caller said that "they" were breaking into the house next door. App. in No. 81-5605 (CA6), p. 207. The officers found the residence had been forcibly entered through a window and saw lights [471 U.S. 1, 24] on inside the house. Officer Hymon testified that when he saw the broken window he realized "that something was wrong inside," id., at 656, but that he could not determine whether anyone - either a burglar or a member of the household - was within the residence. Id., at 209. As Officer Hymon walked behind the house, he heard a door slam. He saw Edward Eugene Garner run away from the house through the dark and cluttered backyard. Garner crouched next to a 6-foot-high fence. Officer Hymon thought Garner was an adult and was Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 33

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

unsure whether Garner was armed because Hymon "had no idea what was in the hand [that he could not see] or what he might have had on his person." Id., at 658-659. In fact, Garner was 15 years old and unarmed. Hymon also did not know whether accomplices remained inside the house. Id., at 657. The officer identified himself as a police officer and ordered Garner to halt. Garner paused briefly and then sprang to the top of the fence. Believing that Garner would escape if he climbed over the fence, Hymon fired his revolver and mortally wounded the suspected burglar. Appellee-respondent, the deceased's father, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action in federal court against Hymon, the city of Memphis, and other defendants, for asserted violations of Garner's constitutional rights. The District Court for the Western District of Tennessee held that Officer Hymon's actions were justified by a Tennessee statute that authorizes a police officer to "use all the necessary means to effect the arrest," if "after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist." Tenn. Code Ann. 40-7-108 (1982). As construed by the Tennessee courts, this statute allows the use of deadly force only if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a felony, the officer warns the person that he intends to arrest him, and the officer reasonably believes that no means less than such force will prevent the escape. See, e. g., Johnson v. State, 173 Tenn. 134, 114 S. W. 2d 819 [471 U.S. 1, 25] (1938). The District Court held that the Tennessee statute is constitutional and that Hymon's actions as authorized by that statute did not violate Garner's constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed on the grounds that the Tennessee statute "authorizing the killing of an unarmed, nonviolent fleeing felon by police in order to prevent escape" violates the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 710 F.2d 240, 244 (1983). The Court affirms on the ground that application of the Tennessee statute to authorize Officer Hymon's use of deadly force constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The precise issue before the Court deserves emphasis, because both the decision below and the majority obscure what must be decided in this case. The issue is not the constitutional validity of the Tennessee statute on its face or as applied to some hypothetical set of facts. Instead, the issue is whether the use of deadly force by Officer Hymon under the circumstances of this case violated Garner's constitutional rights. Thus, the majority's assertion that a police officer who has probable cause to seize a suspect "may not always do so by killing him," ante, at 9, is unexceptionable but also of little relevance to the question presented here. The same is true of the rhetorically stirring statement that "[t]he use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable." ante, at 11. The question we must address is whether the Constitution allows the use of such force to apprehend a suspect who resists arrest by attempting to flee the scene of a nighttime burglary of a residence. II

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 34

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, I agree with the Court that Officer Hymon "seized" Garner by shooting him. Whether that seizure was reasonable and therefore permitted by the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing [471 U.S. 1, 26] of the important public interest in crime prevention and detection and the nature and quality of the intrusion upon legitimate interests of the individual. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983). In striking this balance here, it is crucial to acknowledge that police use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing criminal suspect falls within the "rubric of police conduct . . . necessarily [involving] swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968). The clarity of hindsight cannot provide the standard for judging the reasonableness of police decisions made in uncertain and often dangerous circumstances. Moreover, I am far more reluctant than is the Court to conclude that the Fourth Amendment proscribes a police practice that was accepted at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights and has continued to receive the support of many state legislatures. Although the Court has recognized that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment must respond to the reality of social and technological change, fidelity to the notion of constitutional - as opposed to purely judicial - limits on governmental action requires us to impose a heavy burden on those who claim that practices accepted when the Fourth Amendment was adopted are now constitutionally impermissible. See, e. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 416 -421 (1976); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 -153 (1925). Cf. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 585 (1983) (noting "impressive historical pedigree" of statute challenged under Fourth Amendment). The public interest involved in the use of deadly force as a last resort to apprehend a fleeing burglary suspect relates primarily to the serious nature of the crime. Household burglaries not only represent the illegal entry into a person's home, but also "pos[e] real risk of serious harm to others." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 315 -316 (1983) (BURGER, C. J., dissenting). According to recent Department of Justice statistics, "[t]hree-fifths of all rapes in the home, [471 U.S. 1, 27] three-fifths of all home robberies, and about a third of home aggravated and simple assaults are committed by burglars." Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Household Burglary 1 (January 1985). During the period 1973-1982, 2.8 million such violent crimes were committed in the course of burglaries. Ibid. Victims of a forcible intrusion into their home by a nighttime prowler will find little consolation in the majority's confident assertion that "burglaries only rarely involve physical violence." Ante, at 21. Moreover, even if a particular burglary, when viewed in retrospect, does not involve physical harm to others, the "harsh potentialities for violence" inherent in the forced entry into a home preclude characterization of the crime as "innocuous, inconsequential, minor, or `nonviolent.'" Solem v. Helm, supra, at 316 (BURGER, C. J., dissenting). See also Restatement of Torts 131, Comment g (1934) (burglary is among felonies that normally cause or threaten death or serious bodily harm); R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law 1110 (3d ed. 1982) (burglary is dangerous felony that creates unreasonable risk of great personal harm). Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 35

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Because burglary is a serious and dangerous felony, the public interest in the prevention and detection of the crime is of compelling importance. Where a police officer has probable cause to arrest a suspected burglar, the use of deadly force as a last resort might well be the only means of apprehending the suspect. With respect to a particular burglary, subsequent investigation simply cannot represent a substitute for immediate apprehension of the criminal suspect at the scene. See President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 97 (1967). Indeed, the Captain of the Memphis Police Department testified that in his city, if apprehension is not immediate, it is likely that the suspect will not be caught. App. in No. 81-5605 (CA6), p. 334. Although some law enforcement agencies may choose to assume the risk that a criminal will remain at large, the [471 U.S. 1, 28] Tennessee statute reflects a legislative determination that the use of deadly force in prescribed circumstances will serve generally to protect the public. Such statutes assist the police in apprehending suspected perpetrators of serious crimes and provide notice that a lawful police order to stop and submit to arrest may not be ignored with impunity. See, e. g., Wiley v. Memphis Police Department, 548 F.2d 1247, 1252-1253 (CA6), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 822 (1977); Jones v. Marshall, 528 F.2d 132, 142 (CA2 1975). The Court unconvincingly dismisses the general deterrence effects by stating that "the presently available evidence does not support [the] thesis" that the threat of force discourages escape and that "there is a substantial basis for doubting that the use of such force is an essential attribute to the arrest power in all felony cases." Ante, at 10, 11. There is no question that the effectiveness of police use of deadly force is arguable and that many States or individual police departments have decided not to authorize it in circumstances similar to those presented here. But it should go without saying that the effectiveness or popularity of a particular police practice does not determine its constitutionality. Cf. Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 464 (1984) ("The Eighth Amendment is not violated every time a State reaches a conclusion different from a majority of its sisters over how best to administer its criminal laws"). Moreover, the fact that police conduct pursuant to a state statute is challenged on constitutional grounds does not impose a burden on the State to produce social science statistics or to dispel any possible doubts about the necessity of the conduct. This observation, I believe, has particular force where the challenged practice both predates enactment of the Bill of Rights and continues to be accepted by a substantial number of the States. Against the strong public interests justifying the conduct at issue here must be weighed the individual interests implicated in the use of deadly force by police officers. The [471 U.S. 1, 29] majority declares that "[t]he suspect's fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon." Ante, at 9. This blithe assertion hardly provides an adequate substitute for the majority's failure to acknowledge the distinctive manner in which the suspect's interest in his life is even exposed to risk. For purposes of this case, we must recall that the police officer, in the course of investigating a nighttime burglary, had Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 36

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

reasonable cause to arrest the suspect and ordered him to halt. The officer's use of force resulted because the suspected burglar refused to heed this command and the officer reasonably believed that there was no means short of firing his weapon to apprehend the suspect. Without questioning the importance of a person's interest in his life, I do not think this interest encompasses a right to flee unimpeded from the scene of a burglary. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 617, n. 14 (1980) (WHITE, J., dissenting) ("[T]he policeman's hands should not be tied merely because of the possibility that the suspect will fail to cooperate with legitimate actions by law enforcement personnel"). The legitimate interests of the suspect in these circumstances are adequately accommodated by the Tennessee statute: to avoid the use of deadly force and the consequent risk to his life, the suspect need merely obey the valid order to halt. A proper balancing of the interests involved suggests that use of deadly force as a last resort to apprehend a criminal suspect fleeing from the scene of a nighttime burglary is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Admittedly, the events giving rise to this case are in retrospect deeply regrettable. No one can view the death of an unarmed and apparently nonviolent 15-year-old without sorrow, much less disapproval. Nonetheless, the reasonableness of Officer Hymon's conduct for purposes of the Fourth Amendment cannot be evaluated by what later appears to have been a preferable course of police action. The officer pursued a suspect in the darkened backyard of a house that from all indications had just been burglarized. The [471 U.S. 1, 30] police officer was not certain whether the suspect was alone or unarmed; nor did he know what had transpired inside the house. He ordered the suspect to halt, and when the suspect refused to obey and attempted to flee into the night, the officer fired his weapon to prevent escape. The reasonableness of this action for purposes of the Fourth Amendment is not determined by the unfortunate nature of this particular case; instead, the question is whether it is constitutionally impermissible for police officers, as a last resort, to shoot a burglary suspect fleeing the scene of the crime. Because I reject the Fourth Amendment reasoning of the majority and the Court of Appeals, I briefly note that no other constitutional provision supports the decision below. In addition to his Fourth Amendment claim, appellee-respondent also alleged violations of due process, the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, and the Eighth Amendment proscription of cruel and unusual punishment. These arguments were rejected by the District Court and, except for the due process claim, not addressed by the Court of Appeals. With respect to due process, the Court of Appeals reasoned that statutes affecting the fundamental interest in life must be "narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake." 710 F.2d, at 245. The Court of Appeals concluded that a statute allowing police use of deadly force is narrowly drawn and therefore constitutional only if the use of such force is limited to situations in which the suspect poses an immediate threat to others. Id., at 246-247. Whatever the validity of Tennessee's statute in other contexts, I cannot agree that its application in this case resulted in a deprivation "without due process of Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 37

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

law." Cf. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 -145 (1979). Nor do I believe that a criminal suspect who is shot while trying to avoid apprehension has a cognizable claim of a deprivation of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. See Cunningham v. Ellington, 323 F. Supp. 1072, 1075-1076 (WD Tenn. 1971) (three-judge court). Finally, because there is no indication that the use [471 U.S. 1, 31] of deadly force was intended to punish rather than to capture the suspect, there is no valid claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538 -539 (1979). Accordingly, I conclude that the District Court properly entered judgment against appellee-respondent, and I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. III Even if I agreed that the Fourth Amendment was violated under the circumstances of this case, I would be unable to join the Court's opinion. The Court holds that deadly force may be used only if the suspect "threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm." Ante, at 11. The Court ignores the more general implications of its reasoning. Relying on the Fourth Amendment, the majority asserts that it is constitutionally unreasonable to use deadly force against fleeing criminal suspects who do not appear to pose a threat of serious physical harm to others. Ibid. By declining to limit its holding to the use of firearms, the Court unnecessarily implies that the Fourth Amendment constrains the use of any police practice that is potentially lethal, no matter how remote the risk. Cf. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). Although it is unclear from the language of the opinion, I assume that the majority intends the word "use" to include only those circumstances in which the suspect is actually apprehended. Absent apprehension of the suspect, there is no "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes. I doubt that the Court intends to allow criminal suspects who successfully escape to return later with 1983 claims against officers who used, albeit unsuccessfully, deadly force in their futile attempt to capture the fleeing suspect. The Court's opinion, despite its broad language, actually decides only that the [471 U.S. 1, 32] shooting of a fleeing burglary suspect who was in fact neither armed nor dangerous can support a 1983 action. The Court's silence on critical factors in the decision to use deadly force simply invites second-guessing of difficult police decisions that must be made quickly in the most trying of circumstances. Cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S., at 619 (WHITE, J., dissenting). Police are given no guidance for determining which objects, among an array of potentially lethal weapons ranging from guns to knives to baseball bats to rope, will justify the use of deadly force. The Court also declines to outline the additional factors necessary to provide "probable cause" for believing that a suspect "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury," ante, at 3, when the officer has probable cause to arrest and the suspect refuses to obey an order to halt. But even if it were appropriate in this case to limit the Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 38

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

use of deadly force to that ambiguous class of suspects, I believe the class should include nighttime residential burglars who resist arrest by attempting to flee the scene of the crime. We can expect an escalating volume of litigation as the lower courts struggle to determine if a police officer's split-second decision to shoot was justified by the danger posed by a particular object and other facts related to the crime. Thus, the majority opinion portends a burgeoning area of Fourth Amendment doctrine concerning the circumstances in which police officers can reasonably employ deadly force. IV. The Court's opinion sweeps broadly to adopt an entirely new standard for the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to apprehend fleeing felons. Thus, the Court "lightly brushe[s] aside," Payton v. New York, supra, at 600, a longstanding police practice that predates the Fourth Amendment and continues to receive the approval of nearly half of the state legislatures. I cannot accept the majority's creation of a constitutional right to flight for burglary suspects [471 U.S. 1, 33] seeking to avoid capture at the scene of the crime. Whatever the constitutional limits on police use of deadly force in order to apprehend a fleeing felon, I do not believe they are exceeded in a case in which a police officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect at the scene of a residential burglary, orders the suspect to halt, and then fires his weapon as a last resort to prevent the suspect's escape into the night. I respectfully dissent. [471 U.S. 1, 34]

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 39

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 40

Utah POST K-9 Program

U.S.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Supreme Court Case Law Graham v. Connor U.S. Supreme Court

GRAHAM v. CONNOR, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) 490 U.S. 386 GRAHAM v. CONNOR ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 87-6571. Argued February 21, 1989 Decided May 15, 1989 Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry's car, and made an investigative stop, ordering the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. Respondent backup police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Connor learned that nothing had happened in the store. Graham filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against respondents, alleging that they had used excessive force in making the stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983." The District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of Graham's evidence, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force gives rise to a 1983 cause of action, which inquires, inter alia, whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. The Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham's argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive. Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 41

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

"seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 392-399. [490 U.S. 386, 387] (a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 393-394. (b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 394-395. (c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 396-397. (d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishments" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 397-399. 827 F.2d 945, vacated and remanded. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 42

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 399. [490 U.S. 386, 388] H. Gerald Beaver argued the cause for petitioner. Richard B. Glazier. Mark I. Levy argued the cause for respondents. Aycock III. *

On the briefs was

On the brief was Frank B.

[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the United States by Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Clegg, David L. Shapiro, Brian J. Martin, and David K. Flynn; and for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Steven R. Shapiro. Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, Isaac T. Avery III, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Linda Anne Morris, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of North Carolina as amicus curiae urging affirmance. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizen's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of his person. We hold that such claims are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. In this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, petitioner Dethorne Graham seeks to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when law enforcement officers used physical force against him during the course of an investigatory stop. Because the case comes to us from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the entry of a directed verdict for respondents, we take the evidence hereafter noted in the light most favorable to petitioner. On November 12, 1984, Graham, a diabetic, felt the onset of an insulin reaction. He asked a friend, William Berry, to drive him to a nearby convenience store so he could purchase some orange juice to counteract the reaction. Berry agreed, but when Graham entered the store, he saw a number of people ahead of him in the checkout [490 U.S. 386, 389] line. Concerned about the delay, he hurried out of the store and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, an officer of the Charlotte, North Carolina, Police Department, saw Graham hastily enter and leave the store. The officer became suspicious that something was amiss and followed Berry's car. About one-half mile from the store, he made an investigative stop. Although Berry told Connor that Graham was simply suffering from a "sugar reaction," the officer ordered Berry and Graham to wait while he found out what, if anything, had happened at the convenience store. When Officer Connor returned to his patrol car to call for backup assistance, Graham got out of the car, ran around it twice, and finally sat down on the curb, where he Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 43

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

passed out briefly. In the ensuing confusion, a number of other Charlotte police officers arrived on the scene in response to Officer Connor's request for backup. One of the officers rolled Graham over on the sidewalk and cuffed his hands tightly behind his back, ignoring Berry's pleas to get him some sugar. Another officer said: "I've seen a lot of people with sugar diabetes that never acted like this. Ain't nothing wrong with the M. F. but drunk. Lock the S. B. up." App. 42. Several officers then lifted Graham up from behind, carried him over to Berry's car, and placed him face down on its hood. Regaining consciousness, Graham asked the officers to check in his wallet for a diabetic decal that he carried. In response, one of the officers told him to "shut up" and shoved his face down against the hood of the car. Four officers grabbed Graham and threw him headfirst into the police car. A friend of Graham's brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it. Finally, Officer Connor received a report that Graham had done nothing wrong at the convenience store, and the officers drove him home and released him. [490 U.S. 386, 390] At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day. He commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the individual officers involved in the incident, all of whom are respondents here, 1 alleging that they had used excessive force in making the investigatory stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983." Complaint 10, App. 5. 2 The case was tried before a jury. At the close of petitioner's evidence, respondents moved for a directed verdict. In ruling on that motion, the District Court considered the following four factors, which it identified as "[t]he factors to be considered in determining when the excessive use of force gives rise to a cause of action under 1983": (1) the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of the injury inflicted; and (4) "[w]hether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." 644 F. Supp. 246, 248 (WDNC 1986). Finding that the amount of force used by the officers was "appropriate under the circumstances," that "[t]here was no discernable injury inflicted," and that the force used "was not applied maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," but in "a good faith effort to maintain or restore order in the face of a potentially explosive [490 U.S. 386, 391] situation." id., at 248-249, the District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 827 F.2d 945 (1987). The majority ruled first that the District Court had applied the correct legal standard in assessing petitioner's excessive force claim. Id., at 948-949. Without attempting to identify the specific constitutional provision under which that claim arose, 3 the majority endorsed the four-factor test applied by the District Court as generally Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 44

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

applicable to all claims of "constitutionally excessive force" brought against governmental officials. Id., at 948. The majority rejected petitioner's argument, based on Circuit precedent, 4 that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force used against him was applied "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." 5 Ibid. Finally, the majority held that a reasonable jury applying the four-part test it had just endorsed [490 U.S. 386, 392] to petitioner's evidence "could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive." Id., at 949-950. The dissenting judge argued that this Court's decisions in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), required that excessive force claims arising out of investigatory stops be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard. 827 F.2d, at 950-952. We granted certiorari, 488 U.S. 816 (1988), and now reverse. Fifteen years ago, in Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033 (1973), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a 1983 damages claim filed by a pretrial detainee who claimed that a guard had assaulted him without justification. In evaluating the detainee's claim, Judge Friendly applied neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Eighth, the two most textually obvious sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct. 6 Instead, he looked to "substantive due process," holding that "quite apart from any `specific' of the Bill of Rights, application of undue force by [490 U.S. 386, 393] law enforcement officers deprives a suspect of liberty without due process of law." 481 F.2d, at 1032. As support for this proposition, he relied upon our decision in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), which used the Due Process Clause to void a state criminal conviction based on evidence obtained by pumping the defendant's stomach. 481 F.2d, at 1032-1033. If a police officer's use of force which "shocks the conscience" could justify setting aside a criminal conviction, Judge Friendly reasoned, a correctional officer's use of similarly excessive force must give rise to a due process violation actionable under 1983. Ibid. Judge Friendly went on to set forth four factors to guide courts in determining "whether the constitutional line has been crossed" by a particular use of force - the same four factors relied upon by the courts below in this case. Id., at 1033. In the years following Johnson v. Glick, the vast majority of lower federal courts have applied its four-part "substantive due process" test indiscriminately to all excessive force claims lodged against law enforcement and prison officials under 1983, without considering whether the particular application of force might implicate a more specific constitutional right governed by a different standard. 7 Indeed, many courts have seemed to assume, as did the courts below in this case, that there is a generic "right" to be free from excessive force, grounded not in any particular constitutional provision but rather in "basic principles of 1983 jurisprudence." 8 We reject this notion that all excessive force claims brought under 1983 are governed by a single generic standard. As we have said many times, Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 45

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

1983 "is not itself a [490 U.S. 386, 394] source of substantive rights," but merely provides "a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144, n. 3 (1979). In addressing an excessive force claim brought under 1983, analysis begins by identifying the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force. See id., at 140 ("The first inquiry in any 1983 suit" is "to isolate the precise constitutional violation with 9 which [the defendant] is charged"). In most instances, that will be either the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person, or the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, which are the two primary sources of constitutional protection against physically abusive governmental conduct. The validity of the claim must then be judged by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right, rather than to some generalized "excessive force" standard. See Tennessee v. Garner, supra, at 7-22 (claim of excessive force to effect arrest analyzed under a Fourth Amendment standard); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 318 -326 (1986) (claim of excessive force to subdue convicted prisoner analyzed under an Eighth Amendment standard). Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures" of the person. This much is clear from our decision in Tennessee v. Garner, supra. In Garner, we addressed a claim that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect who did not appear to be armed or otherwise dangerous violated the suspect's constitutional rights, notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest. [490 U.S. 386, 395] Though the complaint alleged violations of both the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause, see 471 U.S., at 5, we analyzed the constitutionality of the challenged application of force solely by reference to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures of the person, holding that the "reasonableness" of a particular seizure depends not only on when it is made, but also on how it is carried out. Id., at 7-8. Today we make explicit what was implicit in Garner's analysis, and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard, rather than under a "substantive due process" approach. Because the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of "substantive due process," must be the guide for analyzing these claims. 10 [490 U.S. 386, 396] Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of "`the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests'" against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id., at 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 46

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 22 -27. Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S., at 8 -9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure"). The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 20-22. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971), nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987). With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d, at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody [490 U.S. 386, 397] allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137 -139 (1978); see also Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 21 (in analyzing the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure, "it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard"). An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United States, supra, at 138, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973). Because petitioner's excessive force claim is one arising under the Fourth Amendment, the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing it under the four-part Johnson v. Glick test. That test, which requires consideration of whether the individual officers acted in "good faith" or "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals' suggestion, see 827 F.2d, at 948, that the "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 47

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Whatever the empirical correlations between "malicious and sadistic" behavior and objective unreasonableness may be, the fact remains that the "malicious and sadistic" factor puts in issue the subjective motivations of the individual officers, which our prior cases make clear has no bearing on whether a particular seizure is "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Nor do we agree with the [490 U.S. 386, 398] Court of Appeals' conclusion, see id., at 948, n. 3, that because the subjective motivations of the individual officers are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, see Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S., at 320 -321, 11 it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. Differing standards under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments are hardly surprising: the terms "cruel" and "punishments" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies "only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions." Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671, [490 U.S. 386, 399] n. 40 (1977). The Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of "objective reasonableness" under the circumstances, and subjective concepts like "malice" and "sadism" have no proper place in that inquiry. 12 Because the Court of Appeals reviewed the District Court's ruling on the motion for directed verdict under an erroneous view of the governing substantive law, its judgment must be vacated and the case remanded to that court for reconsideration of that issue under the proper Fourth Amendment standard. It is so ordered. Footnotes [ Footnote 1 ] Also named as a defendant was the city of Charlotte, which employed the individual respondents. The District Court granted a directed verdict for the city, and petitioner did not challenge that ruling before the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the city is not a party to the proceedings before this Court. [ Footnote 2 ] Petitioner also asserted pendent state-law claims of assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Those claims have been dismissed from the case and are not before this Court. [ Footnote 3 ] The majority did note that because Graham was not an incarcerated prisoner, "his complaint of excessive force did not, therefore, arise under the eighth amendment." 827 F.2d, at 948, n. 3. However, it made no further effort to identify the constitutional basis for his claim. [ Footnote 4 ] Petitioner's argument was based primarily on Kidd v. O'Neil, Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 48

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

774 F.2d 1252 (CA4 1985), which read this Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), as mandating application of a Fourth Amendment "objective reasonableness" standard to claims of excessive force during arrest. See 774 F.2d, at 1254-1257. The reasoning of Kidd was subsequently rejected by the en banc Fourth Circuit in Justice v. Dennis, 834 F.2d 380, 383 (1987), cert. pending, No. 87-1422. [ Footnote 5 ] The majority noted that in Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986), we held that the question whether physical force used against convicted prisoners in the course of quelling a prison riot violates the Eighth Amendment "ultimately turns on `whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.'" 827 F.2d, at 948, n. 3, quoting Whitley v. Albers, supra, at 320-321. Though the Court of Appeals acknowledged that petitioner was not a convicted prisoner, it thought it "unreasonable . . . to suggest that a conceptual factor could be central to one type of excessive force claim but reversible error when merely considered by the court in another context." 827 F.2d, at 948, n. 3. [ Footnote 6 ] Judge Friendly did not apply the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to the detainee's claim for two reasons. First, he thought that the Eighth Amendment's protections did not attach until after conviction and sentence. 481 F.2d, at 1032. This view was confirmed by Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671, n. 40 (1977) ("Eighth Amendment scrutiny is appropriate only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions"). Second, he expressed doubt whether a "spontaneous attack" by a prison guard, done without the authorization of prison officials, fell within the traditional Eighth Amendment definition of "punishments." 481 F.2d, at 1032. Although Judge Friendly gave no reason for not analyzing the detainee's claim under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable . . . seizures" of the person, his refusal to do so was apparently based on a belief that the protections of the Fourth Amendment did not extend to pretrial detainees. See id., at 1033 (noting that "most of the courts faced with challenges to the conditions of pretrial detention have primarily based their analysis directly on the due process clause"). See n. 10, infra. [ Footnote 7 ] See Freyermuth, Rethinking Excessive Force, 1987 Duke L. J. 692, 694-696, and nn. 16-23 (1987) (collecting cases). [ Footnote 8 ] See Justice v. Dennis, supra, at 382 ("There are . . . certain basic principles in section 1983 jurisprudence as it relates to claims of excessive force that are beyond question [,] [w]hether the factual circumstances involve an arrestee, a pretrial detainee or a prisoner"). [ Footnote 9 ] The same analysis applies to excessive force claims brought against federal law enforcement and correctional officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 49

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

[ Footnote 10 ] A "seizure" triggering the Fourth Amendment's protections occurs only when government actors have, "by means of physical force or show of authority, . . . in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen," Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, n. 16 (1968); see Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 (1989). Our cases have not resolved the question whether the Fourth Amendment continues to provide individuals with protection against the deliberate use of excessive physical force beyond the point at which arrest ends and pretrial detention begins, and we do not attempt to answer that question today. It is clear, however, that the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 -539 (1979). After conviction, the Eighth Amendment "serves as the primary source of substantive protection . . . in cases . . . where the deliberate use of force is challenged as excessive and unjustified." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S., at 327 . Any protection that "substantive due process" affords convicted prisoners against excessive force is, we have held, at best redundant of that provided by the Eighth Amendment. Ibid. [ Footnote 11 ] In Whitley, we addressed a 1983 claim brought by a convicted prisoner, who claimed that prison officials had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by shooting him in the knee during a prison riot. We began our Eighth Amendment analysis by reiterating the long-established maxim that an Eighth Amendment violation requires proof of the "`"unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."'" 475 U.S., at 319, quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S., at 670, in turn quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). We went on to say that when prison officials use physical force against an inmate "to restore order in the face of a prison disturbance, . . . the question whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain . . . ultimately turns on `whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.'" 475 U.S., at 320 -321 (emphasis added), quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d, at 1033. We also suggested that the other prongs of the Johnson v. Glick test might be useful in analyzing excessive force claims brought under the Eighth Amendment. 475 U.S., at 321 . But we made clear that this was so not because Judge Friendly's four-part test is some talismanic formula generally applicable to all excessive force claims, but because its four factors help to focus the central inquiry in the Eighth Amendment context, which is whether the particular use of force amounts to the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." See id., at 320-321. Our endorsement of the Johnson v. Glick test in Whitley thus had no implications beyond the Eighth Amendment context. [ Footnote 12 ] Of course, in assessing the credibility of an officer's account of the circumstances that prompted the use of force, a factfinder may consider, along with other factors, evidence that the officer may have harbored ill-will toward the citizen. See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 139, n. 13 (1978). Similarly, the officer's objective "good faith" that is, whether he could reasonably have believed that the force used did not violate the Fourth Amendment - may be relevant to the availability of Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 50

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

the qualified immunity defense to monetary liability under 1983. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987). Since no claim of qualified immunity has been raised in this case, however, we express no view on its proper application in excessive force cases that arise under the Fourth Amendment. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I join the Court's opinion insofar as it rules that the Fourth Amendment is the primary tool for analyzing claims of excessive force in the prearrest context, and I concur in the judgment remanding the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the evidence under a reasonableness standard. In light of respondents' concession, however, that the pleadings in this case properly may be construed as raising a Fourth Amendment claim, see Brief for Respondents 3, I see no reason for the Court to find it necessary further to reach out to decide that prearrest excessive force claims are to be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment rather than under a [490 U.S. 386, 400] substantive due process standard. I also see no basis for the Court's suggestion, ante, at 395, that our decision in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), implicitly so held. Nowhere in Garner is a substantive due process standard for evaluating the use of excessive force in a particular case discussed; there is no suggestion that such a standard was offered as an alternative and rejected. In this case, petitioner apparently decided that it was in his best interest to disavow the continued applicability of substantive due process analysis as an alternative basis for recovery in prearrest excessive force cases. See Brief for Petitioner 20. His choice was certainly wise as a matter of litigation strategy in his own case, but does not (indeed, cannot be expected to) serve other potential plaintiffs equally well. It is for that reason that the Court would have done better to leave that question for another day. I expect that the use of force that is not demonstrably unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment only rarely will raise substantive due process concerns. But until I am faced with a case in which that question is squarely raised, and its merits are subjected to adversary presentation, I do not join in foreclosing the use of substantive due process analysis in prearrest cases. [490 U.S. 386, 401]

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 51

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 52

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Canton v. Harris U.S. Supreme Court CANTON v. HARRIS, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) 489 U.S. 378 CITY OF CANTON, OHIO v. HARRIS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 86-1088. Argued November 8, 1988 Decided February 28, 1989 Although respondent fell down several times and was incoherent following her arrest by officers of petitioner city's police department, the officers summoned no medical assistance for her. After her release, she was diagnosed as suffering from several emotional ailments requiring hospitalization and subsequent outpatient treatment. Some time later, she filed suit seeking, inter alia, to hold the city liable under 42 U.S.C.1983 for its violation of her right, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody. The jury ruled in her favor on this claim upon the basis of evidence indicating that a city regulation gave shift commanders sole discretion to determine whether a detainee required medical care, and suggesting that commanders were not provided with any special training to make a determination as to when to summon such care for an injured detainee. Both the District Court, in rejecting the city's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the Court of Appeals, in ruling that there had been no error in submitting the "failure to train" claim to the jury, held that, under Circuit precedent, a municipality is liable for failure to train its police force, where the plaintiff proves that the municipality acted recklessly, intentionally, or with gross negligence, and that the lack of training was so reckless or grossly negligent that deprivation of persons' constitutional rights was substantially certain to result. However, upon finding that certain aspects of the District Court's jury instructions might have led the jury to believe that it could find against the city on a mere respondeat superior theory, and that the jury's verdict did not state the basis on which it had ruled for respondent, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in her favor and remanded the case for a new trial. Held: 1. The writ of certiorari will not be dismissed as improvidently granted on the basis of respondent's claim that petitioner failed to preserve for review the principal issues before this Court. Since the Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 53

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

petition for certiorari directly addressed the critical question here - the 1983 actionability of a municipality's failure to train - and since respondent's brief in opposition neither raised the objection that petitioner had failed to press its claims on the courts below nor informed this Court [489 U.S. 378, 379] that petitioner had arguably conceded below that inadequate training is actionable, this Court will exercise its discretion to deem these defects waived. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 . Moreover, even if the asserted failure of petitioner to present the claims it makes here in the same fashion below actually occurred, that failure does not affect this Court's jurisdiction. Pp. 383-385. 2. A municipality may, in certain circumstances, be held liable under 1983 for constitutional violations resulting from its failure to train its employees. Pp. 385-392. (a) Petitioner's contention that 1983 liability can be imposed only where the municipal policy in question is itself unconstitutional is rejected, in light of the rule established by the Court in this case that there are limited circumstances in which a "failure to train" allegation can be the basis for liability. Pp. 386-387. (b) The inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for 1983 liability only where the failure to train in a relevant respect amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. In contrast to the Court of Appeals' overly broad rule, this "deliberate indifference" standard is most consistent with the rule of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, that a city is not liable under 1983 unless a municipal "policy" or "custom" is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Only where a failure to train reflects a "deliberate" or "conscious" choice by the municipality can the failure be properly thought of as an actionable city "policy." Monell will not be satisfied by a mere allegation that a training program represents a policy for which the city is responsible. Rather, the focus must be on whether the program is adequate to the tasks the particular employees must perform, and if it is not, on whether such inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent "city policy." Moreover, the identified deficiency in the training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury. Thus, respondent must still prove that the deficiency in training actually caused the police officers' indifference to her medical needs. To adopt lesser standards of fault and causation would open municipalities to unprecedented liability under 1983; would result in de facto respondeat superior liability, a result rejected in Monell; would engage federal courts in an endless exercise of second-guessing municipal employee-training programs, a task that they are ill suited to undertake; and would implicate serious questions of federalism. Pp. 388-392. 3. Although the evidence presently in the record does not satisfy the "deliberate indifference" rule of liability, the question whether respondent should have an opportunity to prove her case under that rule must be left to the Court of Appeals on remand, since the standard of proof Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 54

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

the [489 U.S. 378, 380] District Court ultimately imposed on her was a lesser one than the one here adopted. P. 392. 798 F.2d 1414, vacated and remanded. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and inParts I, II, and III of which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, except as to n. 11. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 393.O'CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined, post, p. 393. Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Mark D. Hopson, W. Scott Gwin, William J. Hamann, and John S. Coury. David Rudovsky argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Emanuella Harris Groves and Dexter W. Clark. * [ Footnote * ] Benna Ruth Solomon, Beate Bloch, and Richard K. Willard filed a brief for the International City Management Association et al. as amici curiae urgingreversal. John A. Powell, Steven R. Shapiro, Howard A. Friedman, and Michael Aaron Avery filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we are asked to determine if a municipality can ever be liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 1 for constitutional violations resulting from its failure to train municipal employees. We hold that, under certain circumstances, such liability is permitted by the statute. [489 U.S. 378, 381] I In April 1978, respondent Geraldine Harris was arrested by officers of the Canton Police Department. Mrs. Harris was brought to the police station in a patrol wagon. When she arrived at the station, Mrs. Harris was found sitting on the floor of the wagon. She was asked if she needed medical attention, and responded with an incoherent remark. After she was brought inside the station for processing, Mrs. Harris slumped to the floor on two occasions. Eventually, the police officers left Mrs. Harris lying on the floor to prevent her from falling again. No medical attention was ever summoned for Mrs. Harris. After about an hour, Mrs. Harris was released from custody, and taken by an ambulance (provided by her family) to a nearby hospital. There, Mrs. Harris was diagnosed as suffering from several emotional ailments; she was hospitalized for one week and received subsequent outpatient treatment for an additional year. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 55

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Some time later, Mrs. Harris commenced this action alleging many state-law and constitutional claims against the city of Canton and its officials. Among these claims was one seeking to hold the city liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for its violation of Mrs. Harris' right, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody. A jury trial was held on Mrs. Harris' claims. Evidence was presented that indicated that, pursuant to a municipal regulation, 2 shift commanders were authorized to determine, in their sole discretion, whether a detainee required medical [489 U.S. 378, 382] care. Tr. 2-139 - 2-143. In addition, testimony also suggested that Canton shift commanders were not provided with any special training (beyond first-aid training) to make a determination as to when to summon medical care for an injured detainee. Ibid.; App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a. At the close of the evidence, the District Court submitted the case to the jury, which rejected all of Mrs. Harris' claims except one: her 1983 claim against the city resulting from its failure to provide her with medical treatment while in custody. In rejecting the city's subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the District Court explained the theory of liability as follows: "The evidence construed in a manner most favorable to Mrs. Harris could be found by a jury to demonstrate that the City of Canton had a custom or policy of vesting complete authority with the police supervisor of when medical treatment would be administered to prisoners. Further, the jury could find from the evidence that the vesting of such carte blanche authority with the police supervisor without adequate training to recognize when medical treatment is needed was grossly negligent or so reckless that future police misconduct was almost inevitable or substantially certain to result." Id., at 16a. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed this aspect of the District Court's analysis, holding that "a municipality is liable for failure to train its police force, [where] the plaintiff . . . prove[s] that the municipality acted recklessly, intentionally, or with gross negligence." Id., at 5a. 3 The Court of Appeals also stated that an additional prerequisite of this theory [489 U.S. 378, 383] of liability was that the plaintiff must prove "that the lack of training was so reckless or grossly negligent that deprivations of persons' constitutional rights were substantially certain to result." Ibid. Thus, the Court of Appeals found that there had been no error in submitting Mrs. Harris'"failure to train" claim to the jury. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for respondent, and remanded this case for a new trial, because it found that certain aspects of the District Court's jury instructions might have led the jury to believe that it could find against the city on a mere respondeat superior theory. Because the jury's verdict did not state the basis on which it had ruled for Mrs. Harris on her 1983 claim, a new trial was ordered. The city petitioned for certiorari, arguing that the Sixth Circuit's Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 56

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

holding represented an impermissible broadening of municipal liability under 1983. We granted the petition. 485 U.S. 933 (1988). II We first address respondent's contention that the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as improvidently granted, because "petitioner failed to preserve for review the principal issues it now argues in this Court." Brief for Respondent 5. We think it clear enough that petitioner's three "Questions Presented" in its petition for certiorari encompass the critical question before us in this case: Under what circumstances can inadequate training be found to be a "policy" that is actionable under 1983? See Pet. for Cert. i. The petition itself addressed this issue directly, attacking the Sixth Circuit's "failure to train" theory as inconsistent with this Court's precedents. See id., at 8-12. It is also clear - as respondent conceded at argument, Tr. of Oral Arg. 34, 54 - that her brief in opposition to our granting of certiorari did not raise the objection that petitioner had failed to press its claims on the courts below. As to respondent's contention that the claims made by petitioner here were not made in the same fashion below, that [489 U.S. 378, 384] failure, if it occurred, does not affect our jurisdiction; and because respondent did not oppose our grant of review at that time based on her contention that these claims were not pressed below, we will not dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. "[T]he `decision to grant certiorari represents a commitment of scarce judicial resources with a view to deciding the merits . . . of the questions presented in the petition.'" St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 120 (1988) (quoting Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)). As we have expressly admonished litigants in respondent's position: "Nonjurisdictional defects of this sort should be brought to our attention no later than in respondent's brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari; if not, we consider it within our discretion to deem the defect waived." Tuttle, supra, at 816. It is true that petitioner's litigation posture with respect to the questions presented here has not been consistent; most importantly, petitioner conceded below that "`inadequate training' [is] a means of establishing municipal liability under Section 1983." Reply Brief for Petitioner 4, n. 3; see also Petition for Rehearing in No. 85-3314 (CA6), p. 1. However, at each stage in the proceedings below, petitioner contested any finding of liability on this ground, with objections of varying specificity. It opposed the District Court's jury instructions on this issue, Tr. 4-369; claimed in its judgment notwithstanding verdict motion that there was "no evidence of a . . . policy or practice on the part of the City . . . [of] den[ying] medical treatment to prisoners," Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict in No. C80-18-A (ND Ohio), p. 1; and argued to the Court of Appeals that there was no basis for finding a policy of denying medical treatment to prisoners in this case. See Brief for Appellant in No. 85-3314 (CA6), pp. 26-29. Indeed, petitioner specifically Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 57

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

contended that the Sixth Circuit precedents that permitted inadequate training to be a basis for municipal liability on facts similar to these, see n. 3, supra, were in conflict with [489 U.S. 378, 385] our decision in Tuttle. Brief for Appellant in No. 85-3314 (CA6), p. 29. These various presentations of the issues below might have been so inexact that we would have denied certiorari had this matter been brought to our attention at the appropriate stage in the proceedings. But they were at least adequate to yield a decision by the Sixth Circuit on the questions presented for our review now. Here the Sixth Circuit held that where a plaintiff proves that a municipality, acting recklessly, intentionally, or with gross negligence, has failed to train its police force - resulting in a deprivation of constitutional rights that was "substantially certain to result" - 1983 permits that municipality to be held liable for its actions. Petitioner's petition for certiorari challenged the soundness of that conclusion, and respondent did not inform us prior to the time that review was granted that petitioner had arguably conceded this point below. Consequently, we will not abstain from addressing the question before us. III In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), we decided that a municipality can be found liable under 1983 only where the municipality itself causes the constitutional violation at issue. Respondeat superior or vicarious liability will not attach under 1983. Id., at 694-695. "It is only when the `execution of the government's policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury' that the municipality may be held liable under 1983." Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 257, 267 (1987) (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting) (quoting Monell, supra, at 694). Thus, our first inquiry in any case alleging municipal liability under 1983 is the question whether there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation. The inquiry is a difficult one; one that has left this Court deeply divided in a series of [489 U.S. 378, 386] cases that have followed Monell; 4 one that is the principal focus of our decision again today. A Based on the difficulty that this Court has had defining the contours of municipal liability in these circumstances, petitioner urges us to adopt the rule that a municipality can be found liable under 1983 only where "the policy in question [is] itself unconstitutional." Brief for Petitioner 15. Whether such a rule is a valid construction of 1983 is a question the Court has left unresolved. See, e. g., St. Louis v. Praprotnik, supra, at 147 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment); Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, supra, at 824, n. 7. Under such an approach, the outcome here would be rather clear: we would have to reverse and remand the case with instructions that judgment be entered for petitioner. 5 There can be little doubt that on its face the city's policy regarding medical treatment for detainees is Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 58

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

constitutional. The policy states that the city jailer "shall . . . have [a person needing medical care] taken to a hospital for medical treatment, with [489 U.S. 378, 387] permission of his supervisor . . . ." App. 33. It is difficult to see what constitutional guarantees are violated by such a policy. Nor, without more, would a city automatically be liable under 1983 if one of its employees happened to apply the policy in an unconstitutional manner, for liability would then rest on respondeat superior. The claim in this case, however, is that if a concededly valid policy is unconstitutionally applied by a municipal employee, the city is liable if the employee has not been adequately trained and the constitutional wrong has been caused by that failure to train. For reasons explained below, we conclude, as have all the Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue, 6 that there are limited circumstances in which an allegation of a "failure to train" can be the basis for liability under 1983. Thus, we reject petitioner's contention that only unconstitutional policies are actionable under the statute. [489 U.S. 378, 388] B Though we agree with the court below that a city can be liable under 1983 for inadequate training of its employees, we cannot agree that the District Court's jury instructions on this issue were proper, for we conclude that the Court of Appeals provided an overly broad rule for when a municipality can be held liable under the "failure to train" theory. Unlike the question whether a municipality's failure to train employees can ever be a basis for 1983 liability - on which the Courts of Appeals have all agreed, see n. 6, supra, - there is substantial division among the lower courts as to what degree of fault must be evidenced by the municipality's inaction before liability will be permitted. 7 We hold today that the inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. 8 This rule is most consistent with our admonition [489 U.S. 378, 389] in Monell, 436 U.S., at 694, and Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981), that a municipality can be liable under 1983 only where its policies are the "moving force [behind] the constitutional violation." Only where a municipality's failure to train its employees in a relevant respect evidences a "deliberate indifference" to the rights of its inhabitants can such a shortcoming be properly thought of as a city "policy or custom" that is actionable under 1983. As JUSTICE BRENNAN's opinion in Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 -484 (1986) (plurality) put it: "[M]unicipal liability under 1983 attaches where - and only where - a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives" by city policymakers. See also Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S., at 823 (opinion of REHNQUIST, J.). Only where a failure to train reflects a "deliberate" or "conscious" choice by a municipality a "policy" as defined by our prior cases - can a city be liable for such a failure under 1983. Monell's rule that a city is not liable under 1983 unless a municipal Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 59

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

policy causes a constitutional deprivation will not be satisfied by merely alleging that the existing training program for a class of employees, such as police officers, represents a policy for which the city is responsible. 9 That much [489 U.S. 378, 390] may be true. The issue in a case like this one, however, is whether that training program is adequate; and if it is not, the question becomes whether such inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent "city policy." It may seem contrary to common sense to assert that a municipality will actually have a policy of not taking reasonable steps to train its employees. But it may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. 10 In that event, the failure to provide proper training may fairly be said to represent a policy for which the city is responsible, and for which the city may be held liable if it actually causes injury. 11 In resolving the issue of a city's liability, the focus must be on adequacy of the training program in relation to the tasks the particular officers must perform. That a particular officer may be unsatisfactorily trained will not alone suffice to fasten liability on the city, for the officer's shortcomings may [489 U.S. 378, 391] have resulted from factors other than a faulty training program. See Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S., at 268 (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting); Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, supra, at 821 (opinion of REHNQUIST, J.). It may be, for example, that an otherwise sound program has occasionally been negligently administered. Neither will it suffice to prove that an injury or accident could have been avoided if an officer had had better or more training, sufficient to equip him to avoid the particular injury-causing conduct. Such a claim could be made about almost any encounter resulting in injury, yet not condemn the adequacy of the program to enable officers to respond properly to the usual and recurring situations with which they must deal. And plainly, adequately trained officers occasionally make mistakes; the fact that they do says little about the training program or the legal basis for holding the city liable. Moreover, for liability to attach in this circumstance the identified deficiency in a city's training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury. Thus in the case at hand, respondent must still prove that the deficiency in training actually caused the police officers' indifference to her medical needs. 12 Would the injury have been avoided had the employee been trained under a program that was not deficient in the identified respect? Predicting how a hypothetically well-trained officer would have acted under the circumstances may not be an easy task for the factfinder, particularly since matters of judgment may be involved, and since officers who are well trained are not free from error and perhaps might react very much like the untrained officer in similar circumstances. But judge and jury, doing their respective jobs, will be adequate to the task. To adopt lesser standards of fault and causation would open municipalities to unprecedented liability under 1983. [489 U.S. 378, 392] In virtually Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 60

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

every instance where a person has had his or her constitutional rights violated by a city employee, a 1983 plaintiff will be able to point to something the city "could have done" to prevent the unfortunate incident. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S., at 823 (opinion of REHNQUIST, J.). Thus, permitting cases against cities for their "failure to train" employees to go forward under 1983 on a lesser standard of fault would result in de facto respondeat superior liability on municipalities - a result we rejected in Monell, 436 U.S., at 693 -694. It would also engage the federal courts in an endless exercise of second-guessing municipal employee-training programs. This is an exercise we believe the federal courts are ill suited to undertake, as well as one that would implicate serious questions of federalism. Cf. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 -380 (1976). Consequently, while claims such as respondent's - alleging that the city's failure to provide training to municipal employees resulted in the constitutional deprivation she suffered - are cognizable under 1983, they can only yield liability against a municipality where that city's failure to train reflects deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants. IV. The final question here is whether this case should be remanded for a new trial, or whether, as petitioner suggests, we should conclude that there are no possible grounds on which respondent can prevail. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 57-58. It is true that the evidence in the record now does not meet the standard of 1983 liability we have set forth above. But, the standard of proof the District Court ultimately imposed on respondent (which was consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent) was a lesser one than the one we adopt today, see Tr. 4-389 - 4-390. Whether respondent should have an opportunity to prove her case under the "deliberate indifference" rule we have adopted is a matter for the Court of Appeals to deal with on remand. [489 U.S. 378, 393] V. Consequently, for the reasons given above, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring. The Court's opinion, which I join, makes clear that the Court of Appeals is free to remand this case for a new trial. Footnotes [ Footnote 1 ] Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides, in relevant part, that: Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 61

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . ." [ Footnote 2 ] The city regulation in question provides that a police officer assigned to act as "jailer" at the city police station "shall, when a prisoner is found to be unconscious or semi-unconscious, or when he or she is unable to explain his or her condition, or who complains of being ill, have such person taken to a hospital for medical treatment, with permission of his supervisor before admitting the person to City Jail." App. 33. [ Footnote 3 ] In upholding Mrs. Harris' "failure to train" claim, the Sixth Circuit relied on two of its previous decisions which had approved such a theory of municipal liability under 1983. See Rymer v. Davis, 754 F.2d 198, vacated and remanded sub nom. Shepherdsville v. Rhymer, 473 U.S. 901, reinstated, 775 F.2d 756, 757 (1985); Hays v. Jefferson County, 668 F.2d 869, 874 (1982). [ Footnote 4 ] See, e. g., St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (1988); Springfield v. Kibbe, 480 U.S. 257 (1987); Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986); Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985). [ Footnote 5 ] In this Court, in addition to suggesting that the city's failure to train its officers amounted to a "policy" that resulted in the denial of medical care to detainees, respondent also contended the city had a "custom" of denying medical care to those detainees suffering from emotional or mental ailments. See Brief for Respondent 31-32; Tr. of Oral Arg. 38-39. As respondent described it in her brief, and at argument, this claim of an unconstitutional "custom" appears to be little more than a restatement of her "failure-to-train as policy" claim. See ibid. However, to the extent that this claim poses a distinct basis for the city's liability under 1983, we decline to determine whether respondent's contention that such a "custom" existed is an alternative ground for affirmance. The "custom" claim was not passed on by the Court of Appeals nor does it appear to have been presented to that court as a distinct ground for its decision. See Brief of Appellee in No. 85-3314 (CA6), pp. 4-9, 11. Thus, we will not consider it here. [ Footnote 6 ] In addition to the Sixth Circuit decisions discussed in n. 3, supra, most of the other Courts of Appeals have held that a failure to train can create liability under 1983. See, e. g., Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1389-1391 (CA4 1987); Haynesworth v. Miller, 261 U.S. App. D.C. 66, 80-83, 820 F.2d 1245, 1259-1262 (1987); Warren v. Lincoln, 816 F.2d 1254, 1262-1263 (CA8 1987); Bergquist v. County of Cochise, 806 F.2d 1364, 1369-1370 (CA9 1986); Wierstak v. Heffernan, 789 F.2d 968, 974 (CA1 1986); Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 62

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Fiacco v. Rensselaer, 783 F.2d 319, 326-327 (CA2 1986); Gilmere v. Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495, 1503-1504 (CA11 1985) (en banc); Rock v. McCoy, 763 F.2d 394, 397-398 (CA10 1985); Languirand v. Hayden, 717 F.2d 220, 227-228 (CA5 1983). Two other Courts of Appeals have stopped short of expressly embracing this rule, and have instead only implicitly endorsed it. See, e. g., Colburn v. Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663, 672-673 (CA3 1988); Lenard v. Argento, 699 F.2d 874, 885-887 (CA7 1983). In addition, six current Members of this Court have joined opinions in the past that have (at least implicitly) endorsed this theory of liability under 1983. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, supra, at 829-831 (BRENNAN, J., joined by MARSHALL and BLACKMUN, JJ., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Springfield v. Kibbe, supra, at 268-270 (O'CONNOR, J., joined by REHNQUIST, C. J., and Powell and WHITE, JJ., dissenting). [ Footnote 7 ] Some courts have held that a showing of "gross negligence" in a city's failure to train its employees is adequate to make out a claim under 1983. See, e. g., Bergquist v. County of Cochise, supra, at 1370; Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F.2d 1220, 1224 (CA8 1981). But the more common rule is that a city must exhibit "deliberate indifference" towards the constitutional rights of persons in its domain before a 1983 action for "failure to train" is permissible. See, e. g., Fiacco v. Rensselaer, supra, at 326; Patzner v. Burkett, 779 F.2d 1363, 1367 (CA8 1985); Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F.2d 932, 936 (CA4 1983); Languirand v. Hayden, supra, at 227. [ Footnote 8 ] The "deliberate indifference" standard we adopt for 1983 "failure to train" claims does not turn upon the degree of fault (if any) that a plaintiff must show to make out an underlying claim of a constitutional violation. For example, this Court has never determined what degree of culpability must be shown before the particular constitutional deprivation asserted in this case - a denial of the due process right to medical care while in detention - is established. Indeed, in Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 243 -245 (1983), we reserved decision on the question whether something less than the Eighth Amendment's "deliberate indifference" test may be applicable in claims by detainees asserting violations of their due process right to medical care while in custody. We need not resolve here the question left open in Revere for two reasons. First, petitioner has conceded that, as the case comes to us, we [489 U.S. 378, 389] must assume that respondent's constitutional right to receive medical care was denied by city employees - whatever the nature of that right might be. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9. Second, the proper standard for determining when a municipality will be liable under 1983 for constitutional wrongs does not turn on any underlying culpability test that determines when such wrongs have occurred. Cf. Brief for Respondent 27. [ Footnote 9 ] The plurality opinion in Tuttle explained why this must be so: "Obviously, if one retreats far enough from a constitutional violation Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 63

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

some municipal ‘policy’ can be identified behind almost any . . . harm inflicted by a municipal official; for example, [a police officer] would never have killed Tuttle if Oklahoma City did not have a `policy' of establishing a police force. But Monell must be taken to require proof of a city policy different in kind from this latter example before a claim can be sent to a jury on the theory [489 U.S. 378, 390] that a particular violation was `caused' by the municipal `policy.'" 471 U.S., at 823 . Cf. also id., at 833, n. 9 (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). [ Footnote 10 ] For example, city policymakers know to a moral certainty that their police officers will be required to arrest fleeing felons. The city has armed its officers with firearms, in part to allow them to accomplish this task. Thus, the need to train officers in the constitutional limitations on the use of deadly force, see Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), can be said to be "so obvious," that failure to do so could properly be characterized as "deliberate indifference" to constitutional rights. It could also be that the police, in exercising their discretion, so often violate constitutional rights that the need for further training must have been plainly obvious to the city policymakers, who, nevertheless, are "deliberately indifferent" to the need. [ Footnote 11 ] The record indicates that city did train its officers and that its training included first-aid instruction. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a. Petitioner argues that it could not have been obvious to the city that such training was insufficient to administer the written policy, which was itself constitutional. This is a question to be resolved on remand. See Part IV, infra. [ Footnote 12 ] Respondent conceded as much at argument. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 50-51; cf. also Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, supra, at 831 (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE KENNEDY join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join Parts I and II and all of Part III of the Court's opinion except footnote 11, see ante, at 390, n. 11. I thus agree that where municipal policymakers are confronted with an obvious need to train city personnel to avoid the violation of constitutional rights and they are deliberately indifferent to that need, the lack of necessary training may be appropriately considered a city "policy" subjecting the city itself to liability under our decision in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). As the Court observes, "[o]nly where a failure to train reflects a `deliberate' or `conscious' choice by a municipality - a `policy' as defined by our prior cases - can a city be liable for such a failure under [42 U.S.C.] 1983." Ante, at 389. I further agree that a 1983 plaintiff pressing a "failure to train" claim must prove that the lack of training was the "cause" of the constitutional injury at issue and that this entails more than simply showing "but for" causation. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 64

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Ante, at 392. Lesser requirements of fault and causation in this context would "open municipalities to unprecedented liability under 1983," ante, at 391, and would pose serious federalism concerns. Ante, at 392. My single point of disagreement with the majority is thus a small one. Because I believe, as the majority strongly hints, [489 U.S. 378, 394] see ibid., that respondent has not and could not satisfy the fault and causation requirements we adopt today, I think it unnecessary to remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. This case comes to us after a full trial during which respondent vigorously pursued numerous theories of municipal liability including an allegation that the city had a "custom" of not providing medical care to detainees suffering from emotional illnesses. Respondent thus had every opportunity and incentive to adduce the type of proof necessary to satisfy the deliberate indifference standard we adopt today. Rather than remand in this context, I would apply the deliberate indifference standard to the facts of this case. After undertaking that analysis below, I conclude that there is no evidence in the record indicating that the city of Canton has been deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees. I In Monell, the Court held that municipal liability can be imposed under 1983 only where the municipality, as an entity, can be said to be "responsible" for a constitutional violation committed by one of its employees. "[T]he touchstone of the 1983 action against a government body is an allegation that official policy is responsible for a deprivation of rights protected by the Constitution." 436 U.S., at 690 . The Court found that the language of 1983, and rejection of the "Sherman Amendment" by the 42d Congress, were both strong indicators that the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 did not intend that municipal governments be held vicariously liable for the constitutional torts of their employees. Thus a 1983 plaintiff seeking to attach liability to the city for the acts of one of its employees may not rest on the employment relationship alone; both fault and causation as to the acts or omissions of the city itself must be proved. The Court reaffirms these requirements today. Where, as here, a claim of municipal liability is predicated upon a failure to act, the requisite degree of fault must be [489 U.S. 378, 395] shown by proof of a background of events and circumstances which establish that the "policy of inaction" is the functional equivalent of a decision by the city itself to violate the Constitution. Without some form of notice to the city, and the opportunity to conform to constitutional dictates both what it does and what it chooses not to do, the failure to train theory of liability could completely engulf Monell, imposing liability without regard to fault. Moreover, absent a requirement that the lack of training at issue bear a very close causal connection to the violation of constitutional rights, the failure to train theory of municipal liability could impose "prophylactic" duties on municipal governments only remotely connected to underlying constitutional requirements themselves. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 65

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Such results would be directly contrary to the intent of the drafters of 1983. The central vice of the Sherman Amendment, as noted by the Court's opinion in Monell, was that it "impose[d] a species of vicarious liability on municipalities since it could be construed to impose liability even if the municipality did not know of an impending or ensuing riot or did not have the wherewithal to do anything about it." 436 U.S., at 692, n. 57 (emphasis added). Moreover, as noted in Monell, the authors of 1 of the Ku Klux Act did not intend to create any new rights or duties beyond those contained in the Constitution. Id., at 684-685. Thus, 1 was referred to as "reenacting the Constitution." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 569 (1871) (Rep. Edmunds). Representative Bingham, the author of 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, saw the purpose of 1983 as "the enforcement . . . of the Constitution on behalf of every individual citizen of the Republic . . . to the extent of the rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution." Id., at App. 81. See also Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600, 617 (1979) ("[Section] 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 did not provide for any substantive rights - equal or otherwise. As introduced and enacted, it served only to insure that an individual had a cause of action for violations of the Constitution"). [489 U.S. 378, 396] Thus 1983 is not a "federal good government act" for municipalities. Rather it creates a federal cause of action against persons, including municipalities, who deprive citizens of the United States of their constitutional rights. Sensitive to these concerns, the Court's opinion correctly requires a high degree of fault on the part of city officials before an omission that is not in itself unconstitutional can support liability as a municipal policy under Monell. As the Court indicates, "it may happen that . . . the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." Ante, at 390. Where a 1983 plaintiff can establish that the facts available to city policymakers put them on actual or constructive notice that the particular omission is substantially certain to result in the violation of the constitutional rights of their citizens, the dictates of Monell are satisfied. Only then can it be said that the municipality has made "`a deliberate choice to follow a course of action . . . from among various alternatives.'" Ante, at 389, quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483 -484 (1986). In my view, it could be shown that the need for training was obvious in one of two ways. First, a municipality could fail to train its employees concerning a clear constitutional duty implicated in recurrent situations that a particular employee is certain to face. As the majority notes, see ante, at 390, n. 10, the constitutional limitations established by this Court on the use of deadly force by police officers present one such situation. The constitutional duty of the individual officer is clear, and it is equally clear that failure to inform city personnel of that duty will create an extremely high risk that constitutional violations will ensue. The claim in this case - that police officers were inadequately trained in diagnosing the symptoms of emotional illness - falls far short of the kind Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 66

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

of "obvious" need for training [489 U.S. 378, 397] that would support a finding of deliberate indifference to constitutional rights on the part of the city. As the Court's opinion observes, ante, at 388-389, n. 8, this Court has not yet addressed the precise nature of the obligations that the Due Process Clause places upon the police to seek medical care for pretrial detainees who have been physically injured while being apprehended by the police. See Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 246 (1983) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring). There are thus no clear constitutional guideposts for municipalities in this area, and the diagnosis of mental illness is not one of the "usual and recurring situations with which [the police] must deal." Ante, at 391. The lack of training at issue here is not the kind of omission that can be characterized, in and of itself, as a "deliberate indifference" to constitutional rights. Second, I think municipal liability for failure to train may be proper where it can be shown that policymakers were aware of, and acquiesced in, a pattern of constitutional violations involving the exercise of police discretion. In such cases, the need for training may not be obvious from the outset, but a pattern of constitutional violations could put the municipality on notice that its officers confront the particular situation on a regular basis, and that they often react in a manner contrary to constitutional requirements. The lower courts that have applied the "deliberate indifference" standard we adopt today have required a showing of a pattern of violations from which a kind of "tacit authorization" by city policymakers can be inferred. See, e. g., Fiacco v. Rensselaer, 783 F.2d 319, 327 (CA2 1986) (multiple incidents required for finding of deliberate indifference); Patzner v. Burkett, 779 F.2d 1363, 1367 (CA8 1985) ("[A] municipality may be liable if it had notice of prior misbehavior by its officers and failed to take remedial steps amounting to deliberate indifference to the offensive acts"); Languirand v. Hayden, 717 F.2d 220, 227-228 (CA5 1983) (municipal liability for failure to train requires "evidence at least of a pattern of similar [489 U.S. 378, 398] incidents in which citizens were injured or endangered"); Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F.2d 932, 936 (CA4 1983) ("[A] failure to supervise gives rise to 1983 liability, however, only in those situations where there is a history of widespread abuse. Only then may knowledge be imputed to the supervisory personnel"). The Court's opinion recognizes this requirement, see ante, at 390, and n. 10, but declines to evaluate the evidence presented in this case in light of the new legal standard. Ante, at 392. From the outset of this litigation, respondent has pressed a claim that the city of Canton had a custom of denying medical care to pretrial detainees with emotional disorders. See Amended Complaint 28, App. 27. Indeed, up to and including oral argument before this Court, counsel for respondent continued to assert that respondent was attempting to hinge municipal liability upon "both a custom of denying medical care to a certain class of prisoners, and a failure to train police that led to this particular violation." Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38. At the time respondent filed her complaint in 1980, it was clear that proof of the existence of a custom entailed a showing of "practices . . . so permanent and well settled as to constitute a `custom Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 67

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

or usage' with the force of law." Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 168 (1970); see also Garner v. Memphis Police Department, 600 F.2d 52, 54-55, and n. 4 (CA6 1979) (discussing proof of custom in light of Monell). Whatever the prevailing standard at the time concerning liability for failure to train, respondent thus had every incentive to adduce proof at trial of a pattern of violations to support her claim that the city had an unwritten custom of denying medical care to emotionally ill detainees. In fact, respondent presented no testimony from any witness indicating that there had been past incidents of "deliberate indifference" to the medical needs of emotionally disturbed detainees or that any other circumstance had put the city on actual or constructive notice of a need for additional training in this [489 U.S. 378, 399] regard. At trial, David Maser, who was Chief of Police of the city of Canton from 1971 to 1980, testified without contradiction that during his tenure he received no complaints that detainees in the Canton jails were not being accorded proper medical treatment. Tr. 4-347 - 4-348. Former Officer Cherry, who had served as a jailer for the Canton Police Department, indicated that he had never had to seek medical treatment for persons who were emotionally upset at the prospect of arrest, because they usually calmed down when a member of the department spoke with them or one of their family members arrived. Id., at 4-83 - 4-84. There is quite simply nothing in this record to indicate that the city of Canton had any reason to suspect that failing to provide this kind of training would lead to injuries of any kind, let alone violations of the Due Process Clause. None of the Courts of Appeals that already apply the standard we adopt today would allow respondent to take her claim to a jury based on the facts she adduced at trial. See Patzner v. Burkett, supra, at 1367 (summary judgment proper under "deliberate indifference" standard where evidence of only single incident adduced); Languirand v. Hayden, supra, at 229 (reversing jury verdict rendered under failure to train theory where there was no evidence of prior incidents to support a finding that municipal policymakers were "consciously indifferent" to constitutional rights); Wellington v. Daniels, supra, at 937 (affirming judgment notwithstanding verdict for municipality under "deliberate indifference" standard where evidence of only a single incident was presented at trial); cf. Fiacco v. Rensselaer, supra, at 328-332 (finding evidence of "deliberate indifference" sufficient to support jury verdict where a pattern of similar violations was shown at trial). Allowing an inadequate training claim such as this one to go to the jury based upon a single incident would only invite jury nullification of Monell. "To infer the existence of a city policy from the isolated misconduct of a single, low-level officer, and then to hold the city liable on the basis of that policy, [489 U.S. 378, 400] would amount to permitting precisely the theory of strict respondeat superior liability rejected in Monell." Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 831 (1985) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As the authors of the Ku Klux Act themselves realized, the resources of local government are not inexhaustible. The grave step of shifting those resources to particular areas where constitutional violations are likely to Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 68

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

result through the deterrent power of 1983 should certainly not be taken on the basis of an isolated incident. If 1983 and the Constitution require the city of Canton to provide detailed medical and psychological training to its police officers, or to station paramedics at its jails, other city services will necessarily suffer, including those with far more direct implications for the protection of constitutional rights. Because respondent's evidence falls far short of establishing the high degree of fault on the part of the city required by our decision today, and because there is no indication that respondent could produce any new proof in this regard, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and order entry of judgment for the city. [489 U.S. 378, 401]

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 69

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 70

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

U.S. Supreme Court Case Law Heck v. Humphrey U.S. Supreme Court 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) No. 93-6188. Argued April 18, 1994. Decided June 24, 1994. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT [Synopsis offered by the Utah POST K-9 Program via Dr. Terry Fleck. “In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a criminal conviction or sentence invalid, a civil rights violation plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Thus, a criminal conviction bars the plaintiff with proceeding with a civil rights violation claim.”] Scalia,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 490. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Blackmun, Stevens, and O'Connor, JJ., joined, post, p. 491. Charles Rothfeld argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. Matthew R. Gutwein argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Pamela Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, and Arend J. Abel and Dana Childress-Jones, Deputy Attorneys General.[*] Justice Scalia, delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether a state prisoner may challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Petitioner Roy Heck was convicted in Indiana state court of voluntary manslaughter for the killing of Rickie Heck, his wife, and is serving a 15-year sentence in an Indiana prison. While the appeal from his conviction was pending, petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed this suit in Federal District Court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983,[1] naming as defendants respondents James Humphrey and Robert Ewbank, Dearborn County prosecutors, and Michael Krinoph, an investigator with the Indiana State Police. The complaint alleged that respondents, acting under color of state law, had Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 71

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

engaged in an "unlawful, unreasonable, and arbitrary investigation" leading to petitioner's arrest; "knowingly destroyed" evidence "which was exculpatory in nature and could have proved [petitioner's] innocence"; and caused "an illegal and unlawful voice identification procedure" to be used at petitioner's trial. App. 5-6. The complaint sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive monetary damages. It did not ask for injunctive relief, and petitioner has not sought release from custody in this action. The District Court dismissed the action without prejudice, because the issues it raised "directly implicate the legality of [petitioner's] confinement," id., at 13. While petitioner's appeal to the Seventh Circuit was pending, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Heck v. State, 552 N. E. 2d 446, 449 (Ind. 1990); his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court was dismissed because it contained unexhausted claims; and his second federal habeas petition was denied, and the denial affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. When the Seventh Circuit reached petitioner's appeal from dismissal of his § 1983 complaint, it affirmed the judgment and approved the reasoning of the District Court: "If, regardless of the relief sought, the plaintiff [in a federal civil rights action] is challenging the legality of his conviction,[2] so that if he won his case the state would be obliged to release him even if he hadn't sought that relief, the suit is classified as an application for habeas corpus and the plaintiff must exhaust his state remedies, on pain of dismissal if he fails to do so." 997 F. 2d 355, 357 (1993). Heck filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted. 510 U. S. 1068 (1994). II This case lies at the intersection of the two most fertile sources of federal-court prisoner litigation—the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2254. Both of these provide access to a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials, but they differ in their scope and operation. In general, exhaustion of state remedies "is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983," Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 501 (1982) (emphasis added), even an action by a state prisoner, id., at 509. The federal habeas corpus statute, by contrast, requires that state prisoners first seek redress in a state forum.[3] See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982). Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 (1973), considered the potential overlap between these two provisions, and held that habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983. Id., at 488-490. We emphasize that Preiser did not create an exception to the "no exhaustion" rule of § 1983; it merely held that certain claims by state prisoners are not cognizable under that provision, and must be brought in Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 72

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

habeas corpus proceedings, which do contain an exhaustion requirement. This case is clearly not covered by the holding of Preiser, for petitioner seeks not immediate or speedier release, but monetary damages, as to which he could not "have sought and obtained fully effective relief through federal habeas corpus proceedings." Id., at 488. See also id., at 494; Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 104 (1980). In dictum, however, Preiser asserted that since a state prisoner seeking only damages "is attacking something other than the fact or length of . . . confinement, and . . . is seeking something other than immediate or more speedy release[,] . . . a damages action by a state prisoner could be brought under [§ 1983] in federal court without any requirement of prior exhaustion of state remedies." 411 U. S., at 494. That statement may not be true, however, when establishing the basis for the damages claim necessarily demonstrates the invalidity of the conviction. In that situation, the claimant can be said to be "attacking . . . the fact or length of . . . confinement," bringing the suit within the other dictum of Preiser: "Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, and that specific determination must override the general terms of § 1983." Id., at 490. In the last analysis, we think the dicta of Preiser to be an unreliable, if not an unintelligible, guide: that opinion had no cause to address, and did not carefully consider, the damages question before us today. Before addressing that question, we respond to petitioner's contention that it has already been answered, in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974). See Reply Brief for Petitioner 1. First of all, if Wolff had answered the question we would not have expressly reserved it 10 years later, as we did in Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914 (1984). See id., at 923. And secondly, a careful reading of Wolff itself does not support the contention. Like Preiser, Wolff involved a challenge to the procedures used by state prison officials to deprive prisoners of good-time credits. The § 1983 complaint sought restoration of good-time credits as well as "damages for the deprivation of civil rights resulting from the use of the allegedly unconstitutional procedures." Wolff, supra, at 553. The Court said, after holding the claim for good-time credits to be foreclosed by Preiser, that the damages claim was nonetheless "properly before the District Court and required determination of the validity of the procedures employed for imposing sanctions, including loss of good time," 418 U. S., at 554. Petitioner contends that this language authorized the plaintiffs in Wolff to recover damages measured by the actual loss of good time. We think not. In light of the earlier language characterizing the claim as one of "damages for the deprivation of civil rights," rather than damages for the deprivation of good-time credits, we think this passage recognized a § 1983 claim for using the wrong procedures, not for reaching the wrong result (i. e., denying good-time credits). Nor is there any indication in the opinion, or any reason to believe, that using the wrong procedures necessarily vitiated the denial of good-time credits. Thus, the claim at issue in Wolff did not call into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff's continuing confinement. See Fulford v. Klein, 529 F. 2d 377, 381 (1976), adhered to, 550 F. 2d 342 (CA5 1977) (en banc); Schwartz, The Preiser Puzzle: Continued Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 73

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Frustrating Conflict Between the Civil Rights and Habeas Corpus Remedies for State Prisoners, 37 DePaul L. Rev. 85, 120-121, 145-146 (1988). Thus, the question posed by § 1983 damages claims that do call into question the lawfulness of conviction or confinement remains open. To answer that question correctly, we see no need to abandon, as the Seventh Circuit and those courts in agreement with it have done, our teaching that § 1983 contains no exhaustion requirement beyond what Congress has provided. Patsy, 457 U. S., at 501, 509. The issue with respect to monetary damages challenging conviction is not, it seems to us, exhaustion; but rather, the same as the issue was with respect to injunctive relief challenging conviction in Preiser: whether the claim is cognizable under § 1983 at all. We conclude that it is not. "We have repeatedly noted that 42 U. S. C. § 1983 creates a species of tort liability." Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S. 299, 305 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[O]ver the centuries the common law of torts has developed a set of rules to implement the principle that a person should be compensated fairly for injuries caused by the violation of his legal rights. These rules, defining the elements of damages and the prerequisites for their recovery, provide the appropriate starting point for the inquiry under § 1983 as well." Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 257-258 (1978). Thus, to determine whether there is any bar to the present suit, we look first to the common law of torts. Cf. Stachura, supra, at 306. The common-law cause of action for malicious prosecution provides the closest analogy to claims of the type considered here because, unlike the related cause of action for false arrest or imprisonment, it permits damages for confinement imposed pursuant to legal process. "If there is a false arrest claim, damages for that claim cover the time of detention up until issuance of process or arraignment, but not more." W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 888 (5th ed. 1984). But a successful malicious prosecution plaintiff may recover, in addition to general damages, "compensation for any arrest or imprisonment, including damages for discomfort or injury to his health, or loss of time and deprivation of the society." Id., at 887-888 (footnotes omitted). See also Roberts v. Thomas, 135 Ky. 63, 121 S. W. 961 (1909). One element that must be alleged and proved in a malicious prosecution action is termination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the accused. Prosser and Keeton, supra, at 874; Carpenter v. Nutter, 127 Cal. 61, 59 P. 301 (1899). This requirement "avoids parallel litigation over the issues of probable cause and guilt . . . and it precludes the possibility of the claimant [sic] succeeding in the tort action after having been convicted in the underlying criminal prosecution, in contravention of a strong judicial policy against the creation of two conflicting resolutions arising out of the same or identical transaction." 8 S. Speiser, C. Krause, & A. Gans, American Law of Torts § 28:5, p. 24 (1991). Furthermore, "to permit a convicted criminal defendant to proceed with a malicious prosecution claim would permit a collateral attack on the conviction Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 74

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

through the vehicle of a civil suit." Ibid.[4] This Court has long expressed similar concerns for finality and consistency and has generally declined to expand opportunities for collateral attack, see Parke v. Raley, 506 U. S. 20, 29-30 (1992); Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 308 (1989); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923); Voorhees v. Jackson, 10 Pet. 449, 472-473 (1836). We think the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments applies to § 1983 damages actions that necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement, just as it has always applied to actions for malicious prosecution.[5] We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,[6] a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U. S. C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. But if the district court determines that the plaintiff's action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed,[7] in the absence of some other bar to the suit.[8] Respondents had urged us to adopt a rule that was in one respect broader than this: Exhaustion of state remedies should be required, they contended, not just when success in the § 1983 damages suit would necessarily show a conviction or sentence to be unlawful, but whenever "judgment in a § 1983 action would resolve a necessary element to a likely challenge to a conviction, even if the § 1983 court [need] not determine that the conviction is invalid." Brief for Respondents 26, n. 10. Such a broad sweep was needed, respondents contended, lest a judgment in a prisoner's favor in a federal-court § 1983 damages action claiming, for example, a Fourth Amendment violation, be given preclusive effect as to that subissue in a subsequent state-court postconviction proceeding. Preclusion might result, they asserted, if the State exercised sufficient control over the officials' defense in the § 1983 action. See Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 154 (1979). While we have no occasion to rule on the matter at this time, it is at least plain that preclusion will not necessarily be an automatic, or even a permissible, effect.[9] In another respect, however, our holding sweeps more broadly than the approach respondents had urged. We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a cause of action. Even a Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 75

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

prisoner who has fully exhausted available state remedies has no cause of action under § 1983 unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus. That makes it unnecessary for us to address the statute-of-limitations issue wrestled with by the Court of Appeals, which concluded that a federal doctrine of equitable tolling would apply to the § 1983 cause of action while state challenges to the conviction or sentence were being exhausted. (The court distinguished our cases holding that state, not federal, tolling provisions apply in § 1983 actions, see Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y. v.Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478 (1980); Hardin v. Straub, 490 U. S. 536 (1989), on the ground that petitioner's claim was "in part one for habeas corpus." 997 F. 2d, at 358.) Under our analysis the statute of limitations poses no difficulty while the state challenges are being pursued, since the § 1983 claim has not yet arisen. Just as a cause of action for malicious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceedings have terminated in the plaintiff's favor, 1 C. Corman, Limitation of Actions § 7.4.1, p. 532 (1991); Carnes v. Atkins Bros. Co., 123 La. 26, 31, 48 So. 572, 574 (1909), so also a § 1983 cause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated.[10] Applying these principles to the present action, in which both courts below found that the damages claims challenged the legality of the conviction, we find that the dismissal of the action was correct. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is Affirmed. Justice Thomas, concurring. The Court and Justice Souter correctly begin their analyses with the realization that "[t]his case lies at the intersection of . . . the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2254." Ante, at 480; post, at 491. One need only read the respective opinions in this case to understand the difficulty of the task before the Court today. Both the Court and Justice Souter embark on a similar enterprise—harmonizing "[t]he broad language of § 1983," a "general" statute, with "the specific federal habeas corpus statute." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 489 (1973). I write separately to note that it is we who have put § 1983 and the habeas statute on what Justice Souter appropriately terms a "collision course." Post, at 492. It has long been recognized that we have expanded the prerogative writ of habeas corpus and § 1983 far beyond the limited scope either was originally intended to have. Cf., e. g., Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 285-286 (1992) (opinion of Thomas, J.) (habeas); Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103, 117 (1989) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (§ 1983). Expanding the two historic statutes brought them squarely into conflict in the context of suits by state prisoners, as we made clear in Preiser. Given that the Court created the tension between the two statutes, it is Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 76

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

proper for the Court to devise limitations aimed at ameliorating the conflict, provided that it does so in a principled fashion. Cf. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 342 (1986). Because the Court today limits the scope of § 1983 in a manner consistent both with the federalism concerns undergirding the explicit exhaustion requirement of the habeas statute, ante, at 483, and with the state of the common law at the time § 1983 was enacted, ante, at 484-486, and n. 4, I join the Court's opinion. Justice Souter, with whom Justice Blackmun, Justice Stevens, and Justice O'Connor join, concurring in the judgment. The Court begins its analysis as I would, by observing that "[t]his case lies at the intersection of the two most fertile sources of federal-court prisoner litigation—the Civil Rights Act of 1871, . . . 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2254," two statutes that "provide access to a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials," while "differ[ing] in their scope and operation." Ante, at 480. But instead of analyzing the statutes to determine which should yield to the other at this intersection, the Court appears to take the position that the statutes were never on a collision course in the first place because, like the common-law tort of malicious prosecution, § 1983 requires (and, presumably, has always required) plaintiffs seeking damages for unconstitutional conviction or confinement to show the favorable termination of the underlying proceeding. See ante, at 484-487. While I do not object to referring to the common law when resolving the question this case presents, I do not think that the existence of the tort of malicious prosecution alone provides the answer. Common-law tort rules can provide a "starting point for the inquiry under § 1983," Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 258 (1978), but we have relied on the common law in § 1983 cases only when doing so was thought to be consistent with ordinary rules of statutory construction, as when common-law principles have textual support in other provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, see, e. g., id., at 255-256 (damages under § 1983), or when those principles were so fundamental and widely understood at the time § 1983 was enacted that the 42d Congress could not be presumed to have abrogated them silently, see, e. g., Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 376 (1951) (immunity under § 1983); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 553-554 (1967) (same). At the same time, we have consistently refused to allow commonlaw analogies to displace statutory analysis, declining to import even well-settled common-law rules into § 1983 "if [the statute's] history or purpose counsel against applying [such rules] in § 1983 actions." Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U. S. 158, 164 (1992); see also Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914, 920-921 (1984). Cf. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 645 (1987) ("[W]e have never suggested that the precise contours of official immunity [under § 1983] can and should be slavishly derived from the often arcane rules of the common law").[1] An examination of common-law sources arguably relevant in this case confirms the soundness of our hierarchy of principles for resolving questions concerning § 1983. If the common law were not merely a "starting Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 77

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

point" for the analysis under § 1983, but its destination, then (unless we were to have some authority to choose common-law requirements we like and discard the others) principle would compel us to accept as elements of the § 1983 cause of action not only the malicious-prosecution tort's favorable-termination requirement, but other elements of the tort that cannot coherently be transplanted. In addition to proving favorable termination, a plaintiff in a malicious-prosecution action, according to the same sources the Court relies upon, must prove the "[a]bsence of probable cause for the proceeding" as well as "`[m]alice,' or a primary purpose other than that of bringing an offender to justice." W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 871 (5th ed. 1984) (hereinafter Prosser and Keeton); see also 8 S. Speiser, C. Krause, & A. Gans, American Law of Torts § 28:7, p. 38, § 28:11, p. 61 (1991). As § 1983 requirements, however, these elements would mean that even a § 1983 plaintiff whose conviction was invalidated as unconstitutional (premised, for example, on a confession coerced by an interrogation-room beating) could not obtain damages for the unconstitutional conviction and ensuing confinement if the defendant police officials (or perhaps the prosecutor) had probable cause to believe the plaintiff was guilty and intended to bring him to justice. Absent an independent statutory basis for doing so, importing into § 1983 the malicious-prosecution tort's favorable-termination requirement but not its probable cause requirement would be particularly odd since it is from the latter that the former derives. See Prosser and Keeton 874 ("The requirement that the criminal prosecution terminate in favor of the malicious prosecution plaintiff . . . is primarily important not as an independent element of the malicious prosecution action but only for what it shows about probable cause or guilt-in-fact"); M. Bigelow, Leading Cases on Law of Torts 196 (1875) ("The action for a malicious prosecution cannot be maintained until the prosecution has terminated; for otherwise the plaintiff might obtain judgment in the one case and yet be convicted in the other, which would of course disprove the averment of a want of probable cause"). If, in addition, the common law were the master of statutory analysis, not the servant (to switch metaphors), we would find ourselves with two masters to contend with here, for we would be subject not only to the tort of malicious prosecution but to the tort of abuse of process as well, see Wyatt v. Cole, supra, at 164 (calling these two actions "the most closely analogous torts" to § 1983), the latter making it "unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove that the proceeding has terminated in his favor," Prosser and Keeton 897. The Court suggests that the tort of malicious prosecution provides "the closest analogy to claims of the type considered here" because "it permits damages for confinement imposed pursuant to legal process." Ante, at 484. But the same appears to be true for the tort of abuse of process. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682, Illustration 1 (1977) (indicating that a person who, by causing a court to issue a writ of capias against someone to whom he lent money, caused the borrower to be "arrested . . . and kept in prison" is properly held liable for the arrest and imprisonment if the lender's purpose in using legal process was wrongful (and regardless of favorable termination or want of probable Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 78

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

cause)).[2] Furthermore, even if the tort of malicious prosecution were today marginally more analogous than other torts to the type of § 1983 claim in the class of cases before us (because it alone may permit damages for unlawful conviction or postconviction confinement, see n. 3, infra ), the Court overlooks a significant historical incongruity that calls into question the utility of the analogy to the tort of malicious prosecution insofar as it is used exclusively to determine the scope of § 1983: the damages sought in the type of § 1983 claim involved here, damages for unlawful conviction or postconviction confinement, were not available at all in an action for malicious prosecution at the time of § 1983's enactment. A defendant's conviction, under Reconstruction-era common law, dissolved his claim for malicious prosecution because the conviction was regarded as irrebuttable evidence that the prosecution never lacked probable cause. See T. Cooley, Law of Torts 185 (1879) ("If the defendant is convicted in the first instance and appeals, and is acquitted in the appellate court, the conviction below is conclusive of probable cause"). Thus the definition of "favorable termination" with which the framers of § 1983 were aware (if they were aware of any definition) included none of the events relevant to the type of § 1983 claim involved in this case ("revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, [a] declar[ation] [of] invalid[ity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or [the] call[ing] into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus," ante, at 487), and it is easy to see why the analogy to the tort of malicious prosecution in this context has escaped the collective wisdom of the many courts and commentators to have addressed the issue previously, as well as the parties to this case. Indeed, relying on the tort of malicious prosecution to dictate the outcome of this case would logically drive one to the position, untenable as a matter of statutory interpretation (and, to be clear, disclaimed by the Court), that conviction of a crime wipes out a person's § 1983 claim for damages for unconstitutional conviction or postconviction confinement.[3] We are not, however, in any such strait, for our enquiry in this case may follow the interpretive methodology employed in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 (1973) (a methodology uniformly applied by the Courts of Appeals in analyzing analogous cases, see, e. g., Young v. Kenny, 907 F. 2d 874, 875-876 (CA9 1990)). In Preiser, we read the "general" § 1983 statute in light of the "specific federal habeas corpus statute," which applies only to "person[s] in custody," 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a), and the habeas statute's policy, embodied in its exhaustion requirement, § 2254(b), that state courts be given the first opportunity to review constitutional claims bearing upon a state prisoner's release from custody. 411 U. S., at 489. Though in contrast to Preiser the state prisoner here seeks damages, not release from custody, the distinction makes no difference when the damages sought are for unconstitutional conviction or confinement. (As the Court explains, nothing in Preiser nor in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974), is properly read as holding that the relief sought in a § 1983 action dictates whether a state prisoner can proceed immediately to federal court. See ante, at 481-483.) Whether or not a federal-court § 1983 damages Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 79

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

judgment against state officials in such an action would have preclusive effect in later litigation against the State, mounting damages against the defendant-officials for unlawful confinement (damages almost certainly to be paid by state indemnification) would, practically, compel the State to release the prisoner. Because allowing a state prisoner to proceed directly with a federal-court § 1983 attack on his conviction or sentence "would wholly frustrate explicit congressional intent" as declared in the habeas exhaustion requirement, Preiser, 411 U. S., at 489, the statutory scheme must be read as precluding such attacks. This conclusion flows not from a preference about how the habeas and § 1983 statutes ought to have been written, but from a recognition that "Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, [a] specific determination [that] must override the general terms of § 1983." Id., at 490. That leaves the question of how to implement what statutory analysis requires. It is at this point that the maliciousprosecution tort's favorable-termination requirement becomes helpful, not in dictating the elements of a § 1983 cause of action, but in suggesting a relatively simple way to avoid collisions at the intersection of habeas and § 1983. A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983 damages for unconstitutional conviction or confinement, but only if he has previously established the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has the effect of requiring a state prisoner challenging the lawfulness of his confinement to follow habeas's rules before seeking § 1983 damages for unlawful confinement in federal court, and it is ultimately the Court's holding today. It neatly resolves a problem that has bedeviled lower courts, see 997 F. 2d 355, 357-358 (CA7 1993) (decision below); Young v. Kenny, supra, at 877 (discussing cases), legal commentators, see Schwartz, The Preiser Puzzle, 37 DePaul L. Rev. 85, 86-87, n. 6 (1988) (listing articles), and law students (some of whom doubtless have run up against a case like this in law-school exams). The favorable-termination requirement avoids the knotty statute-of-limitations problem that arises if federal courts dismiss § 1983 suits filed before an inmate pursues federal habeas, and (because the statute-of-limitations clock does not start ticking until an inmate's conviction is set aside) it does so without requiring federal courts to stay, and therefore to retain on their dockets, prematurely filed § 1983 suits. See ante, at 489.[4] It may be that the Court's analysis takes it no further than I would thus go, and that any objection I may have to the Court's opinion is to style, not substance. The Court acknowledges the habeas exhaustion requirement and explains that it is the reason that the habeas statute "intersect[s]" in this case with § 1983, which does not require exhaustion, see ante, at 480; it describes the issue it faces as "the same" as that in Preiser, ante, at 483; it recites the principle that common-law tort rules "`provide the appropriate starting point for the inquiry under § 1983,' " ibid. (quoting Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S., at 257-258); and it does not transpose onto § 1983 elements of the malicious-prosecution tort that are incompatible with the policies of § 1983 and the habeas statute as relevant to claims by state prisoners. The Court's opinion can be read as saying nothing more Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 80

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

than that now, after enactment of the habeas statute and because of it, prison inmates seeking § 1983 damages in federal court for unconstitutional conviction or confinement must satisfy a requirement analogous to the malicious-prosecution tort's favorable-termination requirement. Cf. ante, at 491 (Thomas, J., concurring). That would be a sensible way to read the opinion, in part because the alternative would needlessly place at risk the rights of those outside the intersection of § 1983 and the habeas statute, individuals not "in custody" for habeas purposes. If these individuals (people who were merely fined, for example, or who have completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or parole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a constitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences), like state prisoners, were required to show the prior invalidation of their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983 damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, the result would be to deny any federal forum for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to those who cannot first obtain a favorable state ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals not "in custody" cannot invoke federal habeas jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue state officials in federal court for violating federal rights. That would be an untoward result. It is one thing to adopt a rule that forces prison inmates to follow the federal habeas route with claims that fall within the plain language of § 1983 when that is necessary to prevent a requirement of the habeas statute from being undermined. That is what the Court did in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S., at 489-492, and that is what the Court's rule would do for state prisoners. Harmonizing § 1983 and the habeas statute by requiring a state prisoner seeking damages for unconstitutional conviction to establish the previous invalidation of his conviction does not run afoul of what we have called, repeatedly, "[t]he very purpose of" § 1983: "to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people's federal rights." Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 242 (1972); see also Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522, 541 (1984); Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S. 496, 503 (1982). A prisoner caught at the intersection of § 1983 and the habeas statute can still have his attack on the lawfulness of his conviction or confinement heard in federal court, albeit one sitting as a habeas court; and, depending on the circumstances, he may be able to obtain § 1983 damages. It would be an entirely different matter, however, to shut off federal courts altogether to claims that fall within the plain language of § 1983. "[I]rrespective of the common law support" for a general rule disfavoring collateral attacks, the Court lacks the authority to do any such thing absent unambiguous congressional direction where, as here, reading § 1983 to exclude claims from federal court would run counter to "§ 1983's history" and defeat the statute's "purpose." Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U. S., at 158. Consider the case of a former slave framed by Ku Klux Klan-controlled lawenforcement officers and convicted by a Klan-controlled state court of, for example, raping a white woman; and suppose that the unjustly convicted Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 81

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

defendant did not (and could not) discover the proof of unconstitutionality until after his release from state custody. If it were correct to say that § 1983 independently requires a person not in custody to establish the prior invalidation of his conviction, it would have been equally right to tell the former slave that he could not seek federal relief even against the law-enforcement officers who framed him unless he first managed to convince the state courts that his conviction was unlawful. That would be a result hard indeed to reconcile either with the purpose of § 1983 or with the origins of what was "popularly known as the Ku Klux Act," Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S. 651, 657 (1951), the statute having been enacted in part out of concern that many state courts were "in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights," Mitchum v. Foster, supra, at 240; cf. Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 577 (1871) (Sen. Trumbull explaining that, under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, "the Federal Government has a right to set aside . . . action of the State authorities" that deprives a person of his Fourteenth Amendment rights). It would also be a result unjustified by the habeas statute or any other post-§ 1983 enactment. Nor do I see any policy reflected in a congressional enactment that would justify denying to an individual today federal damages (a significantly less disruptive remedy than an order compelling release from custody) merely because he was unconstitutionally fined by a State, or to a person who discovers after his release from prison that, for example, state officials deliberately withheld exculpatory material. And absent such a statutory policy, surely the common law can give us no authority to narrow the "broad language" of § 1983, which speaks of deprivations of "any" constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, by "[e]very" person acting under color of state law, and to which "we have given full effect [by] recognizing that § 1983 `provide[s] a remedy, to be broadly construed, against all forms of official violation of federally protected rights.' " Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U. S. 439, 443, 445 (1991) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 700-701 (1978)). In sum, while the malicious-prosecution analogy provides a useful mechanism for implementing what statutory analysis requires, congressional policy as reflected in enacted statutes must ultimately be the guide. I would thus be clear that the proper resolution of this case (involving, of course, a state prisoner) is to construe § 1983 in light of the habeas statute and its explicit policy of exhaustion. I would not cast doubt on the ability of an individual unaffected by the habeas statute to take advantage of the broad reach of § 1983. [*] A brief of amici curiae was filed for the State of Arizona et al.by Grant Woods, Attorney General of Arizona, Paul J. McMurdie, and Linda L. Knowles, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: James H. Evans of Alabama, Winston Bryant of Arkansas, Daniel E. Lungren of California,Robert A. Butter worth of Florida,Larry EchoHawk of Idaho, Roland W. Burris of Illinois, Chris Gorman of Kentucky,Michael C. Moore of Mississippi, Joseph T. Mazurek of Montana, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Deborah T. Poritz of New Jersey, Lee Fisher of Ohio, T. Travis Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 82

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Medlock of South Carolina, Mark W. Barnett of South Dakota, Dan Morales of Texas, Jan Graham of Utah, and Joseph B. Meyer of Wyoming. [1] Section 1983 provides: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." [3] Neither in his petition for certiorari nor in his principal brief on the merits did petitioner contest the description of his monetary claims (by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals) as challenging the legality of his conviction. Thus, the question we understood to be before us was whether money damages premised on an unlawful conviction could be pursued under § 1983. Petitioner sought to challenge this premise in his reply brief, contending that findings validating his damages claims would not invalidate his conviction. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 5-6. That argument comes too late. We did not take this case to review such a fact-bound issue, and we accept the characterization of the lower courts. We also decline to pursue, without implying the nonexistence of, another issue, suggested by the Court of Appeals' statement that, if petitioner's "conviction were proper, this suit would in all likelihood be barred by res judicata." 997 F. 2d 355, 357 (CA7 1993). The res judicata effect of state-court decisions in § 1983 actions is a matter of state law. See Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U. S. 75 (1984). [4] Title 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b) provides: "An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner." [5] Justice Souter criticizes our reliance on malicious prosecution's favorable termination requirement as illustrative of the common-law principle barring tort plaintiffs from mounting collateral attacks on their outstanding criminal convictions. Malicious prosecution is an inapt analogy, he says, because "[a] defendant's conviction, under Reconstruction-era common law, dissolved his claim for malicious prosecution because the conviction was regarded as irrebuttable evidence that the prosecution never lacked probable cause." Post, at 496, citing T. Cooley, Law of Torts 185 (1879). Chief Justice Cooley no doubt intended merely to set forth the general rule that a conviction defeated the malicious prosecution plaintiff's allegation (essential to his cause of action) that the prior proceeding was without probable cause. But this was not an absolute rule in all jurisdictions, see Goodrich v. Warner, 21 Conn. 432, 443 (1852); Richter v. Koster, 45 Ind. 440, 441-442 (1874), and early Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 83

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

on it was recognized that there must be exceptions to the rule in cases involving circumstances such as fraud, perjury, or mistake of law, see Burt v. Place, 4 Wend. 591 (N. Y. 1830); Witham v. Gowen, 14 Me. 362 (1837); Olson v. Neal, 63 Iowa 214, 18 N. W. 863 (1884). Some cases even held that a "conviction, although it be afterwards reversed, is prima facie evidence—and that only—of the existence of probable cause." Neher v. Dobbs, 41 Neb. 863, 868, 66 N. W. 864, 865 (1896) (collecting cases). In Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Slaughter-House Co., 120 U. S. 141 (1887), we recognized that "[h]ow much weight as proof of probable cause shall be attributed to the judgment of the court in the original action, when subsequently reversed for error, may admit of some question." Id., at 149. We attempted to "reconcile the apparent contradiction in the authorities," id., at 151, by observing that the presumption of probable cause arising from a conviction can be rebutted only by showing that the conviction had been obtained by some type of fraud, ibid. Although we ultimately held for the malicious prosecution defendant, our discussion in that case well establishes that the absolute rule Justice Souter contends for did not exist. Yet even if Justice Souter were correct in asserting that a prior conviction, although reversed, "dissolved [a] claim for malicious prosecution," post, at 496, our analysis would be unaffected. It would simply demonstrate that no common-law action, not even malicious prosecution, would permit a criminal proceeding to be impugned in a tort action, even after the conviction had been reversed. That would, if anything, strengthen our belief that § 1983, which borrowed general tort principles, was not meant to permit such collateral attack. [6] Justice Souter's discussion of abuse of process, post, at 494-495, does not undermine this principle. It is true that favorable termination of prior proceedings is not an element of that cause of action—but neither is an impugning of those proceedings one of its consequences. The gravamen of that tort is not the wrongfulness of the prosecution, but some extortionate perversion of lawfully initiated process to illegitimate ends. See, e. g., Donohoe Const. Co. v. Mount Vernon Associates, 235 Va. 531, 539-540, 369 S. E. 2d 857, 862 (1988); see also 8 S. Speiser, C. Krause, & A. Gans, American Law of Torts §§ 28:32-28:34 (1991). Cognizable injury for abuse of process is limited to the harm caused by the misuse of process, and does not include harm (such as conviction and confinement) resulting from that process's being carried through to its lawful conclusion. Thus, one could no more seek compensatory damages for an outstanding criminal conviction in an action for abuse of process than in one for malicious prosecution. This limitation is illustrated by McGann v. Allen, 105 Conn. 177, 191, 134 A. 810, 815 (1926), where the court held that expenses incurred by the plaintiff in defending herself against crimes charged against her were not compensable in a suit for abuse of process, since "[d]amage[s] for abuse of process must be confined to the damage flowing from such abuse, and be confined to the period of time involved in taking plaintiff, after her arrest, to [defendant's] store, and the detention there." [7] An example of this latter category—a § 1983 action that does not seek Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 84

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

damages directly attributable to conviction or confinement but whose successful prosecution would necessarily imply that the plaintiff's criminal conviction was wrongful—would be the following: A state defendant is convicted of and sentenced for the crime of resisting arrest, defined as intentionally preventing a peace officer from effecting a lawful arrest. (This is a common definition of that offense. See People v. Peacock, 68 N. Y. 2d 675, 496 N. E. 2d 683 (1986); 4 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 593, p. 307 (14th ed. 1981).) He then brings a § 1983 action against the arresting officer, seeking damages for violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. In order to prevail in this § 1983 action, he would have to negate an element of the offense of which he has been convicted. Regardless of the state law concerning res judicata, see n. 2, supra, the § 1983 action will not lie. [8] For example, a suit for damages attributable to an allegedly unreasonable search may lie even if the challenged search produced evidence that was introduced in a state criminal trial resulting in the § 1983 plaintiff's still-outstanding conviction. Because of doctrines like independent source and inevitable discovery, see Murray v. United States, 487 U. S. 533, 539 (1988), and especially harmless error, see Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279, 307-308 (1991), such a § 1983 action, even if successful, would not necessarily imply that the plaintiff's conviction was unlawful. In order to recover compensatory damages, however, the § 1983 plaintiff must prove not only that the search was unlawful, but that it caused him actual, compensable injury, see Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U. S. 299, 308 (1986), which, we hold today, does not encompass the "injury" of being convicted and imprisoned (until his conviction has been overturned). [9] For example, if a state criminal defendant brings a federal civil-rights lawsuit during the pendency of his criminal trial, appeal, or state habeas action, abstention may be an appropriate response to the parallel state-court proceedings. See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976). Moreover, we do not decide whether abstention might be appropriate in cases where a state prisoner brings a § 1983 damages suit raising an issue that also could be grounds for relief in a state-court challenge to his conviction or sentence. Cf. Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914, 923 (1984). [10] State courts are bound to apply federal rules in determining the preclusive effect of federal-court decisions on issues of federal law. See P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1604 (3d ed. 1988) ("It is clear that where the federal court decided a federal question, federal res judicata rules govern"); Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U. S. 499, 514-518 (1903); Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U. S. 165, 170-171, 174-175 (1938). The federal rules on the subject of issue and claim preclusion, unlike those relating to exhaustion of state remedies, are "almost entirely judge-made." Hart & Wechsler's, supra, at 1598; see also Burbank, Interjurisdictional Preclusion, Full Faith and Credit and Federal Common Law: A General Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 85

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Approach, 71 Cornell L. Rev. 733, 747-778 (1986). And in developing them the courts can, and indeed should, be guided by the federal policies reflected in congressional enactments. Cf.Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375, 390-391 (1970).See also United States v. Mendoza, 464 U. S. 154 (1984) (recognizing exception to general principles of res judicata in light of overriding federal policy concerns).Thus, the court-made preclusion rules may, as judicial application of the categorical mandate of § 1983may not, see Patsy v.Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U. S.496,509 (1982),take account of the policy embodied in§ 2254(b)'s exhaustion requirement, see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982), that state courts be given the first opportunity to review constitutional claims bearing upon state prisoners' release from custody. [1] Justice Souter also adopts the common-law principle that one cannot use the device of a civil tort action to challenge the validity of an outstanding criminal conviction, but thinks it necessary to abandon that principle in those cases (of which no real-life example comes to mind) involving former state prisoners who, because they are no longer in custody, cannot bring postconviction challenges. Post, at 500. We think the principle barring collateral attacks—a longstanding and deeply rooted feature of both the common law and our own jurisprudence—is not rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated. Justice Souter opines that disallowing a damages suit for a former state prisoner framed by Ku Klux Klan-dominated state officials is "hard indeed to reconcile . . . with the purpose of § 1983." Post, at 502. But if, as Justice Souter appears to suggest, the goal of our interpretive enterprise under § 1983 were to provide a remedy for all conceivable invasions of federal rights that freedmen may have suffered at the hands of officials of the former States of the Confederacy, the entire landscape of our § 1983 jurisprudence would look very different. We would not, for example, have adopted the rule that judicial officers have absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967), a rule that would prevent recovery by a former slave who had been tried and convicted before a corrupt state judge in league with the Ku Klux Klan. [2] Our recent opinion in Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U. S. 158 (1992), summarized the manner in which the Court has analyzed the relationship between the common law and § 1983 in the context of immunity: "Section 1983 `creates a species of tort liability that on its face admits of no immunities.' Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976). Nonetheless, we have accorded certain government officials either absolute or qualified immunity from suit if the `tradition of immunity was so firmly rooted in the common law and was supported by such strong policy reasons that "Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine."` Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 637 (1980) (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 555 (1967)). If parties seeking immunity were shielded from tort liability when Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871—§ 1 of which is codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1983—we infer from legislative silence that Congress did not intend to abrogate such Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 86

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

immunities when it imposed liability for actions taken under color of state law. See Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914, 920 (1984); Imbler, supra, at 421; Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U. S. 522, 529 (1984). Additionally, irrespective of the common law support, we will not recognize an immunity available at common law if § 1983's history or purpose counsel against applying it in § 1983 actions. Tower, supra, at 920. See also Imbler, supra, at 424-429." Id., at 163-164. In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy stated: "It must be remembered that unlike the common-law judges whose doctrines we adopt, we are devising limitations to a remedial statute, enacted by the Congress, which `on its face does not provide for any immunities.' " Id., at 171 (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 342 (1986)) (emphasis added in Malley ). [3] As the Court observes, there are differences between the tort of abuse of process and that of malicious prosecution. Ante, at 486, n. 5. While "the gist of the tort [of malicious prosecution] is . . . . commencing an action or causing process to issue without justification," abuse of process involves "misusing, or misapplying process justified in itself for an end other than that which it was designed to accomplish." Prosser and Keeton 897. Neither common-law tort, however, precisely matches the statutory § 1983 claim for damages for unlawful conviction or confinement; and, depending on the nature of the underlying right alleged to have been violated (consider, for example, the right not to be selected for prosecution solely because of one's race), the tort of abuse of process might provide a better analogy to a § 1983 claim for unconstitutional conviction or confinement than the malicious-prosecution tort. [4] Some of the traditional common-law requirements appear to have liberalized over the years, see Prosser and Keeton 882 ("There is a considerable minority view which regards the conviction as creating only a presumption, which may be rebutted by any competent evidence showing that probable cause for the prosecution did not in fact exist"), strengthening the analogy the Court draws. But surely the Court is not of the view that a single tort in its late 20th-century form can conclusively (and retroactively) dictate the requirements of a 19th-century statute for a discrete category of cases. Defending the historical analogy, the Court suggests that Chief Justice Cooley did not mean what he clearly said and that, despite the Cooley treatise, the Reconstruction-era common law recognized a limited exception to the rule denying a malicious-prosecution plaintiff the benefit of the invalidation of his conviction: an exception for convictions "obtained by some type of fraud." Ante, at 485, n. 4 (citing Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Slaughter-House Co., 120 U. S. 141, 151 (1887)). Even if such a narrow exception existed, however, the tort of malicious prosecution as it stood during the mid-19th century would still make for a weak analogy to a statutory action under which, as even the Court accepts, defendants whose convictions were reversed as violating "any righ[t] . . . secured by the Constitution," 42 U. S. C. § 1983, may obtain damages for the unlawful confinement associated with the conviction (assuming, of course, no immunity bar). Nor, of course, would the existence of such an exception explain how one element of a maliciousprosecution action may be imported into § 1983, but not the Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 87

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

others. [] The requirement that a state prisoner seeking § 1983 damages for unlawful conviction or confinement be successful in state court or on federal habeas strikes me as soundly rooted in the statutory scheme. Because "Congress has determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement, [a] specific determination [that] override[s] the general terms of § 1983," Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475, 490 (1973), a state prisoner whose constitutional attacks on his confinement have been rejected by state courts cannot be said to be unlawfully confined unless a federal habeas court declares his "custody [to be] in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States," 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a). An unsuccessful federal habeas petitioner cannot, therefore, consistently with the habeas statute, receive § 1983 damages for unlawful confinement. That is not to say, however, that a state prisoner whose request for release has been (or would be) rejected by state courts or by a federal habeas court is necessarily barred from seeking any § 1983 damages for violations of his constitutional rights. If a § 1983 judgment in his favor would not demonstrate the invalidity of his confinement he is outside the habeas statute and may seek damages for a constitutional violation even without showing "favorable termination." A state prisoner may, for example, seek damages for an unreasonable search that produced evidence lawfully or harmlessly admitted at trial, or even nominal damages for, say, a violation of his right to procedural due process, see Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 266 (1978). See ante, at 487, and n. 7.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 88

Utah POST K-9 Program

U.S.

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Supreme Court Case Law Saucier v. Katz U.S. Supreme Court

No. 99—1977 DONALD SAUCIER, PETITIONER v. ELLIOT M. KATZ and IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [June 18, 2001] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case a citizen alleged excessive force was used to arrest him. The arresting officer asserted the defense of qualified immunity. The matter we address is whether the requisite analysis to determine qualified immunity is so intertwined with the question whether the officer used excessive force in making the arrest that qualified immunity and constitutional violation issues should be treated as one question, to be decided by the trier of fact. The Court of Appeals held the inquiries do merge into a single question. We now reverse and hold that the ruling on qualified immunity requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making the arrest. I In autumn of 1994, the Presidio Army Base in San Francisco was the site of an event to celebrate conversion of the base to a national park. Among the speakers was Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., who attracted several hundred observers from the military and the general public. Some in attendance were not on hand to celebrate, however. Respondent Elliot Katz was concerned that the Army’s Letterman Hospital would be used for conducting experiments on animals. (Katz was president of a group called In Defense of Animals. Although both he and the group are respondents here, the issues we discuss center upon Katz, and we refer to him as “respondent”). To voice opposition to the possibility that the hospital might be used for experiments, respondent brought with him a cloth banner, approximately 4 by 3 feet, that read “Please Keep Animal Torture Out of Our National Parks.” In the past, as respondent was aware, members of the public had been asked to leave the military base when they engaged in certain activities, such as distributing handbills; and he kept the banner concealed under his jacket as he walked through the base. The area designated for the speakers contained seating for the general public, separated from the stage by a waist-high fence. Respondent sat in the front row of the public seating area. At about the time Vice President Gore began speaking, respondent removed the banner from his jacket, started to unfold it, and walked toward the fence and speakers’ platform. Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 89

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

Petitioner Donald Saucier is a military police officer who was on duty that day. He had been warned by his superiors of the possibility of demonstrations, and respondent had been identified as a potential protestor. Petitioner and Sergeant Steven Parker–also a military police officer, but not a party to the suit–recognized respondent and moved to intercept him as he walked toward the fence. As he reached the barrier and began placing the banner on the other side, the officers grabbed respondent from behind, took the banner, and rushed him out of the area. Each officer had one of respondent’s arms, half-walking, half-dragging him, with his feet “barely touching the ground.” App. 24. Respondent was wearing a visible, knee-high leg brace, although petitioner later testified he did not remember noticing it at the time. Saucier and Parker took respondent to a nearby military van, where, respondent claims, he was shoved or thrown inside. Id., at 25. The reason for the shove remains unclear. It seems agreed that respondent placed his feet somewhere on the outside of the van, perhaps the bumper, but there is a dispute whether he did so to resist. As a result of the shove, respondent claims, he fell to the floor of the van, where he caught himself just in time to avoid any injury. The officers drove respondent to a military police station, held him for a brief time, and then released him. Though the details are not clear, it appears that at least one other protestor was also placed into the van and detained for a brief time. Id., at 27. Respondent brought this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against petitioner and other officials pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging, inter alia, that defendants had violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to arrest him. The District Court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity on all claims other than the excessive force claim against Saucier. It held a dispute on a material fact existed concerning whether excessive force was used to remove respondent from the crowd and place him into the van. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a. The District Court held that the law governing excessive force claims was clearly established at the time of the arrest, and that “[i]n the Fourth Amendment context, the qualified immunity inquiry is the same as the inquiry made on the merits.” Id., at 29a—30a. As a result, it ruled, petitioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Id., at 30a. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit petitioner filed an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. 194 F.3d 962 (1999). The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting at the outset its two-part analysis for qualified immunity questions. First, the Court of Appeals considers “whether the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established.” Id., at 967. If it was not, that ends the matter, and the official is entitled to immunity. If, however, the law was clearly established when the conduct occurred, the Court of Appeals’ second step is to determine if a reasonable officer could have believed, in light of the clearly established law, that his conduct was lawful. Ibid. As to the first step of its analysis, the court observed that Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), sets forth the objective reasonableness test for evaluating Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 90

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

excessive force claims, a principle the Court of Appeals concluded was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes. The court then concluded that the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry and the merits of the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim are identical, since both concern the objective reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in light of the circumstances the officer faced on the scene. 194 F.3d, at 968. On this reasoning, summary judgment based on qualified immunity was held inappropriate. Id., at 968—969. Saucier, represented by the Government of the United States, sought review here, arguing the Court of Appeals erred in its view that the qualified immunity inquiry is the same as the constitutional inquiry and so becomes superfluous or duplicative when excessive force is alleged. We granted certiorari, 531 U.S. 991 (2000). II The Court of Appeals ruled first that the right was clearly established; and second that the reasonableness inquiry into excessive force meant that it need not consider aspects of qualified immunity, leaving the whole matter to the jury. 194 F.3d, at 967. This approach cannot be reconciled with Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), however, and was in error in two respects. As we shall explain, the first inquiry must be whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged; second, assuming the violation is established, the question whether the right was clearly established must be considered on a more specific level than recognized by the Court of Appeals. In a suit against an officer for an alleged violation of a constitutional right, the requisites of a qualified immunity defense must be considered in proper sequence. Where the defendant seeks qualified immunity, a ruling on that issue should be made early in the proceedings so that the costs and expenses of trial are avoided where the defense is dispositive. Qualified immunity is “an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). The privilege is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Ibid. As a result, “we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam). A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider, then, this threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right? This must be the initial inquiry. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 (1991). In the course of determining whether a constitutional right was violated on the premises alleged, a court might find it necessary to set forth principles which will become the basis for a holding that a right is clearly established. This is the process for the law’s elaboration from case to case, and it is one reason for our insisting Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 91

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

upon turning to the existence or nonexistence of a constitutional right as the first inquiry. The law might be deprived of this explanation were a court simply to skip ahead to the question whether the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case. If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition; and it too serves to advance understanding of the law and to allow officers to avoid the burden of trial if qualified immunity is applicable. In this litigation, for instance, there is no doubt that Graham v. Connor, supra, clearly establishes the general proposition that use of force is contrary to the Fourth Amendment if it is excessive under objective standards of reasonableness. Yet that is not enough. Rather, we emphasized in Anderson “that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” 483 U.S., at 640. The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. See Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 (1999) (“[A]s we explained in Anderson, the right allegedly violated must be defined at the appropriate level of specificity before a court can determine if it was clearly established”). The approach the Court of Appeals adopted–to deny summary judgment any time a material issue of fact remains on the excessive force claim–could undermine the goal of qualified immunity to “avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate. See Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) (qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”). This is not to say that the formulation of a general rule is beside the point, nor is it to insist the courts must have agreed upon the precise formulation of the standard. Assuming, for instance, that various courts have agreed that certain conduct is a constitutional violation under facts not distinguishable in a fair way from the facts presented in the case at hand, the officer would not be entitled to qualified immunity based simply on the argument that courts had not agreed on one verbal formulation of the controlling standard.

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 92

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

The Court of Appeals concluded that qualified immunity is merely duplicative in an excessive force case, eliminating the need for the second step where a constitutional violation could be found based on the allegations. In Anderson, a warrantless search case, we rejected the argument that there is no distinction between the reasonableness standard for warrantless searches and the qualified immunity inquiry. We acknowledged there was some “surface appeal” to the argument that, because the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee was a right to be free from “unreasonable” searches and seizures, it would be inconsistent to conclude that an officer who acted unreasonably under the constitutional standard nevertheless was entitled to immunity because he “ ‘reasonably’ acted unreasonably.” 483 U.S., at 643. This superficial similarity, however, could not overcome either our history of applying qualified immunity analysis to Fourth Amendment claims against officers or the justifications for applying the doctrine in an area where officers perform their duties with considerable uncertainty as to “whether particular searches or seizures comport with the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 644. With respect, moreover, to the argument made in Anderson that an exception should be made for Fourth Amendment cases, we observed “the heavy burden this argument must sustain to be successful,” since “the doctrine of qualified immunity reflects a balance that has been struck ‘across the board.’ ” Id., at 642 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, at 821). We held that qualified immunity applied in the Fourth Amendment context just as it would for any other claim of official misconduct. 483 U.S., at 644. Faced, then, with the heavy burden of distinguishing Anderson and of carving out an exception to the typical qualified immunity analysis applied in other Fourth Amendment contexts, the primary submission by respondent in defense of the Court of Appeals’ decision is that our decision in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), somehow changes matters. Graham, in respondent’s view, sets forth an excessive force analysis indistinguishable from qualified immunity, rendering the separate immunity inquiry superfluous and inappropriate. Respondent asserts that, like the qualified immunity analysis applicable in other contexts, the excessive force test already affords officers latitude for mistaken beliefs as to the amount of force necessary, so that “Graham has addressed for the excessive force area most of the concerns expressed in Anderson.” Brief for Respondents 7. Respondent points out that Graham did not address the interaction of excessive force claims and qualified immunity, since the issue was not raised, see 490 U.S., at 399, n. 12; and respondent seeks to distinguish Anderson on the theory that the issue of probable cause implicates evolving legal standards and resulting legal uncertainty, a subject raising recurrent questions of qualified immunity. By contrast, respondent says, excessive force is governed by the standard established in Graham, a standard providing ample guidance for particular situations. Finally, respondent adopts the suggestion made by one Court of Appeals that the relevant distinction is that probable cause is an ex post inquiry, whereas excessive force, like qualified immunity, should be evaluated from an ex ante perspective. See Finnegan v. Fountain, 915 F.2d 817, 824, n. 11 (CA2 1990).

Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 93

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

These arguments or attempted distinctions cannot bear the weight respondent seeks to place upon them. Graham did not change the qualified immunity framework explained in Anderson. The inquiries for qualified immunity and excessive force remain distinct, even after Graham. In Graham, we held that claims of excessive force in the context of arrests or investigatory stops should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness standard,” not under substantive due process principles. 490 U.S., at 388, 394. Because “police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments–in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving–about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation,” id., at 397, the reasonableness of the officer’s belief as to the appropriate level of force should be judged from that on-scene perspective. Id., at 396. We set out a test that cautioned against the “20/20 vision of hindsight” in favor of deference to the judgment of reasonable officers on the scene. Id., at 393, 396. Graham sets forth a list of factors relevant to the merits of the constitutional excessive force claim, “requir[ing] careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id., at 396. If an officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that a suspect was likely to fight back, for instance, the officer would be justified in using more force than in fact was needed. The qualified immunity inquiry, on the other hand, has a further dimension. The concern of the immunity inquiry is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes can be made as to the legal constraints on particular police conduct. It is sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine, here excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts. An officer might correctly perceive all of the relevant facts but have a mistaken understanding as to whether a particular amount of force is legal in those circumstances. If the officer’s mistake as to what the law requires is reasonable, however, the officer is entitled to the immunity defense. Graham does not always give a clear answer as to whether a particular application of force will be deemed excessive by the courts. This is the nature of a test which must accommodate limitless factual circumstances. This reality serves to refute respondent’s claimed distinction between excessive force and other Fourth Amendment contexts; in both spheres the law must be elaborated from case to case. Qualified immunity operates in this case, then, just as it does in others, to protect officers from the sometimes “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force,” Priester v. Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 926—927 (CA11 2000), and to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful. Graham and Anderson refute the excessive force/probable cause distinction on which much of respondent’s position seems to depend. The deference owed Revised 30 September 2020 by Wendell Nope - Law Enforcement Use Only

Ch. 19 Pg. 94

Utah POST K-9 Program

Patrol Dog Training Manual

officers facing suits for alleged excessive force is not different in some qualitative respect from the probable cause inquiry in Anderson. Officers can have reasonable, but mistaken, beliefs as to the facts establishing the existence of probable cause or exigent circumstances, for example, and in those situations courts will not hold that they have violated the Constitution. Yet, even if a court were to hold that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting an unreasonable, warrantless search, Anderson still operates to grant officers immunity for reasonable mistakes as to the legality of their actions. The same analysis is applicable in