SACRAMENTO – Assembly Bill 742 (Jackson), the bill introduced at the beginning of the year to ban police canines, has been amended to now restrict canines in more severe ways than existing statute governing law enforcement’s use of firearms. In doing so, AB 742 would decimate police canine programs despite the significant benefit canines play in de-escalating situations and providing for officer safety. The Assembly is expected to vote on AB 742 in the coming days.
Below is the statement on the bill from the President of the California Police Chiefs Association, Chief Alex Gammelgard on the amended version of AB 742:
“De-escalation is the number one priority for our officers facing hostile situations, which is why our canines play such an important role. In the overwhelming majority of deployments, canines result in the suspect’s compliance without any need for force. Not allowing canines except in situations as drastic as those requiring the immediate use of a firearm shows a lack of understanding of their comprehensive value and complete disregard for community safety.”
As amended, AB 742 would only allow the use of a canine against “an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury,” which means a suspect demonstrate the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause severe injury or death. Under the proposed restrictions, canines would not be able to deploy against fleeing suspects, even following the commission of a violent or serious felony. Canines would also not be able to be used to search for suspects hiding to ambush an officer, holding a victim hostage, or nearly all but the most extreme circumstances, in which lethal force would be justified.
AB 742 is currently pending on the on the Assembly Floor and is eligible to be voted any time between now and the deadline to pass the Assembly on June 2nd.
According to the Amended Bill:
This bill would prohibit the use of an unleashed police canine by law enforcement to apprehend a person, person unless the person is being pursued for a felony that threatened or resulted in the death of or serious bodily injury to another person and the person poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person and any use of a police canine for crowd control. The bill would prohibit a police canine from being used to bite unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person by the person against whom the canine is used. The bill would attribute the death of or serious bodily injury to a person caused by a police canine to the canine‘s handler as constituting deadly force. The bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies from authorizing any use or training of a police canine that is inconsistent with this bill.
Previous Stories:
- March 22: Bill to Ban Police K-9 for Arrests and Crowd Control Moves Forward
- Feb 14: Bill to End the Use of Police Canines for Arrest and Crowd Control Introduced
1 comment
I cannot believe this stupidity! These K9’s are trained to serve and protect not only their handlers, but the citizens. I have seen them in training and in action. If there is a person threatening with a knife or a rock, and the victim is an elderly woman, I would want the officer to let his K9 attack that man so the elderly woman is safe. I would not want the dog wrapped in a leash where both the woman and the dog would get wrapped up and all would get bitten! Does somebody get paid to sit, eat lunch and think up these bills and amendments? How about better amendments like, more dogs and police brought to service with training? I’m personally a dog trainer, dogs can be used to help calm, help heal the sick, and be used to protect us from bodily harm. As proven in training dogs, it’s the people that need the training more so than the animals more often. Lets train the correct people who know about dogs to write these amendments!
Comments are closed.