Richmond cops rethink handling of animals

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | Feb. 08, 2006 | By Karl Fischer

[MRMEAN]

Richmond police plan to re-evaluate their rules for shooting animals after an investigative panel found that officers lacked proper policy guidance when they killed a pit bull this past summer.

After a closed meeting last week, the Police Commission sustained the owner's appeal of a department finding that cleared the three officers who shot her dog in July.

The commission found no fault with the officers -- it did not investigate their conduct -- but attributed the death of Cynthia Peters' dog to "policy failure."

"The policy was clearly deficient," commission investigator Don Casimere said. "There needs to be much more information, more guidelines, provided to officers."

Police Chief Chris Magnus, who did not work for the department when it investigated the complaint, said he intends to incorporate the commission's suggestions and consider more training for officers about dealing with dogs.

"I think our policy is well within the mainstream. A lot of other agencies have crafted very similar policies," he said. "But we can always do a lot more in terms of policy and training, and we're looking into that now."

Department regulations for shooting at people are detailed. Police train extensively to hone their decision-making skills for dealing with potentially threatening humans.

But policy for shooting animals is comparatively sparse, permitting officers to use force against any animal if it appears threatening.

"Our officers do not want or intend to shoot dogs and always look for any other reasonable way to deal with the situation," said Detective Kevin Martin, president of the Richmond Police Officers Association. "But sometimes there is no other recourse."

This was not such a case, said attorney Karen Snell, who last month filed damage claims with the city on behalf of Peters and her boyfriend, Mark Parr.

"What I have seen so far is that there are serious problems with the current policy that need to be addressed," Snell said.

Peters and Parr say officers faced no obvious threat July 27 when their dog, Blu, bounded out from a side gate of their Sixth Street apartment building. Members of the Violence Suppression Unit had chased a drug-dealing suspect inside.

Police said the dog lunged, while several witnesses said it did not.

Those differences came to light in December, when during a public report to City Council the department's Professional Standards Unit revealed that it did not interview Peters' witnesses.

Her complaint was not sustained. Nor was that of Parr, who claims police jailed him because he asked why the officers shot his dog. Police deny impropriety.

Both Peters and Parr appealed to the commission, a panel of residents appointed by the mayor to investigate civil rights complaints against city police.

But because of statutory time limits for investigating complaints against police in California, the commission did not consider whether the officers should have been disciplined, Casimere said.

"It was really shameful for (former Chief Terry Hudson) to say they had done an investigation when they hadn't interviewed Cynthia or other witnesses. ... Then they took the officers' words as gospel," Snell said.

A similar shooting in Richmond contributed to federal case law in 1994, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that officers violated a dog owner's Fourth Amendment rights by killing his pet. The city paid him $525,000.

[muawiyah]

Here's a policy ~ Pitbull loose; officers must shoot.

Pitbull locked up; officers not.

[brooklin]

check this out

[HairOfTheDog]

In light of the earlier ping today where the officers entered a fenced yard of a home that was not even a suspect and shot the dogs, I think better policy is indeed warranted!

Ping!

Other articles with keyword "DOGGIEPING" since 12/29/04

[sinkspur]

Police departments are getting the message that animal owners are sick and tired of the cavalier attitude often taken by officers in dealing with animals when they're in their own yard and the cop is the interloper!

Jurors are not automatically going to take the side of the police when an officer overreacts to a dog who surprises him. I know I wouldn't.

[muawiyah]

It was an apartment building with a public entrance.

[alwaysconservative]

The policy DEFINITELY needs "rethinking"!

[Goodgirlinred]

That is not a good plan at all. If the dog was not acting in a threatening manner, which is what the witnesses said, the police had no reason to shoot it.

Why does pit bull always have to mean "vicious dog?" I have seen pit bulls on television shows who are very well behaved, loving animals. It depends on the breeding and the training.

[Goodgirlinred]

Exactly! A dog does not know the difference from a police officer and a burglar. My dog would defend me against any intruder. If a police officer were to break into my home by mistake, he should expect my dog to growl a warning at least, and he better not shoot my dog!

[muawiyah]

The best possible pitbull is the one we watch on television ~

[Goodgirlinred]

Well, I was watching Animal Planet about this woman who finds home for inner city strays, and one of the dogs was a pit bull. It was a very loving dog and she adopted it out to a young man. It was very gentle and was kissing him and her in the face and was so happy to have found a new owner. These strays were called "Rocket Dogs."