Tweet
Hopefully everyones aware of this, and it doesn't pass.
AB 742: Police K-9s
?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.?
Below is San Diego PD Chief Nisleit?s statement.
San Diego Police Department
11h ?
San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit issued the following statement today on the proposed Assembly Bill 742 (AB 742), which would prohibit and restrict the use of police canines.
Chief Nisleit Statement:
?The proposed California State Assembly Bill 742 is another flawed attempt by state legislators to reduce racial disparities and use of force in policing.
Since 1984, SDPD has used police K-9?s to locate and apprehend suspects in circumstances that are exceedingly dangerous for officers, such as searching in dark canyons, buildings, homes, or vehicles, where a concealed suspect maintains an advantage over officers. The K-9 affords officers time and distance to better analyze the situation and respond appropriately from a safer distance.
SDPD has an extensive selection, academy and training program for canine handlers that exceeds California P.O.S.T. requirements. SDPD has policies and procedures which outline how and when K-9?s can be used in the field as well as procedures for review of every apprehension using a K-9.
The vast majority of K-9 deployments in San Diego are for de-escalating dangerous/volatile incidents with confrontational, irrational, armed and/or suicidal subjects that fail to respond to the presence and direction of uniformed officers. Handlers are required to issue K-9 warnings to suspects and often, the warnings are repeated multiple times throughout an incident before a K-9 is released for apprehension.
Over the past 5 years, SDPD K9?s were used at 10,815 calls for service and accounted for 927 subjects complying with officers after just the mere presence of the K-9. In only 1% of the calls over the last 5 years, did the suspect ignore the K-9 warnings, refuse to surrender and, as a result, was bitten. No SDPD K-9 deployment has resulted in death or life-threatening injury.
AB 742 wrongly categorizes a police K-9 as deadly force, considering the K-9 no different than a firearm. Categorizing the K-9?s in this manner is misguided and would eliminate a valuable de-escalation tool in instances where other tools may have failed, but deadly force is not warranted.
The passage of AB 742 will put officers into more dangerous situations without a de-escalation tool that is capable of apprehending violent suspects without the use of a firearm.
The unintended consequence of this piece of legislation will be an increase in officer-involved shootings, officer and suspect injury, and increased threats to community safety.
I urge our legislators to keep this tool intact for the safety of our officers and the communities they serve.?
AB 742: Police K-9s
?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.?
Below is San Diego PD Chief Nisleit?s statement.
San Diego Police Department
11h ?
San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit issued the following statement today on the proposed Assembly Bill 742 (AB 742), which would prohibit and restrict the use of police canines.
Chief Nisleit Statement:
?The proposed California State Assembly Bill 742 is another flawed attempt by state legislators to reduce racial disparities and use of force in policing.
Since 1984, SDPD has used police K-9?s to locate and apprehend suspects in circumstances that are exceedingly dangerous for officers, such as searching in dark canyons, buildings, homes, or vehicles, where a concealed suspect maintains an advantage over officers. The K-9 affords officers time and distance to better analyze the situation and respond appropriately from a safer distance.
SDPD has an extensive selection, academy and training program for canine handlers that exceeds California P.O.S.T. requirements. SDPD has policies and procedures which outline how and when K-9?s can be used in the field as well as procedures for review of every apprehension using a K-9.
The vast majority of K-9 deployments in San Diego are for de-escalating dangerous/volatile incidents with confrontational, irrational, armed and/or suicidal subjects that fail to respond to the presence and direction of uniformed officers. Handlers are required to issue K-9 warnings to suspects and often, the warnings are repeated multiple times throughout an incident before a K-9 is released for apprehension.
Over the past 5 years, SDPD K9?s were used at 10,815 calls for service and accounted for 927 subjects complying with officers after just the mere presence of the K-9. In only 1% of the calls over the last 5 years, did the suspect ignore the K-9 warnings, refuse to surrender and, as a result, was bitten. No SDPD K-9 deployment has resulted in death or life-threatening injury.
AB 742 wrongly categorizes a police K-9 as deadly force, considering the K-9 no different than a firearm. Categorizing the K-9?s in this manner is misguided and would eliminate a valuable de-escalation tool in instances where other tools may have failed, but deadly force is not warranted.
The passage of AB 742 will put officers into more dangerous situations without a de-escalation tool that is capable of apprehending violent suspects without the use of a firearm.
The unintended consequence of this piece of legislation will be an increase in officer-involved shootings, officer and suspect injury, and increased threats to community safety.
I urge our legislators to keep this tool intact for the safety of our officers and the communities they serve.?
Comment