Strong Statewide Laws are Urgently Needed in California to Restrict Police Attack Dogs 

Imagine taking a dog for a routine walk and being randomly and brutally attacked by another dog trained to inflict harm. 

This happened to Gary Gregory, a Benicia, California, man who was out walking his dog around his mobile park home. Police, looking for a reported gunman, detained Gregory at gunpoint and pushed him to the ground, where he knelt with his hands behind his head. As he was in this compliant posture, a police attack dog lept from the police car when the handler accidentally left the door open. The dog sank his teeth into Gregory’s neck, rupturing the man’s jugular vein. As a result, Gregory needed life-saving trauma surgery and was left with permanent muscle and nerve damage, scarring, and disfigurement.

This shocking case is only one of many involving police attack dogs in California each year. In another tragic incident, this one in Brentwood, an unarmed young woman who was hiding from police after being accused of shoplifting cosmetics had pieces of her scalp torn off by a police attack dog – while the handler allegedly stood by watching. She endured a gash on her head that exposed her skull, as well as a traumatic brain injury, headaches, memory loss, and depression.

The standard protocol to train attack dogs involves forced cruelty to animals through a practice called “pain compliance.”  Trainers subject dogs to painful collars and chains, only releasing them from their physical suffering when they bite a person.

Why are police dogs trained to brutally maul people? How can canines that are essentially lethal weapons be deployed against people accused of nonviolent crimes, who pose no threat to themselves or others?

California police attack dogs are currently operating without federal or statewide restrictions. Police are using  attack dogs to inflict life-threatening injuries on people who do not pose a danger to officers or others. The vast majority of Californians severely injured by police attack dogs are not armed and – even according to the police themselves – pose no danger. Unleashing this lethal force is entirely unwarranted.

In addition to the horrific human suffering, consider the toll on the animals. The standard protocol to train attack dogs involves forced cruelty to animals through a practice called “pain compliance.”  Trainers subject dogs to painful collars and chains, only releasing them from their physical suffering when they bite a person. Anyone who has ever had a pet or even met a friendly dog knows this aggressive behavior is grotesquely antithetical to the natural instincts of most canines.

Clearly, there is an urgent need for laws to restrict the use of police attack dogs for apprehension. 

ACLU California Action has been working in partnership with lawmakers to create strict statewide standards codified in law to govern and restrict the use of police attack dogs. We advocated for AB 742, which would have significantly restricted the ways California police agencies use attack dogs for apprehension and biting. 

However, we now face a setback. Instead of AB 742, two new bills are being considered: AB 2042 and AB 3241. These bills would cede to the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.) the  authority to develop standards for the use of police attack dogs. The delegation in these bills would allow the subversion of the legislative intent through interference by police special interest groups. 

Even more concerning, AB 3241 puts explicit uses of police attack dogs into state law instead of putting limits into state law.

P.O.S.T. has no track record of being able to bring forth any meaningful transparency or reform for police behavior. History demonstrates that P.O.S.T. is likely to create weak rules for police attack dogs or rely on standards that currently exist at agencies across California, which are far below federal standards and police best practices. Instead of restricting the use of police attack dogs in certain circumstances, the language included in AB 2042 asks P.O.S.T. to develop regulations for situations where these dogs should never be deployed at all, including for nonviolent offenses and crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration. Even more concerning, AB 3241 puts explicit uses of police attack dogs into state law instead of putting limits into state law.

The delegation to P.O.S.T. will lead to inadequate standards which will undoubtedly have extremely limited or no impact on how police attack dogs can be used and deployed for apprehension. The cruel practice will continue and people will keep being maimed. We cannot allow these faulty bills to give legislative backbone to practices that traumatize and brutalize both innocent people and dogs. 

Police attack dogs usually weigh about 70 pounds and can produce a bite force greater than 4,000 pounds per square inch. Victims endure long-term physical and psychological damage. Severed nerves may mean chronic pain or permanent paralysis of an arm or leg. Traumatic injuries to the head can result in long-lasting headaches or memory loss. In some cases, people who are injured are unable to work and remain on lifelong disability. Police attack dog bites can also lead to psychiatric illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. 

Unlike some societal trauma, we can control and stop this nightmarish scenario.

But we cannot be tricked into believing that AB 2042 and AB 3241 will solve the problem. The power should be in the hands of lawmakers, not a special interest police group. The California Legislature must strongly restrict the use of police attack dogs and place those strict, clear limits into statewide law.

Issues: Criminal Justice & Policing · Racial and Economic Justice