VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

REPORT DATE: January 6, 2011

COMMITTEE MEETING: January 18, 2011 SERVICE & POLICY COMPLAINTS REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

Regular TO: Vancouver Police Board Service & Policy Complaints Committee FROM: Jim Chu, Chief Constable SUBJECT: Service and Policy Complaint – Regulations and Procedure Manual Section 1.13.1: Dog Squad PR&A 2011-066 PURPOSE: The Pivot Legal Society (Pivot) has made a Service and Policy Complaint requesting that the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) re-examine the policy regarding the use of police dogs on suspects. Pivot’s position is that current VPD policy in regards to police dogs is inappropriate in the level of force it employs and inadequate in protecting the public. Current policy of the VPD in regards to the use of police dogs in the Regulation and Procedure Manual (RPM) is Section 1.13.1: Dog Squad. Pivot opines that the following introduction to the policy is not being met:

Dog handlers are responsible and accountable for deploying dogs in a manner, which facilitates the effective execution of police duties while reasonably safeguarding the public and police member.

Pivot, as part of the Service and Policy Complaint, specifically proposes that the following changes be adopted:

1. that VPD police dogs only be deployed when investigating or arresting “serious offenders”, in cases where a suspect is armed, or where the officer has a reasonable belief the suspect has the potential to use force or cause harm to the officer, the subject or others;

2. that the VPD write into its policy that a solo officer with a police dog is not to make an arrest if the use of the police dog is not required;

3. that the VPD begin keeping a record of “dog bite ratios”, meaning a record of how many times a handler/dog attend to a scene or is deployed versus how many times a suspect is bitten by the dog; and,

4. that the VPD conduct a systemic review on whether or not they should change the training of police dogs to focus on the “find and bark” technique versus the “bite and hold” technique given the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Justice and International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Planning, Research and Audit Section coordinated research and consulted with Departmental resources, including the City of Vancouver’s Legal Department, in the preparation of this report. DISCUSSION Background of the VPD Dog Squad The Vancouver Police Dog Squad is the oldest municipal K-9 section in Canada. The Dog Squad was established in 1957 as a trial program and has been fully operational since 1959. Today, the Dog Squad is comprised of 18 handler teams and is the second largest K-9 section in Canada, consisting of 16 constables and two sergeants. The German Shepherd breed is the only breed used by the VPD. At the beginning of their K9 career each dog/handler team must complete a rigorous 14 week training program. This program consists of approximately 500 hours of hands-on training. At the completion of this training program all teams must complete validations in the profiles of tracking, criminal apprehension, handler protection, evidence recovery, area searches and building searches. Similarly, all handler teams must validate annually in accordance to the B.C. Municipal Police Dog Training Standards. Thus, during a handler’s career, the team will have completed thousands of hours of training. In addition, once validated and the teams gain some street experience, they undergo further specialized training. Two of the teams are trained in explosive detection. The remaining teams are cross-trained in narcotics and firearms detection. In addition, the teams are also trained to tactically assist the Emergency Response Team, Public Safety Unit as well as the Marine Squad. The Dog Squad has been recognized in the police K-9 world for its skills, expertise and professionalism. At present, the Dog Squad has two dedicated full-time trainers. The standard in Canada for police K9 training has been established by the Canine Law Enforcement Accreditation Registry (CLEAR). There are only nine certified CLEAR trainers in all of North America, of which two are the current VPD K9 trainers. The VPD trainers are tasked with keeping abreast of new training and deployment techniques. They continue to receive up-to-date education in K9 legal policies and opinions from experts in the field. The experience and reputation of the section has led to the VPD Dog Squad being sought by outside police agencies to take on the responsibility to train their K9 teams. The VPD has trained police handler teams from West Vancouver, Port Moody, New Westminster, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Oak Bay. The VPD is currently responsible for the ongoing recruit and in-service training of West Vancouver Police and Port Moody Police K-9 section. The VPD has also trained U.S. handlers from Everett, Oak Harbour, and Monroe (all in Washington). The VPD Dog Squad is also a leader in the tactical training of police K-9 teams. The VPD K-9 trainers have developed and implemented the K-9 Advanced Officer Safety Course (KAOS). During this yearly training course, the handler teams train to provide tactical K9 support to Emergency Response Team members in a variety of high-risk environments. This training includes training in a tactical marine environment with the support of the Marine Squad. The course has been attended by numerous municipal police and RCMP K9 teams, as well as Canadian military K9 handlers. Similarly, members of the Dog Squad have been sought after as subject matter experts for the Canadian Police Canine Association (CPCA) and have taught

2

at several CPCA seminars. Members of the Dog squad are routinely qualified as experts, and are allowed by the court to provide expert evidence at both Provincial and Federal levels. The VPD sources its own puppies from a few select breeders. These pups are fostered and their training is monitored by the VPD trainers. This has proven to be very successful in producing a very reliable dog when they reach the training age of 18 months. In summary, the Dog Squad is a professional and respected section within the police K-9 community. The Dog squad is a leader in training, best practices and accountability. Analysis of Pivot’s Complaint Point 1 - That VPD police dogs only be deployed when investigating or arresting “serious offenders”, in cases where a suspect is armed, or where the officer has a reasonable belief the suspect has the potential to use force or cause harm to the officer, the subject or others. In regards to point 1 there are several issues to be addressed such as: defining what is a “serious offender”; whether to limit the use of VPD police dogs to only apprehending ‘serious offenders’; the apprehension of armed suspects; and suspects for which there is a reasonable belief has the potential to cause harm to the officer, themselves or others. The Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) defines a peace officer’s power of arrest in Section 495. A peace officer may arrest without warrant anyone who has committed an indictable offence or on reasonable grounds is believed to have committed or is about to commit an indictable offence. A peace officer also can arrest without warrant anyone found committing a criminal offence. Section 25 of the CCC authorizes the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary to make these arrests. The current policy of the VPD reflects the CCC’s limitations. Section 1.13.1.10 of the procedure states:

Where a dog is to be used as a means of force, the same considerations and requirements apply as with other methods of force applied in the course of police duties (Section 1.2.1: Use of Force – Justification).

In Canada, police dogs fall into the National Use of Force Model as an intermediate weapon. Police dogs are generally not viewed as a weapon that causes death or grievous bodily harm. Current VPD policy in regards to using police dogs to apprehend offenders is a reflection of current Canadian law and holds the police dog handler to the same standards as the use of any other means of force to arrest an offender. The position of the VPD is that it is not acceptable to deploy a police dog into a situation where the police dog would be seriously injured or killed, unless it is necessary to protect the dog handler, or another person from grievous bodily harm or death. To use a police dog to apprehend a person known to be armed with a lethal force weapon would most likely result in serious injury or death to the police dog. Point 2 - That the VPD write into its policy that a solo officer with a police dog is not to make an arrest if the use of the police dog is not required. A proposed policy that a lone officer with police dog is not to make an arrest if a police dog is not required is unduly restrictive. It should be noted that VPD dog handlers consistently train

3

and validate annually on handcuffing suspects and escorting suspects with the police dog present. During these tests, the police dog is not to make contact with the suspect. The police dog not only serves as a location tool or an apprehension tool. The police service dog is also trained to protect their handler from harm. The same considerations with regards to point 1 apply to point 2. The police dog handler is responsible for any use of force, including a police dog. Point 3 - That the VPD begin keeping a record of “dog bite ratios”, meaning a record of how many times a handler/dog attend to a scene or is deployed versus how many times a suspect is bitten by the dog. Dog bite ratios are an artificial statistical construct that do not take into account all the complexities involved in any police service dog deployment. Bite ratios were initially designed to identify overly aggressive canines or handler teams that are not regularly supervised. In the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Concepts and Issues Paper Law Enforcement Canines (2001), referred to by Pivot, the following comment on “dog bite ratios” is made:

“Reliance on ratios alone can often inappropriately and unfairly simplify an otherwise complex problem. In reality each canine bite or canine-produced injury should be individually evaluated to determine whether it was justified in the total context of the situation and manner in which the canine was handled.”(pg.19)

If it is the intent of the Pivot Legal Society to advocate for the proper monitoring of police dog applications then the current system should be considered. When a VPD police dog is used to make an arrest the dog handler, in addition to the usual reporting requirements, completes a VPD “Dog Application Report.” This report contains:

specifics of the event; details of the suspect; specifics relating to environment; CCC charges; description of injuries to the suspect as a result of dog contact; medical treatment provided; and, details of event and explanation as to the use of force.

This report is initially reviewed by one of the 2 Dog Squad trainers. It is then reviewed and approved by a Dog Squad supervisor. If the report is approved by the supervisor it is then and then reviewed by the Inspector i/c of Emergency Response Section. All reports are maintained by the Dog Squad in a database. If a police dog bite requires Emergency Room treatment, the BC Police Act and VPD procedure Section 1.16.7 Reportable Incidents – Injuries or Death, are engaged. This makes it a requirement that a police dog bite that required emergency care by a medical or nurse practitioner and transfer to a hospital is deemed a reportable injury. This police dog bite incident in turn would be reported to the Office of Police Complaints Commissioner (OPCC) through the Professional Standards Section (PSS). In essence every dog bite that requires hospitalization receives overview from the OPCC. PSS also prepares a monthly report that lists incidents involving VPD members that resulted in a reportable injury and Dog Squad members

4

5

would be included. To summarize, the VPD electronic reporting procedure may capture “dog bite ratios” if it was necessary but there is enough oversight on each specific police dog application to make this unnecessary. Point 4 - That the VPD conduct a systemic review on whether or not they should change the training of police dogs to focus on the “find and bark” technique versus the “bite and hold” technique given the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Justice and International Association of Chiefs of Police A systematic review of “find and bark” technique versus “bite and hold” technique was commissioned by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in the state of Florida. This was titled “An Examination of Police Canine Use of Force in the State of Florida” by Charles Mesloh. Mesloh found that “bite and hold” dogs had lower mean bite ratios (15.7%) than “bark and hold” trained canines (22.4%). The following is a quote from Mesloh’s study that points out the dilemma in having the handler responsible in regards to the dog and the force used and changing the present VPD dog training model:

“Under the current model, “bite and hold”, officers make the decision when the dog is to bite and potentially injure the suspect. Under “bark and hold” techniques, the canine makes the decision when they should bite and when they should not. This fact alone makes it difficult to justify a training method where or even when the dog is allowed to make a decision as to the amount of force that should be deployed against a suspect.” (pages 68 and 69)

It should be noted that no other police associations have followed the IACP position in recommending “bark and hold” instead of “bite and hold” and that the recent trend in the United States has been to switch from “bark and hold” to “bite and hold” with 70-80% of all police dogs in the United States trained as “bite and hold” dogs. The percentage of “bite and hold” trained police dogs is even higher in Canada. CONCLUSION It is recommended that no change to policy is required as a result of this Service and Policy complaint and that the complaint be dismissed. Author: Drazen Manojlovic Telephone: 604.717.2682 Date: January 6, 2011 Submitting Executive Member (signature):

Date: This report has been prepared in consultation with the sections/divisions listed below, and they concur with its contents. Concurring:

DCC Adam Palmer Date: January 6, 2011

Date:

Date:

6