You might be asking “How can we get in trouble if we don’t set a good perimeter?”  You may not get in trouble – directly – but how do you feel if someone who really needs to go to jail escapes a poorly set perimeter or one was never set?  What if your suspect escapes from your perimeter and causes trouble or serious harm to someone else because you weren’t able to successfully contain and locate them?

Many a suspect has successfully avoided apprehension because of poor decisions during an initial foot pursuit and the failure to set a good perimeter that may have allowed a successful search to be conducted by patrol officers, a tactical team and/or a K9 team. Perimeter containment should be considered a perishable skill and training prioritized.

One of the best books addressing this topic is titled “Apprehending Fleeing Suspects” by Jack Schonely who also teaches a “live” class on the same subject called “Suspect Tactics and Perimeter Containment.”  Here’s a few things he says;

Foot Pursuit versus Containment

“Every foot pursuit is unique, but every officer must be realistic when evaluating the situation.  During foot pursuits many tactical decision are made quickly by the officer. One of those decisions will be whether to continue to chase or attempt to contain the suspect.”

Decision to Contain

“Before making the decision to contain, officers must fully understand what perimeter containment is and what is required for success.  “Perimeter containment” is the containment of an area, large or small, utilizing officers deployed to the corners, with a clear line of sight of ALL sides of that containment area.  The simple goal of perimeter containment is to limit the movement of a fleeing suspect in an area that officers control using themselves and their police vehicles as a visible deterrent to the suspect.”

Responding Units

“The primary officer during a containment certainly starts the wheels in motion, but the officers responding to the scene are responsible for the completion of the perimeter. The keys to success for responding officers are listening to communications, prompt response, and strategic positioning.”

K9 Search Operations

“Many agencies have access to K9 units able to search for suspects.  The value of the K9 search team for perimeter containment is threefold; it saves time, it is effective, and most importantly, it lessens the risk to officers.”

Training to Meet the Challenge

“Perimeter containment is a proven technique that requires consistent training of all officers in the field.  If some very basic rules are followed by everyone involved it can be a simple task.  But it requires training and practice.”

Failing to set a good perimeter might not get you in trouble, but it can definitely increase the possibility of trouble for someone else.  I recommend you consider reading Jack’s book or visit his OfficerTactics.com web site to learn more about his classes.

Take care, be safe and work as a team to set a good perimeter…

Bill Lewis II

This “Reason” was originally shared on October 28, 2013

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?

One of the more interesting and unfortunate dilemmas that occur within police work is the patrol-related assignment of a K9 handler to a designated beat or district assignment as a patrol officer.  You might even be one.

Are you a K9 handler or a patrol officer working with a police dog? 

As I look at the potential for civil liability, one of the things most concerning to me is the fact that “officers” are being assigned a police dog with little regard for the assignment of the handler and the utilization of the police dog to best serve the community and the police department – and limit liability.  The primary duties of these officers and deputies do not involve a police dog.

Regarding liability, the majority of mistakes that get handlers into trouble usually involve poor decision making, lack of training and a lack of confidence in the ability of the K9 team because of limited experiences.  When a K9 handler is assigned other duties and “K9” is not the primary function, the handler does not have the opportunity to practice his/her craft regularly and their work performance is often impacted.  K9 training is often cancelled because “K9” isn’t really the primary function and it is not prioritized.

When handlers are not provided with opportunities to experience more real-world and training situations related to decision making with respect to K9 deployments, they are being limited and often restricted to improve their performance and make proper decisions.  I liken this situation to a second-string quarterback who receives limited snaps during practice and then he is placed into the big game without warning – he has the potential to achieve and be successful, but his limited experience in practice and real game situations will most often negatively affect his initial decision making and mechanical skills.

In police work, we do not often get second chances in big game situations.

There is a challenge in being a K9 handler assigned as a patrol officer with a police dog.  You will probably need to work harder to maintain your level of proficiency as a K9 team and that might even mean volunteering some of your own time to achieve the results desired.  If you can’t maintain an acceptable level of proficiency and the ongoing risks for failure continually exist, you might consider your options and seek assistance to improve your situation.

I wrote a more thorough article on this topic that is now posted in the “Articles” section on my web site.

Take care, be safe and make every day a training day…

Bill Lewis II

This “Reason” was originally shared on October 14, 2013.

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?

Gordon Graham says “Don’t hire stupid people.”  Unfortunately, it happens. And here’s what I say; “If you do hire stupid people, don’t later select them to be K9 handlers.”

What should happen when a handler – or any person – is not performing to the established standards of a department?  What should happen if they are incompetent? You’ve probably seen them, you’ve probably worked and/or trained alongside them, and you’ve probably wondered why they have not been removed from their program.  It’s important to know how and when to legally drop the hammer on someone not performing so your department doesn’t get in trouble.

“…the purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline–a problem that largely goes away if you have the right people in the first place.”  -Jim Collins

The theory of negligent retention holds an employer liable for retaining an employee who is known to be unfit for the position. Like negligent hiring, this theory places a duty on the employer to conduct a reasonable investigation of any information that suggests an employee’s unfitness and to respond reasonably to whatever is learned about the employee.

“It happens; incompetence is rewarded more often than not.”  -Jeff Lindsay  

Here’s some information on the topic from the National Criminal Justice Reference System (NCJRS):   “Negligent retention” can be charged when an employer knew, or should have known, that an employee was unqualified to be in the job position he/she held when the action in question occurred. The negligence issue arises when an agency can be shown to have allowed a behavior to continue, even when the supervisor or administrator knew it was negligent. This does not mean an employer must monitor every aspect of an employee’s behavior; rather, it means that administrators and supervisors must be aware that specific actions must be taken to guard against and lay the foundation for a defense against negligent retention lawsuits.”

“Negligent retention puts everyone at risk of vicarious liability.”  

“Appropriate policies, training, progressive discipline and the involvement of dedicated human-resource personnel are critical to an agency’s ability to defend against negligent-retention lawsuits. Courts usually examine a number of factors when determining whether negligent retention of an employee has occurred. The court will typically examine what the employer knew or should have known about the employee’s job performance. Evidence of early intervention to correct poor performance or misconduct is important. Channels of communication between employees and supervisors must be clear, and employee performance evaluations must be regularly conducted in order to identify employees with performance problems. When it is clear that a pattern of incompetence and misconduct has not been corrected through training and constructive guidance, then the issue of negligent retention arises if the employer fails to remove the employee from his/her position.”  (this paragraph also from NCJRS)

“…a person who repetitively exercises poor judgment under pressure in training is going to exercise poor judgment under pressure in a tactical situation and needs to be removed from the team.  That can be a hard thing for leaders to do, but it has to happen.” -Steven “Randy” Watt 

If you have a handler not performing to the established standards who represents a liability for your department – despite previous corrective measures, counseling and training remediation – you must begin taking the necessary steps to remove that person from your K9 program to avoid potential trouble down the road.

Take care, be safe and don’t be guilty of negligent retention….

Bill Lewis II

This “reason” was originally shared on September 30, 2013.

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?

How many times have you contacted a homeowner or resident to inquire “Is there anybody else inside this home?” before you deployed your dog looking for a suspect you believed to be on the premises – only to learn later that the suspect wasn’t present and a child or “Grandma” was innocently sleeping in their own room when they encountered your dog?

“Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.”  -Xenophon 

How many times have you received information from a dispatcher, fellow officer or civilian witness about a particular suspect or incident – existence of a warrant or a description – only to learn later it wasn’t accurate?

“Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable.” -George S. Patton

We often make split-second decisions while working with a police dog and the information we need to assist those decisions is sometimes rapidly received and processed.  Other times, we have more time on our side to evaluate and confirm the information.  Mistakes have been made because information has not been confirmed nor an attempt made to confirm because there wasn’t sufficient opportunity or the patience to do so – and that gets us in trouble.

“Trust, but verify.” -Ronald Reagan  

Whenever possible, and it is not always possible, confirm information you are receiving and base your decisions and tactics accordingly.  Sometimes, you get a gut feeling or a red flag is waved.  We rely on information being given to us on a regular basis – we must trust our sources – but remember that seeking confirmation is not mistrust.  If you don’t feel comfortable with the information being provided, you might not deploy your dog.  Or, you might vary your tactics to conform to the situation based on the information you are receiving  – maybe you deploy off lead or use a long line – and you give an extraordinary amount of verbal announcements – just in case!

Take care, be safe and confirm information whenever possible…

Bill Lewis II

This “Reason” was originally shared on July 22, 2013

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?

syn·drome  – noun \ˈsin-ˌdrōm also -drəm\  1)  a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality or condition   2) a set of concurrent things (as emotions or actions) that usually form an identifiable pattern

“First bite syndrome” for K9 handlers can be one of the most challenging and agonizing conditions for a new handler or a handler with a new dog to experience – anxiously waiting for their dog’s much anticipated “first bite” on the street.  Everyone unknowingly pressures the handler by continually asking “Has your dog gotten its first street bite?”  If your dog hasn’t gotten its first bite, do you believe your performance as a handler is being questioned?

“Patience is the companion of wisdom.” -Saint Augustine  

The “first bite” is the street test that will determine if your dog has been properly prepared to physically encounter a suspect and bite as trained and commanded – or not – and the assessment and steps necessary for remediation or more training if not successful.  The first bite is often considered a rite of passage that marks a dog’s transition from an untested rookie to street dog.  For many, it’s actually the second or third street bite that determines the effectiveness and success of a police dog.

“Good things come to those who wait” is an English phrase that highlights the virtue of patience.

And, sometimes, a handler seriously suffering from “first bite syndrome” makes a wrong decision to deploy the dog because rational decision making is often clouded or impeded by these distractions and conditions combined with an eagerness to engage the suspect so the dog can attempt its first bite and evaluate accordingly.

“Patience is the best remedy for every trouble.” -Plautus

The proper (and legal) justification for the first bite is more important than the bite itself – and failing to follow policy in exchange for a questionable or ill-advised bite can get you in trouble.  You must make the right decision to send your dog for a bite based on the totality of the circumstances and your department policy – not the dog’s bite tally.

“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.” – Leo Tolstoy

The first bite may occur tomorrow, it may occur next month. Eventually, it will occur – and you want the circumstances to be dictated by the suspect, not the syndrome.

Take care, be safe and don’t be in a hurry for the first bite…

Bill Lewis II

This “Reason” was originally shared on August 19, 2013

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?

Harry Houdini was a Hungarian-American illusionist and stunt performer born in 1878 who later became known as “The World’s Greatest Escape Artist” for his sensational escape acts. There are some police dogs today that have earned the “The Great Houdini” nickname for their ability to perform routine escapes that aren’t even that sensational – and it’s not intended as a good nickname.

es·cape  əˈskāp/   Verb;  break free from confinement or control.   Noun;  an act of breaking free from confinement or control.

It happens – police dogs “escape” from their kennels, yards, police cars and sometimes even from their handlers – and bad things often happen as a result.  There are many stories across the country of actual incidents involving working dogs and retired dogs [and former police dogs] that have escaped on-duty and off-duty and bitten innocent men, women and children – including family and friends of the handlers.  The vast majority of these incidents were preventable.  Some of the incidents involved a violation of policy.  There have been injuries sustained and settlements paid.  Can your agency afford such a settlement?  Can you afford the trouble?

I’m not talking about natural disasters or Mother Nature’s assistance with lifting kennels off the ground or collapsing fences that have allowed a few dogs to wander their respective neighborhoods.  I’m talking about basic (and sometimes blatant) failures to follow policy [or common sense] in most cases by not properly securing the dog when not under the immediate control of the handler or authorized care giver.  It’s not that difficult to remember to make sure your police dog is properly secured.  Complacency and “my dog won’t escape and bite anyone” attitudes are commonly associated with some of these tragic incidents.

Are these “escapes” considered incidents or accidents?  I don’t think it’s an accident when the handler is negligent and could have prevented the incident.

Here’s a standard policy for off-duty;  When off-duty, police dogs shall be maintained in kennels at the homes of their handlers. When a police dog is kenneled at the K9 handler’s home, the gate shall be secured with a lock. When off-duty, police dogs may be let out of their kennels while under the direct control of their handlers.  

NOTE:  This policy or something very similar should be a requirement for retired police dogs and former police dogs and specifically addressed in writing as a requirement or recommendation within an agreement when the dog is purchased.  It should be considered a “common sense clause” if not written or required.

Update on October 16, 2018:  You may or may not be aware of a recent California case where a former police officer (who resigned from his agency after this incident) is being tried for two felony counts of failing to maintain control of a deadly or dangerous animal and a felony charge of involuntary manslaughter when his “former police dog” (not retired) escaped its backyard on December 13, 2016, and attacked two neighbors, killing one of them.  The trial is pending.  The dog allegedly had free rein of the backyard and was not secured in a kennel while the officer was away at work.

Unfortunately, and maybe a little ironic, there are only a few policies that actually require the handler to make sure the dog is properly secured when the handler is not present or under the immediate control of the handler when on-duty.  It’s often assumed – but not often written.  What does your policy require?

As a kid growing up, I watched the Harry Houdini movie many times and dreamed about becoming “The Great Houdini” by practicing various escape routines.  I struggled getting the handcuffs off so I later decided on a career to put handcuffs on people instead of trying to escape from them – and I was much more successful.  I’m certain you don’t want your dog tagged with “The Great Houdini” nickname so take the necessary steps to prevent it and you’ll stay out of trouble.  If you don’t have a policy section to address the issue, I recommend you make one now.

Take care, be safe and take steps to prevent escapes by your dog…

Bill Lewis II

This “Reason” was originally shared on September 30, 2015 and updated October 16, 2018

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?

Despite lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, there are still departments in this country today that continue to blatantly break the law by either refusing to compensate handlers for off-duty care of their police dogs or they do not compensate fairly.   Some departments have relied on extortion and threatened to disband K9 programs if forced to pay FLSA compensation and have done so in a few cases.  In some other cases, departments simply do not know the law. Regardless, compensation is not an option – it’s the law!

K9 handlers cannot legally waive FLSA provisions. 

Terry Fleck from “Canine Legal Update & Opinions” wrote;  I have polled about 28,000 canine personnel throughout the United States on this FLSA at-home care issue. About 70% of our industry not only knows about FLSA at-home care compensation, but are in compliance as well.  If you are in the other 30% and your agency is not in compliance with the labor law regarding handler compensation, it is inevitable that you will have one of these persons raise his ugly head, a disgruntled ex-canine handler.  If your agency is not in compliance with the labor law, the handler will sue their agency and win!

According to the Department of Labor, bathing, brushing, exercising, feeding, grooming, cleaning of the dog’s kennel or transport vehicle, administering drugs or medicine for illness and/or transporting the dog to and from an animal hospital or veterinarian and training the dog at home are all compensable activities.

Compensation for K9 handlers should be specified within an agency policy and/or within a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or similar employer-employee contract.  

The opined “industry standard” of 30 minutes per day for care and maintenance of police service dogs without specificity to on-duty or off-duty has been associated with one court case, “Levering v District of Columbia, 869 F. Supp. 24 (1994)” from the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia.  The specific facts and circumstances of that particular case may not be relevant to your agency and your care.  However, this general time standard is a good baseline to begin any negotiation for improvement in your compensation if needed and many agencies are actually using “3.5 hours per week” for their compensation agreements.

Sixty (60) minutes of care per week for a police service dog was ruled unreasonable. ~Leever v. Carson City, 360 F.3d 1014 (2004)

If your department is not paying you for the time you are lawfully entitled, you should carefully begin steps to remedy the situation.  I believe the biggest failure in compensation matters is a lack of communication between the involved parties.  Litigation over compensation issues should be a last resort because it is not generally a mutually-beneficial process for all of the parties involved.  Litigation can create division of loyalties and in some cases has led to the elimination of productive and successful police K9 programs.  Litigation can usually be avoided if open lines of communication exist and reasonable parties are involved in the process.

 “The solution for the FLSA handler compensation for the at-home care of his dog is simple. Get into compliance.” ~Terry Fleck

It’s no secret that budgets dictate many of the compensatory decisions and money is tight.  One of the simplest recommendations to avoid paying extra money is a modified work schedule.  In most cases, a handler will work one hour less on their shift  – reporting to the regular shift one hour later than scheduled or going home one hour earlier to satisfy the FLSA requirement – to take care of their required off-duty maintenance responsibilities.

I wrote an article titled “K9 Care and Handler Compensation” with more information that was published in Police K-9 Magazine (Sept/Oct 2008) and posted online in 2008 at PoliceOne.com and it is still relevant today with the exception of reduced pay in lieu of overtime or actual work hours.  The article is now titled “K9 Off-Duty Care and Compensation” and it can be accessed in the “Articles” section on this web site.

Take care, be safe and make sure you are being compensated fairly…

Bill Lewis II

This “reason” was originally shared on September 3, 2013.

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?

Have you testified yet at a deposition?  If so, were you a witness, a victim or were you a Defendant? Depositions are the testimony of a party or witness in a civil or criminal proceeding taken before trial. The deposition, because it generally is taken with counsel present and under oath, becomes a significant evidentiary document.  Depositions are commonly used in civil litigation and commonly take place after the exchange of interrogatories and requests for production of documents, because the evidence obtained from the latter often provides foundation for the questions posed to the deponent.

“The difference in preparing for the first deposition and the one-hundredth is this: nothing.” ~ Ronald M. Sandgrund

I’ve given civil-related depositions on SWAT and K9 incidents as a Defendant and as an expert witness in K9 cases.  I’ve read many more depositions involving K9-related incidents as a case consultant and expert witness.  Unfortunately, I’m sometimes disappointed in handlers and supervisors as I read their depositions as it becomes quite obvious to me they failed to prepare and/or weren’t properly prepared by their counsel.

“Failure to prepare is preparing to fail.”  – John Wooden

George T. Williams is a Police Training Specialist and the Director of Training for Cutting Edge Training, LLC.  He wrote:  Preparing for your deposition depends minimally upon three factors.  First, understand the overall theory of the plaintiffs and how they will attack your testimony. Second, know your policy, force laws, and training.  Last, know the facts of the case as you perceived them at the time, and understand the difference between the testimony you are used to, and the very different world of your new role as “defendant” in a civil case.

“The more thoroughly you prepare, the more likely the deposition will help you to accurately convey your case and prepare you for trial.”  ~ George T. Williams

I recommend reading an article by George T. Williams titled “Preparing for Your First Deposition.”

Take care, be safe and always prepare properly for your deposition…

Bill Lewis II

This “reason” was originally shared on August 5, 2013

“Trouble” isn’t always related to incidents or predicaments that directly result in lawsuits, claims or discipline. Often times, our actions or inactions that are missed, deliberately overlooked or downplayed may lead to nothing or can later lead to mistakes or bad incidents with minimal to serious repercussions.  A reason we get in trouble can be minor or simple at first glance – or even serious – but a combination of these factors can often have disastrous consequences.   

These “reasons” are provided periodically as a collection in-progress based on actual incidents and real attitudes as well as feedback received at HITS, the CNCA Training Institute, and the “Canine Liability 360” classes.  As Gordon Graham says, “We haven’t found new ways to get in trouble.” So, as the list progresses, you may or may not read something familiar to you that you have personally experienced or seen others encounter. If you encountered or heard about it, did you learn from it?