|
Supervisor Liability (See POST Standards)
1.
Canton v. Harris ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989) - Inadequate police training is actionable under §1983
only where it can be shown to have been a policy reflecting "deliberate indifference" to constitutional rights. (e.g. availability of other programs, unsatisfactory training or mistake of single officer
not sufficient).
2. Grandstaff v. City of Borger (5th Cir. 1985) 767 F2d 161 - Policy of "reckless disregard" by failure to take disciplinary action (i.e. ratifying) for bad shooting. [Followed:
Henry v. Shasta Co. (9th Cir. 1998) 132 F3d 512 - continuing disregard of prisoner rights.]
3. Laraz v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 1991) 946 F2d 645 - Police Chief's failure to sustain complaints of excessive force or discipline officers may lead to municipal liability.
4. U.S. v. Koon (9th Cir. 1994) 34 F3d 1416 - Supervisors have duty to intercede and prevent obvious constitutional violation and may be criminally liable for willful or deliberate failure if opportunity present.
Narcotics Dogs
1. Jennings v. Joshua School Dist., (5th Cir. 1989) 877 F2d 313 - Officer who relies on properly trained narcotics dog is immune from liability arising out of search warrant based upon erroneous alert.
2. U.S. v. U.S. Currency, $30,060, (9th Cir. 1994) 39 F3d 1039 - Although narcotics dog alert on currency is probative, it is not by itself probable cause since 75% of all currency is contaminated.
U.S. v. Lavado, (11th Cir. 1985) 750 F2d 1527--Evidence of K-9 training and tracking directly linking suspect to crime scene or contraband is properly admitted. (Boat search)
4. U.S. v. Lingenfelter, (9th Cir. 1993) 997 F2d 632 - Since K-9 sniff reveals nothing about non-contraband and does not involve a physical intrusion, it does not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment [see:
U.S. v. Place, 103 S.Ct. 2637 (1983)] and, a K-9 sniff by a properly qualified dog (e.g. 300 hrs. of training) can establish probable cause for a search warrant.
State Cases and Statutes
1.
Calatayud v. State of Calif. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1057 - Officer injured by conduct of officer from another agency is limited to remedy of worker's compensation (e.g. accidental shooting, bite.)
2.
Huntington Beach v. Westminster (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 220 - If agency requesting K-9 assist will not indemnify, cost and damages should be evenly split. [See Sample Agreement]
3.
People v. Rivera (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1000 - Use of police dog to search for and bite a felony suspect is not necessarily an arrest requiring probable cause, but might only constitute a detention requiring reasonable suspicion.
4.
Civil Code § 3342(b) - no strict liability for police or military dog used to apprehend criminal suspect, investigate crime, execute a warrant or defend a peace officer or other person if agency has written policy governing use of dog. (Note: exemption does not apply if victim was not suspect).
|
