NH State Police “Drug” Dog Attacks Innocent 13-Year Old

July 11, 2010 by Bradley Jardis
Filed under: News, Question

Ahhh the use of dogs in forever failed government “War on Drugs.” It seems that in Concord, NH a state police K9 got loose from it’s handler, ran across the street, viciously attacked another dog, and then viciously attacked the 13-year old girl/owner who was trying to protect her dog from being attacked:

“The girl, attempting to protect her dog, was bitten several times on her left arm and hand. (A NH State Police official) said the incident is under investigation by the department and that State Police have been in touch with the victim’s family.”

Clearly the state police will conduct a full, fair, and evenhanded investigation of themselves. Had this dog attack had been completely reversed in sequence and involved a dog charging the state trooper… I think we’d probably have another dead dog.

An interesting comment by a Union Leader reader:

The only question here is obvious….Why was the officer not in control of the dog?….I guessing that the drug dog broke free of the officers grip on the leash…but that doesn’t relieve the officer of responsibility…
- unwind, NH

Yes, that indeed is correct. The law on this type of thing reads:

466:31 Dogs a Menace, a Nuisance or Vicious

II. Under this section, a dog is considered to be a nuisance, a menace, or vicious to persons or to property under any or all but not limited to the following conditions:

(e) If it growls, snaps at, runs after, or chases any person or persons not on the premises of the owner or keeper;

(g) If, whether alone or in a pack with other dogs, it bites, attacks, or preys on game animals, domestic animals, fowl or human beings.

Since this clearly is a violation of this law… the state trooper will be facing charges, right? Isn’t that only fair considering if it were you or I who lost control of our respective dog and it did what the trooper’s dog did, we’d be facing charges?

With all the “authority” granted to a public official such as this, shouldn’t they be held to a higher standard?

WOODBUTCHER

This Dog needs to be put down TODAY not after a hearing or investigation . This dog is not controllable and has to be removed from the dept imeadiatly and the officer in charge of the dog should be removed from the K-9 unit he is obviuosly not able to handle this type of work.maybe there is another type of work the dept can use him for .If it had been a citizens dog who attacked the cop and his dog then they would insist that it that it be put down abd charges be brought against the owner . The law has to apply to EVERYONE if it does not then it means nothing at all and the people of this town need to take the law into their own hands until such a time that the law will be applied equaly between LEO's and the public.
Bradley Jardis

The law has to apply to EVERYONE if it does not then it means nothing at all and the people of this town need to take the law into their own hands until such a time that the law will be applied equaly between LEO's and the public.

I completely agree with the above statement. Sadly, it is not how it works.

"Public servants" generally are above the law. They are held to a different standard in that many of the laws that apply to the lowly "citizen" do not apply to them.

No way in hell will this trooper face charges.
Bob

HMMMM………I wonder what would have happened if someone had shot the dog then and there? Just like the police have been doing lately. Without a doubt charges would have been brought against that person just trying to protect an innocent girl.
Bradley Jardis

That's a good question Bob. There would be two conflicting statues at play:

644:8-d Maiming or Causing the Death of or Willful Interference With Police Dogs or Horses. –

I. Whoever willfully tortures, beats, kicks, strikes, mutilates, injures, disables, or otherwise mistreats, or whoever willfully causes the death of a dog or horse owned or employed by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency and whoever knows that such dog or horse is owned or employed by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency shall be guilty of a class B felony.

II. Whoever willfully interferes or attempts to interfere with the lawful performance of a dog or horse owned or employed by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency and whoever knows that such dog or horse is owned or employed by or on behalf of a law enforcement agency shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

And

466:28 Killing Dogs Legalized. – Any person may kill a dog that suddenly assaults the person while such person is peaceably walking or riding without the enclosure of its owner or keeper; and any person may kill a dog that is found out of the enclosure or immediate care of its owner or keeper worrying, wounding, or killing sheep, lambs, fowl, or other domestic animals.

In my semi-expert opinion, no charges would be filed if a police dog was killed in this particular set of circumstances.
Dan

At least in some states, police dogs are sworn and considered "officers." This allows for extremely harsh penalties to anyone defending themselves against one.
Bradley Jardis

At least in some states, police dogs are sworn and considered "officers." This allows for extremely harsh penalties to anyone defending themselves against one.

A dog sworn to uphold the Constitution'eh? Raise your paw and repeat after me….

Not surprising. The dog's understanding and knowledge of the Constitution would probably be on par with the person on the other end of the leash.
WOODBUTCHER

Not surprising. The dog's understanding and knowledge of the Constitution would probably be on par with the person on the other end of the leash

unfortunatly you are right .

& I bet that the dog never got his lunch money stolen from him in obedience school either
Freiheit

I have only one question: Will the 13 year old girl be charged with resisting arrest and obstruction?
http://kapturedbykatara kevin

Wishful thinking, I know, but I would expect/hope/pray that the officer be held to the same (not higher) standard as the rest of us. Though the loss of control wasn't willful or malicious, it certainly was negligent.
Bradley Jardis

Though the loss of control wasn’t willful or malicious, it certainly was negligent.

Kevin,

This statue I referenced regarding dogs is a violation level offense… not a crime. As it is only a violation it does not require a "mens rea" or criminal intent.

Like someone who is speeding… the simple fact that the law was broken is sufficient to convict someone of violating it. "Crimes" (more than a civil infraction) require the state prove a "mens rea" …

The four different criminal intents are: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.

Some "offenses" (not crimes) require the state to prove a "mens rea." This is a requirement added by the legislature into the statutory language of the law. A good example is the statue prohibiting someone to allow an improper person to operate a vehicle. The law only being a "violation" does not require the state to prove intent… but the legislature added this into the language of the statue.

Do I make sense?
http://kapturedbykatara kevin

Thanks Brad. That does make sense and my argument above is moot.
Bradley Jardis

I don't think it is moot at all, sir.

I think it enhances the argument that the trooper should face charges.
Bradley Jardis

263:1-a Allowing an Improper Person. – No person shall >>knowingly<< permit a motor vehicle owned or controlled by him to be driven by a person who is not properly licensed or otherwise entitled to drive. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation, and if the license or driving privilege of the person allowed to drive is under suspension or revocation, the owner or person in control of the vehicle, notwithstanding title LXII, shall be fined not less than $100.

^^— this is the example I spoke of.

Also, it is worth mentioning that there are a select few crimes that do not require a "mens rea." A good example would be driving under the influence of liquor/drugs.

You don't need to do it with any state of mind…… you just need to do it.
bil

Somehow my earlier post didn't show up.Oh,well.

I think this is a case of police being given weapons they are not able to operate or control.In severity,I would not compare it to the Oakland case.But there are similarities.If this officer had used his tazer on the girl and her dog without ncause,there would be a major outcry.Rightfully so.If the officer had drawn his pistol and begun firing wildly hitting the girl and her dog,the same.Both cases of wanton disregard for the safety of others.Yet by letting the dog out of the car withoutn proper control can be compared to there actions.He drew his weapon-the dog- and used it without control.What should happen and what will happen are two differant things.The usual outcome: The police protect their own,the police union makes sure the cop gets paid during any suspention,the dog will be sent for 're-training',and the girls family will spend time and money in court.The taxpayers will cover defense costs,and if the girl wins a judgement,taxpayers pay again through the states insurance company.The officer will be reprimanded,and continue on the job,and the girl will spend years wondering what is going to happen whenever she sees a cop car pass,or hears a sudden barking dog.

In many states and municipalities,any action against a police dog is considered assault on an officer.Even if the dog is chewing on your leg and you kick him,you have just kicked a police officer.The definition has been stretched.To stretch it into this instance-if you attack a police dog/officer,it is a crime.What is it if an officer/dog attacks an innocent child,unprovoked?How can you have something be a dog in one instance,and the same thing be a police officer in another? Either it is or it isn't.Hopefully the girl and her dog weren't badly hurt,she is a brave girl to protect her dog against a (poorly) trained police dog. —bil
http://kapturedbykatara kevin

You raise a great point, Bil. Are K-9s working for police "officers" or "weapons?" Can't be both.
Sunde

Every year I attend the Tow Association's Tow Show in Hampton on the beach. State Police K-9 units come out from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire State Police. I always watch the demonstration with the dogs as I have trained my German Shepherd in Shutzhund which is pretty much the same format. Every year I tell my boyfriend that the dogs are too untrained to be doing work already. The dogs I've worked next to in Shutzhund have better control and discipline than these officers have. I don't think they are working the obedience hard enough, and working the bite work too much. Dogs who do not have there handlers orders in mind 100% of the time are not ready to do the work. At the Tow Show in 2009 the NH Officers dog who was 9 months old during, bite work demo,had bit his own handler. His dog still needed a lot of training. I don't think the dog needs to be put down, he needs more training. The officer doesn't need charges brought up on him its his partner not his pet, think of the dog as his rookie. The rookie needs to be suspended and retrained. This is not a simple dog/human incident.
Paul

It is a dog, not a person. At the least, the department should make full restitution for all damages. Whether it should be the department paying or the individual cop is up to them.
http://kapturedbykatara kevin

Reckless endangerment.
Murkan Mike

But, the dogs aren't to blame, they only do what they have been trained to do, and they are not the ones who need to be punished (by shooting). If the dog was uncontrollable, then it should'nt have been outside.

The cop is who should be blamed. The dog just does what it has been trained to do.
Bradley Jardis

The cop is who should be blamed. The dog just does what it has been trained to do.

I completely agree with you.

The problem is neither will be blamed. The rules that apply to normal people don't apply to the police… even when the legislature doesn't specifically exempt them from the rules.
bil

Strange how just in the last week or so,we have the AJ looking into the beating last year of a civillian by off-duty cops,another cop arrested for beating a guy and kicking in his head,and another cop arrested for DWI with his 4 year old kid in the truck with him! These fucks obviously believe the law applies to others,and they are in some sort of elite group that doesn't have to obey.Sort of like Congress,but with guns. —bil
mary coffey

Not the dogs fault! Totatly fault of the handler. His or her head should be on the chopping block! Hope the kid and both dogs OK.