Quoting from Peoria’s OWN Service Dog guidelines and rules:
“G. Justification for Deployment (41.1.4.c)
1. The situation for deploying the Police Service Dog should be such that other means of apprehension is unreasonable and impractical, and the gravity of the offense should be such that this degree of force is reasonable. (1.3.1)
2. In recognizing the importance of team coordination, it will be the Police Service Dog Handler’s responsibility to determine the feasibility and potential legal issues of Police Service Dog deployment, and to recommend to the Police Service Dog Supervisor and/or on-duty supervisor whether the Police Service Dog can or cannot be effectively deployed. In deciding the use of the Police Service Dog, Graham v. Conner will be one of the factors involved:
a. The severity of the crime at issue.
b. Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement or others.
c. Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
3. Whenever time and circumstances permit, and a calculated use of force exists, the Police Service Dog Supervisor (if not on duty or unavailable, a field supervisor) will be called to the scene. In field situations, it is recognized that there are various techniques which can be utilized in gaining the best results. In the discussion of various field situations outlined within this Policy, the handler and the appropriate supervisor are responsible for considering, but are not limited to, the basic techniques and procedures listed in Section G.
4. The Police Service Dog Handler shall respond to the crime scene where Police Service Dog service is requested to best evaluate the situation, unless extenuating circumstances prevent a response. If the Police Service Dog Handler declines a request from an officer or supervisor to deploy the Police Service Dog, the Police Service Dog Handler will note the reasons in a memorandum, and notify the Police Service Dog Supervisor, as soon as practicable.”
It seems that it was unwise to deploy a K-9 given the number of officers on scene, and the fact that there was no outward evidence of a show of force for which a service dog (K9) was warranted.
“The Police Service Dog Handler shall not allow any other person to handle their Police Service Dog, except when they are directed to do so by the Trainer or Police Service Dog Supervisor, or the Police Service Dog Handler becomes injured and unable to command the Police Service Dog.”
So, was the asshole who was stomping and beating the Service Dog, the trainer, handler, or someone who was authorized to be in charge of the Service dog ?
Also: “f. The Police Service Dog shall be thoroughly groomed at least once a day.”
The WYLDE BUNCH asserts that this service dog, which was a victim of animal cruelty in Peoria Arizona, as shown on a video, found on Youtube was NOT groomed that day.
“C. Care of the Police Service Dog (41.1.4.e)
1. It is the responsibility of the Police Service Dog Handler to ensure for the care, health and nutritional requirements for their Police Service Dog which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a. The Police Service Dog’s diet will be comprised only of the food specifically approved by the Peoria Police Department.
b. The Police Service Dog shall be fed regularly at a time that will allow a maximum of time between feeding and going on duty (normally at the end of a shift). Caution shall be used when determining the amount of food and the time to feed the Police Service Dog to lessen the chance of bloating.”
The WYLDE BUNCH asserts that this rule was ALSO violated with regard to the date on which the service dog in question was beaten, stomped, and abused.