Salt Lake City Suspended Use of Police K9s and Nothing Bad Happened, Study Shows
Retire the paw patrol.

Cops have long partnered with dogs, claiming they help keep officers safe. But a study published in January suggests that police do just as well without canine colleagues.
In 2020, Salt Lake City suspended the use of police K9 units after The Salt Lake Tribune published body camera footage of an officer ordering his dog to bite a 36-year-old black man who was on his knees with his hands in the air. That abrupt policy shift gave researchers at the University of South Carolina, the University of Utah, and Clemson University a chance to test claims about the benefits of police dogs.
Police say dogs help find hidden suspects, deter resistance, protect officers, intimidate potentially violent crowds, and improve public relations. But the researchers, who reported their findings in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, found that the "sudden suspension of K9 apprehension was not associated with a statistical increase in officer or suspect injury, or suspect resistance, during felony arrests." The authors concluded that restricting or eliminating police K9s is "unlikely to impact aggregate officer or suspect safety negatively."
Those results contradict widely accepted assumptions. "There is a great conviction within the law enforcement K9 community that these programs provide more effective policing by increasing officer safety, reducing suspect injury, and deterring suspect resistance," the researchers wrote. "We were not able to detect any such effect on any measure."
There is ample evidence, however, of what happens when police dogs are misused. In a March report on constitutional violations by police in Louisville, Kentucky, the U.S. Justice Department described several incidents in which officers sicced dogs on compliant or nonthreatening suspects. In one case, an officer searching for a home invasion suspect discovered a 14-year-old boy lying face down on the ground and immediately "deployed his dog off-leash" without "giving any warning." The officer "ordered the dog to bite the teen at least seven times," inflicting "serious injuries on his arm and back."
While some police departments rarely use K9s, a 2020 Marshall Project investigation found, others deploy them routinely. From 2017 through 2019, Indianapolis police dogs bit people once every five days.
Among the "less-than-lethal" tools to subdue suspects, police dogs are one of the most violent and unpredictable. "A dog chewed on an Indiana man's neck for 30 seconds, puncturing his trachea and slicing his carotid artery," The Marshall Project reported.
Police dogs are not only prone to abuse but also hard to control even after intensive training and exorbitantly expensive to train and kennel. They should be transferred to more productive professions, such as chasing squirrels and protecting backyards.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Now those cops are going to have to go back to the old fashioned ways of shaking down and harassing people.
Next headline: Taser-usage up %1400 in Salt Lake City.
Full disclosure: I am not a police office / LEO of any type, and have no history of ever having been such. I have had some security / home protection training, including being taught how to, if necessary, clear a room/house of a suspected intruder.
The main thing I learned in that training is that clearing a room or house is the last thing I ever want to have to do. I’d climb a tall ladder first, and this is from someone with a fear of heights. It’s is something I would only do in the direst of circumstances in the case of a treasured hostage.
Police have to do this routinely. Not that they can’t or aren’t trained to do it in a proficient manner, but it is inarguable that it increases the risk of being killed or wounded if the intruder is mentally unstable or otherwise willing to trade his life for one or more officers.
Sending in a trained dog that can sniff out the hidden intruder and doesn’t explode the house in the process seems not only reasonable, but the wisest use of “resources”. You can bet (large sums, safely) that those who do the banning are not those in the front lines who have to go into a darkened building with weapons drawn to face the threat of an assailant(s) whose intention and capability are not not known and whose life/health may be saved by “sending in the dog”. (An attack trained dog should not be "sent in" without adequate warning!!)
Attack trained dogs can be mis-used by their handlers. Guns (and bows and arrows and knives and baseball bats and hatchets) can be mis-used. Car capable of speeds far in excess of speed limits or safe travel can be mis-used. Food can be mis-used in a number of ways. Distilled spirits can be mis-used, with eventual fatal results to users and bystanders. (We already tried banning that – how did that experiment work out?)
Shall we ban everything that has the potential for mis-use, regardless of cost from the lack of that item? To whose benefit, and who will be asked bear increased risk?
No, we should “ban” everything that continues to be abused on a regular basis that MIGHT, very rarely, be somewhat useful. If you had actually read the article you would know that police dogs made NO DIFFERENCE! I couldn’t care less whether police officers have a dangerous job. The best way to make their jobs much less dangerous is to eliminate ninety percent of their “contacts” with citizens that are totally unnecessary. The next thing that would make their jobs a lot less dangerous (for the rest of us!) would be to punish police for abusing their positions of authority and committing crimes while on duty. And, finally, eliminating victimless crimes and no-knock SWAT narco raids would make the world safer for all concerned. The difference between an honest hero and a Rambo-wannabe who enjoys throwing his weight around while being protected by powerful police unions and corrupt city officials is important, and one you should probably try to comprehend!
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
If you had UNDERSTOOD the article, you would know it DOES NOT say police dogs made no difference. It said a limited number of negative consequences didn't result from suspending them. It made ZERO claim about positive things that even theoretically could have happened.
Sorry, but keep struggling to find relevance. It said that there were NO negative consequences from suspending the use of police dogs of the kind that police usually try to claim justify their use and - obviously - none of the negative consequences of abusing police dogs that justified suspending their use after they had to stop using them. If you UNDERSTOOD basic epidemiological principles you would know that it would be impossible to design an experiment that would prove the Positive Predictive Value of not using police dogs in natural real world situations, so preventing the bad outcomes of abusing police dogs and failing to find any other downside when they stopped using them is the best evidence available. Heinlein said that the best way to lie was to tell half the truth and then stop talking. Fortunately for the truth, many libertarians have read Heinlein.
I am able to comprehend.
I'm curious. Have you ever had to enter a darkened building, weapon in hand, in search of a hidden, armed and dangerous individual? Have you ever been trained how to do it and what it involves? Do you have any comprehension of the risk involved, or do you acknowledge the risk and aver that it is an "acceptable" level of risk so long as that risk must be borne by others?
" ... I couldn’t care less whether police officers have a dangerous job. ..."
Your opinion is now void...
A) If police habitually abuse a tool for the purposes of abuse and even crime, it is the duty of the public to demand that tool be taken away. If more police die as result of not having that tool, the appropriate people to blame are the officers who abused it.
B) Police would be in this situation a lot less if they stopped serving nonviolent arrest warrants and simple search warrants at 3AM to keep their victims "unbalanced." Research clearly shows that this is less safe for everyone, and at best provides no net benefit to police.
C) While I'm sure the process is scary, it would be less scary if the training environment matched real world conditions instead of worst-case scenarios. In real world conditions, active resistance to police clearing a building is actually quite rare. The vast majority of cases nowadays appear to be people being startled and not making good decisions at 3AM because of sleep inertia (hence B). Second to that is clearly dangerous environments such as active shooters, hostage-takers, or career violent criminals. If police would restrict themselves to dog uses in only that latter case, then A would not need to apply, but they refuse to.
However, much like traffic stops where deadly ambushes by the suspect are a one in 50M-100M event but in police training it's more like 1 in 2, the likelihood of active resistance in police training scenarios is greatly exaggerated. This makes sense in a way, since otherwise you'd be more likely to clear a hundred rooms uneventfully and be done with your training without ever facing resistance, but it also skews how police approach real world scenarios for the worse.
D) Police refuse to release statistics, and indeed often fight FIOAs on these things, which leads me to believe that they are not secretly vindicated by the real world numbers. We know, for example, how Maryland operated for a few years before they quashed that reporting requirement to be totally embarrassing, and we have no reason to believe it to be abnormal.
E) Drones are gonna replace dogs for room clearances soon anyways. When cops start putting weapons on the drones, we'll have to fight it all over again.
Dog gone it.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
Great. Now what about those stupid emotional support dogs in planes and supermarkets?
Don't fly, and let the manager know that you do not patronize food stores that permit flea factories to enter.
Ni Chiens, Ni Maitres.
If this trend continues, we’re going to need an encyclopedia to list all of the unsubstantiated myths of law enforcement, like lie detectors, bite marks, "I thought he had a gun!" "I feared for my life," and police lineups. It can be “Volume No.2” after “Volume No.1: Scientifically Unsubstantiated Medical Diagnoses and Treatments.”
C.J. Ciaramella ignored the other way cops misuse dogs - to fabricate probable cause for a search. A dog may alert because it smells something, or they may alert because the handler's body language reveals that he expects or wants the dog to alert. Thus, the cops get to search anywhere they want to if they just get a K9 team and tell the handler where and what they hope to find.
The K-9s have all been placed on desk duty.
I hope the dogs have a good retirement package.
At least three milk bones and a squeaky toy a week. Those shepherds go through anything chewy like there's no tomorrow.
Just use the dogs for what they are good at: drug and weapons sniffing. Don’t use them as weapons. That is unfair to the dogs and to victims of them.
Unfortunately that misuse is allowed to continue. Anyone who has worked with any kind of trained intelligent dog knows that the sniffer dogs can be (not to say that all are) trained "to alert" on any vehicle the officer wants alerted on. This should constitute probable cause for a search ONLY if the dog's record of "true alerts" (something found) and "false alerts" (nothing found) is kept and available under the FOIA and reviewable by a court with at least a 55% true alert rate dog being considered to constitute probable cause for a search.
It's worse than that, the police don't have to train the dogs to false alert. Most will simply alert if they think the handler wants them to. In the 2011 paper "Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes," researchers put dog handler teams in situations where there were no actual targets, but where they expected there to be some, and only one team in 18 did not false alert. And this is a research setting, so the police had no incentive to false alert, but merely the dogs were keying into the handler's expectation. Dogs, after all, aren't alerting because they hate drugs or respect the law, they are just doing what they think they are supposed to.
The study was tiny and limited - they investigated a SINGLE agency and warned about making the kind of stupid generalizations Reason makes. The study had a very small and limited purpose and found the absence (or presence) of dogs does not result in an increase in officer or suspect INJURY, or suspect resistance, during felony arrests. Things like deterrence or the cost of dogs vs hiring police officers or detection of suspects wasn't considered or even discussed.
Does it reduce costs - paying for a man and dog is cheaper than man and man? Do the dogs take vacations? Go on maternity leave?
Misuse of anything, dogs or guns or tasers or night sticks is purely anecdotal and certainly doesn't negate the findings of the scientific study that says injuries are the same with or without dogs. Only an idiot cites a study that says using dogs does not increase injury to suspects or officers, and then cites anecdotes about injuries to suspects or officers and infer it does increase injury so let's get rid of dogs. The study itself found, '....At the same time, contradicting critics who claim K9 apprehension teams are overzealous, (cause more injuries), it (removing dogs) did NOT result in a sudden decrease in suspect injuries either...'
And the study mentions that dogs in the home, or business property, etc. decrease the risks of property theft, rape, car thefts, assault.
'....Our level of analysis cannot speak to individual interactions where a patrol dog could prevent a specific officer’s injury. We caution against interpreting the findings as dismissing officers who believe their K9 partner has saved them from severe injury or even death. While the results indicate no adverse aggregate impact on officer injuries during the studied period, there are undoubtedly situations where a K9 reduces the likelihood of officer injury...'
In short, the author didn't read or simply didn't understand the scope and results of the study. The decision to ban the dogs was done by the looney left, because they think the dogs bite more black than white people.
They should be transferred to more productive professions, such as chasing squirrels and protecting backyards.
Dogs do have legitimate uses in police work. For example, tracking people (He went this way!) and identifying possible articles (There's a glove in that bush!), locating hiding people (There's someone in that shed!), smelling out stuff when executing a search warrant (That cabinet smells like human remains!).
None of this is directly generates probable cause or is for "officer safety". The dog is a tool, useful in the right circumstances with the right handler.
I can't think of scenario that justifies even threatening a live bite on a suspect.
I get paid more than $140 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started.…………>>> http://www.works75.com
Salt Lake City Suspended Use of Police K9s and Nothing Bad Happened, Study Shows
So, in one sense, the headline is pretty apt. In another sense, it kinda says, "Salt Lake City suspended use of police K9s and nobody had cops kneel on their neck while drugged out of their skull, had their business looted and burned down, had to shoot 3 people in self-defense after putting out a dumpster fire, became one of millions who died of wuhan raccoon dog poisoning..."
But...but...but...drugs! Whaddabout "the children"?
But the researchers, who reported their findings in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, found that the "sudden suspension of K9 apprehension was not associated with a statistical increase in officer or suspect injury, or suspect resistance, during felony arrests." The authors concluded that restricting or eliminating police K9s is "unlikely to impact aggregate officer or suspect safety negatively."
Translation: We didn't even PRETEND to look at any possible benefits of K-9s.
"We use Bayesian modeling in an interrupted time series analysis to measure the immediate and long-term effects of the K9 apprehension program’s suspension on our hypotheses. Results The sudden suspension of K9 apprehension was not associated with a statistical increase in officer or suspect injury, or suspect resistance, during felony arrests."
The claim of "Baysian modeling" is automatic if you hope for whatever status 'peer reviewed' now confers and can be ignored like one of turd's lies. And the miss-use of 'doggy, doggy' is more than obvious to any neutral observer; "Find something interesting there, Max? Well, here's a treaty". Fuck you, officer asshole.
But when prime suspect goes running off into the boonies, Max's nose will find prime suspect where officer asshole is in the dark.
Take away immunity and fund lawsuits with police annual budget instead of unassigned taxpayer money, and the police will correct themselves.
We share educational information regarding college offers and scholarships. kindly visit our website for further details.
website>>>>>>>>> http://collegeoffers.org/
Is a suspect successfully fleeing considered "bad".
That's good right? The doggie's can now be free 🙂
cloud business intelligence
I make $100h while I’m daring to the furthest corners of the planet. Last week I worked by my PC in Rome, Monti Carlo finally Paris… This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are basic tasks from this one cool site. see it,
Copy Here→→→→→ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
I get paid more than $140 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started.…………>>> http://www.works75.com