K9 and the 3rd Prong: Fleeing or Actively Resisting Arrest

Robinette v Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1988): Using a dog to locate a hidden, unsearched burglary suspect who was actively evading arrest by hiding was reasonable.

Kerr v City of West Palm Beach, 875 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1989): Using a dog against a person who had not committed a crime and posed no threat to the officer was unreasonable.

Matthews v Jones, 35 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 1994): using a dog against a suspect who fled from police in a vehicle pursuit, who posed a possible threat to the officer, and was actively resisting arrest, was

reasonable.

Mendoza v Block, 27 f.3d 1357 (9th Cir. 1994): Using a dog to locate an armed robbery suspect fleeing with a gun and hiding, and to secure him until he stopped resisting and was handcuffed, was objectively reasonable given these circumstances.

Gill v Thomas, 83 F.3d 537 (1st Cir. 1996): Using a dog against a suspect who resisted arrest, fought the police, and posed a threat to the officer was reasonable.

Quintanilla v City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 1996): Using a dog to locate an unstarched suspect who fled from a high-speed pursuit in a stolen vehicle and to secure him until he stopped resisting and handcuffed was reasonable.

Vera Cruz v City of Escondido, 139 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 1998): Using a dog against a burglar, who was armed with a knife and actively fleeing to avoid arrest, was reasonable.

Mettler v Whitledge, 165 F. 3s 1197 (8th Cir. 1999): Using a dog to search for a suspect who was armed with a rifle and wanted for assault with a deadly weapon was reasonable.

Brewer v City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2000): Using a dog to locate a fleeing, hidden, unsearched stolen car and a high-speed pursuit suspect was reasonable.

Dennen v City of Duluth, 350 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2003): Having a police dog unleashed with you for handler protection while searching for a suspicious person was reasonable and did not constitute a use of force.

Jarrett v Town of Yarmouth, 331 F.3d 140 (1st. Cir. 2003): Using a dog to apprehend a suspect who was the driver in a property damage hit-and-run, fled from police, had prior identification as an armed robbery suspect, and was actively resisting arrest, was reasonable.

Miller v Clark County, 340 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2003): Using a dog against a suspect involved in a high-speed chase, who had not been searched and tried to escape by running, was reasonable.

Dunigan v Noble, 390 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2004): Having a police dog for handler protection and entering a house to search for a fugitive were lawful actions and did not constitute the use of force.

Kuha v City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 2004): Using a dog on a suspect who fled from a traffic stop—where officers believed there was a more serious crime and the suspect was not searched—was reasonable, given that officers were concerned about their safety and the safety of the public.

Marquez v City of Albuquerque, 399 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2005): Using a dog against a fleeing, armed burglary suspect was reasonable.

Chavez v City of Albuquerque, 402 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2005): Using a dog to apprehend a fleeing, armed vehicle pursuit and burglary suspect was reasonable.

United States v Lawshea, 461 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2006): Using a dog against a suspect who fled from police, posed a threat to the officer, and was actively resisting detention was reasonable.

Mann v Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2007): Using a dog to bite a non-compliant, resistive, attempted homicide with a gun, domestic violence, suicide by police suspect, was objectively reasonable.

Peals v Terre Haute Police Department, 535 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2008): It was lawful to have a police dog with you inside a person’s garage while executing an arrest warrant, whether to protect officers, apprehend suspects, or detect narcotics.

Crenshaw v Lister, 556 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2009): Using a police dog to locate an armed with a gun, fleeing, hiding, shooting suspect and to secure him until he was handcuffed was objectively reasonable under these circumstances.

Johnson v Scott, 576 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2009): Using a dog to apprehend a fleeing, armed, and shooting suspect was considered reasonable.

Thomson v Salt Lake County, 584 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2009): Using a dog to search for a suspect who had threatened his wife with a gun, was armed, and fled their home into a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night was reasonable.

Goodman v Harris County, 571 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2009): A handler who used deadly force (handgun) against a suspect, who was drowning a police K-9, was unreasonable.

Melgar v Greene, 593 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2010): Using a patrol K-9 to locate and bite a Search & Rescue was unreasonable.

Edwards v Shanley, 580 Fed. Appx. 816 (11th Cir. Unpub. 2014): Using a dog against a suspect who was a driver during a traffic stop, fled into dense woods, possibly threatened the officer, and was actively resisting arrest, was reasonable.

Cooper v Brown, 844 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2016): Deploying a dog to apprehend a person who fled on foot from a D.U.I. traffic stop and hiding was unreasonable. NOTE: No other case endorses this type of K-9 usage. All other cases assess the three elements outlined in GRAHAM v CONNOR: the severity of the crime.