When Does a K9 Bite Become Excessive Force? A Case-Law Perspective
When Does a K9 Bite Become Excessive Force? A Case-Law Perspective
By Erick Maldonado – CODE4K9
Police K9 Use of Force Expert | SWAT/K9 Integration | Expert Testimony
Introduction: Why This Question Matters
In today’s law enforcement environment, the question “When does a K9 bite become excessive force?” isn’t just legal—it’s tactical, ethical, and operational. Every police K9 handler must make split-second decisions that will later be dissected for reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.
At CODE4K9, we specialize in K9 use-of-force analysis, expert testimony, and scenario-based SWAT/K9 training that help agencies stay tactically sound and legally defensible.
The Legal Foundation: Graham v. Connor
All use-of-force incidents, including those involving police K9s, are evaluated through the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, set forth in Graham v. Connor (1989). Courts assess three main factors:
The severity of the crime
Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others
Whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee
The test isn’t about perfection—it’s about whether the officer’s decision was reasonable based on what was known at the time of deployment.
When a K9 Bite Crosses the Line
Courts generally view K9s as an intermediate level of force—serious, but often less lethal than impact weapons or firearms. However, a bite can cross into excessive force when:
The suspect was not resisting or threatening when the bite occurred.
The handler failed to issue a warning before release (when feasible).
The bite continued longer than necessary to gain control.
The K9 was not under control or failed to disengage when commanded to do so.
In these cases, handler control, duration, and articulation become the key factors in determining the outcome.
Recent Case Law Examples
1. Lowry v. City of San Diego (9th Cir. 2017)
A police K9 bit a woman sleeping on a couch during a building search. The court ruled that the deployment was reasonable, given the unknown threat level associated with a burglary call.
Takeaway: Context and threat perception drive legality—intent alone is not sufficient.
2. Martinez v. Jenneiahn (10th Cir. 2023)
A K9 was released on a fleeing suspect who had previously assaulted officers. The dog disengaged promptly after the suspect stopped resisting. The court found no violation.
Takeaway: Immediate recall and handler control are key elements of reasonableness.
3. Barnes v. Felix (9th Cir. 2025)
A lawful bite became unconstitutional when the K9 maintained contact after the suspect was restrained.
Takeaway: A Force that begins reasonably can become excessive once the threat subsides.
Strengthening Legal Defensibility
Agencies that prevail in litigation typically show:
Clear deployment policy and recall standards
Verbal warnings (when safe and feasible)
Comprehensive handler training and documentation
Accurate and timely reports describing perception and control
Body-worn camera evidence supporting the handler articulation
At CODE4K9, we assist agencies in designing K9 use-of-force policies, conducting independent bite reviews, and providing expert courtroom testimony that aligns with federal case law.
The Power of Articulation
A justified bite can still appear excessive without strong documentation.
Handlers must clearly articulate:
The reason for deployment
The threat observed
Warnings given
Duration and recall commands
The suspect’s actions during the encounter
Proper articulation turns a defensible deployment into a provable one.
Conclusion: Training Is the Best Defense
In any use-of-force review or civil trial, the handler’s training and articulation are under scrutiny.
The question isn’t just “Was the bite justified?”—it’s “Can it be explained clearly under the law?”
CODE4K9 equips agencies with the knowledge, policy guidance, and courtroom-ready training to ensure every K9 deployment withstands scrutiny.
