Police Argue They Aren't the 'Owner' of Police Dogs

[@ChewieDefense]

The duality of dog... "Dog bites man": it's not "our" dog. "Man bites dog": it's our dog and that's assault on a police officer.

[@kirstenperez4265]

That's exactly what went through my head.

[@xpusostomos]

That's science, the dog's owner isn't settled until there's an observer who knows what's best for the state

[@vaughn1804]

So true 🤣

[@TheOnespeedbiker]

Contrary to popular belief K9s are not considered police officers, all the laws pertaining to harming a K9 are specific to police dogs and do not refer to them as officers (officially a deploying a K9 is also considering a less lethal use of force). If that were true maliciously killing a police dog would be a capital offense, where the penalty is usually a felony in the 5 to 7 year range

[@glass1258]

You win sir

[@N1withaskillet]

If you attack a Police dog you assaulted an officer. If Police dog attacks you it is just a dog chill bro.

[@rajayrhoden3991]

Lol chill

[@admthrawnuru]

And if your dog so much as barks at them they shoot it

[@b0rd3n]

It's even worse, it's a stray dog!

[@wilneal8015]

And if you don't immediately Submit to LEO's Authoritie, You will be Shot for Resisting Arrest! 😮😢💫🤡

[@-Katastrophe]

Which is weird, last I checked a dog was about as smart as a 5-7yearold, I didn't think you could be a cop without s high school diploma.

[@blitsriderfield4099]

"We don't own the dogs" guess it's time to check your feral dog policy

[@ronpflugrath2712]

Are dogs still trained like east german border gaurds?? Bite to kill??

[@Nirrrina]

Puppy!!!!!!

[@ianbelletti6241]

Judge: "If the plaintiff takes that dog home and keeps it as her own would you charge her with theft of state property?" DA: "Yes. That's theft of state property." Judge: "Thanks for confirming that the state is the owner of the dog and therefore is liable for its actions."

[@meenki347]

In Jersey City (see Kelly's Hero's), if you feed feral cats around your house? You can be charged with "cruelty to animals", if you don't pay for any obvious injury or sickness of the cats. If this town has any similar law? The police kennel might have liability, as they feed and care for the dogs even if they claim they don't own them. However, there is a good side to the state's argument. Anyone would have full right to "steal" these dogs from the police kennel as the police don't own the dogs. Legally, a citizen could seize a dog even on patrol. As the police dog is not owned by the cop, state or police. Of course, a cop would have possession. I've come to the conclusion that modern law has a Medieval inertia that is essentially insane in our contemporary world. And we need a complete overhaul, from a CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM to a CIVILIZED JUSTICE SYSTEM.

[@dtoad48]

@@ianbelletti6241 Great point.

[@viking956]

The lengths to which police agencies will go to escape accountability is appalling while at the same time disheartening. It's like they don't ever want to acknowledge their own wrong doing and, like here, any argument will do to achieve that end no matter how obnoxiously ridiculous.

[@AtomicBuffalo]

This is the state's attorney, not the police.

[@JTA1961]

They're using the general publics money to fight it ... NOT any repercussions for them personally so why not.

[@gregebrown]

The problem is that the dog is too aggressive and will probably bite someone (maybe a child) causing serious facial or bodily injuries. They spent more money fighting in court than the cost of getting rid of the dog and buying a new one, with money left over to settle out of court.

[@alanmcentee9457]

@@AtomicBuffalo I thought it was a good argument. Pure bullshit, but a good try. Remember, an attorney is expected to defend their client to their best ability. If making bullshit claims is part of the job, you go with it.

[@vindik8or]

Seems like all of these stray dogs without a registered owner should be impounded by Animal Control for the safety of the general public.

[@martygould5114]

Police: "It's not our dog." Judge: "Fine it's going to the shelter."

[@justsayen2024]

Eggs-actly😂

[@ronallen6578]

The poor dog only did what it was trained to do by its "OWNER"!!!!

[@SS-hz4jo]

❤

[@brucesim2003]

Not only is that dog going to the shelter, so are all the unowned dogs found in police stations, cars, etc. Wonder what shytestorm that would raise.

[@jayabacromby675]

@@ronallen6578 Without trying to nit pic Ron. I'm confident MN. bought the dog fully trained. Witch now a days is around forty thousand. That's cost for breeding, care, and training. All the best Ron.

[@TR-zx1lc]

"He's not our dog, but if you take him, we're going to arrest and charge you with stealing him."

[@kameljoe21]

Then they need to file a motion to seize the dog and hold it in a kennel until it can be decided who's dog it is.

[@KabobHope]

​@@kameljoe21 That would be a great idea.

[@avellinklater3566]

Once again, police are displaying their allergy to accountability...

[@jarrod752]

It's just _yet another case_ of *we've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong.*

[@Ryarios]

Well, to be fair, the state is denying their liability in this case.

[@musicM0VESme]

They can never own up.

[@andyvonbourske6405]

I'm so sick of the length the government will go to avoid the most obvious abuse cases.

[@GlenCychosz]

They should double the pay out for shit like this.

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

It's their team Vs your team. They are fully FUNDED by YOUR team. They are organized and well equipped. Each member of your team is on his own.

[@station08]

It's not the government but the people that operate it. Please use names. Thank you.

[@station08]

​@@stopclowninwocr Because the fellow Americans that operate these "systems" are broken. The government is the same as a gun. Leaving it alone, and it hurts nobody. Add people shit goes sideways. The people are BROKEN.

[@katiekane5247]

​@Stop Clownin WOCR absolutely! The default position of Worker's Comp is you're lying, malingering or responsible in some way.

[@THE-michaelmyers]

My GF and I were laughing at this last night while eating dinner. She is an Attorney and had an interesting take. If the court does toss this case, then have the plaintiffs file a FOIA request for the State Police to officially state who in fact owns these dogs! Then amend the complaint.

[@Elliandr]

That's an interesting approach, but try this one instead: If the courts accept that the state cannot be the owner of property file a request with the state's "unclaimed land divison" for the nearest body of state owned land. Explain that since the state requested to not be liable for damages on the basis of not being capable of owning property that would mean that all state owned land is henceforth legally unclaimed. When they refuse file an appeal with the courts asserting that since the state filed with the courts that it cannot own property and that, as such, it cannot own the land you are trying to claim. Literally anyone could do this. And if eenough people do it would force the state to admit it owns property. The reason why this would work is this: They don't simply claim to not own the dog. They claim that the definition of an owner is in the singular. They say, "It's a definite phrase. It's talking about one person and only one person.". This, incidentally, should also concern literally every corporation in the state since if it's accepted by the courts that the state cannot own property it's also asserting that corporations cannot own property. Of course, the logical thing for the court to do is to say that the state is a singular entity which is legally a person and therefore can own property using the same rules that apply to corporations, but since when has our government been logical? It usually takes absurd consequences to make people see reason.

[@tonym1279]

@@Elliandr -- IF the court says the state is a singular entity which is legally a person --- you can sue them as such.

[@Elliandr]

​@@tonym1279 Yes, and I absolutely agree that they SHOULD be regarded as a singular entity. I would base this on a precedent set by the supreme court in 1866: "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road". In that case the courts granted a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th ammendment including the right to own property. That ruling is the literal foundation of the right of corporations to own property and even the right to sue. This was reaffirmed and expanded in an 1888 case and a 1978 case, in which a company was given the right to donate money to political campaigns as a 1st Ammendment right. In 2010, the case "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" found that political speech by corporations is a form of free speech covered by the 1st Ammendment. In 2014 the case "Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores" granted the right of a corporation to file for exemptions to federal laws on religious grounds. In literally every case involving the rights and responsibilities of a person going back 157 years the courts have invariably held that corporate entities are persons and are thus entitled to the same rights and responsibilities. While I am not aware of any cases concerning a government being treated as not a person for the purposes of ownership, I have no doubt that a government entity should be treated the same as a corporate entity given the precedents set. That said, if they rule that the government isn't a person, whew, that will open a serious can of worms all across the country! Having no responsibilies means having no rights and that has the potential to cost the government far more than just paying on this case. THere's probably a reason why no government body made that claim before: It's stupid beyond words to make an argument in court that costs you more on a win than a loss.

[@DavidKutzler]

When a legal argument becomes a Monty Python sketch: "This is a dead parrot." "No he isn't. He's resting."

[@rodh1404]

RIP🪦

[@justsayen2024]

It is an ex-parrot it is no more😅😅

[@gwcrispi]

The judge should have asked "Is the owner present? No? Ok, I order this stray to be put down."

[@EnthalpyAndEntropy]

If I were a judge, irrespective of ownership, I’d have it tested for rabies. lol

[@ram50v8]

Although I love dogs and cats I was thinking that exact thing. Problem is, the agency although loosing on the costs spent on training would immediately recognize that such loss is minor in comparison to what the pay out would be if the case proceeded and was successful. I suspect this might have been considered as a way of "making it go away" A few other angles the Judge could have exercised would have been who was in charge of the dog or responsible for it's care and well being? The "Judgement of Solomon" popped into my mind. This could be a very interesting case to follow and would love to have been present to see the Judges body language or facial expressions as the "not my dog" argument was presented.

[@singatune]

He is a vicious dog???

[@larrybrinley8222]

Why do you say "put down " ? Was someone holding the dog

[@CognitiveHeatsink]

​​@@larrybrinley8222 it's so hard to tell if people are serious or joking in KZbin comments, but in case you're serious the OP meant to euthanize the dog. 😂

[@primordial_platypus]

"Does your dog bite?," Clouseau asks the man at the desk. The man says no, so Clouseau stoops to pet the dog, who immediately chomps down on his glove. "I thought you said you dog did not bite," Clouseau says. "That is not my dog," says the innkeeper.

[@Bob-Lob-Law]

Classic

[@writerconsidered]

I was thinking of that exact scene.

[@katiekane5247]

Me too

[@ronaldwilson9525]

@@katiekane5247 Me three

[@davidb6576]

"You fuuel!".

[@zxcvbob]

What makes me angry about these cases is the state (or city or whatever) does not just settle the case when they are obviously at fault; they try to screw the person they harmed.

[@Wrangzilla]

While spending more tax payers money..

[@Allan_A]

This way you'll get your money, then promptly pay the lawyers. By making it as painful and costly as possible, everyone is discouraged from bringing even obviously simple lawsuits 🤷‍♂️

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

Why Not? Win or lose, it doesn't cost them anything, (even makes OT money) but they Know it will $Cost$ You.... also keeps people from ever challenging police behavior or procedure.

[@sarowie]

@@reasonablespeculation3893 So the police is willing to pay an additional charge for armed hooligans with feral dogs on their mechanics bill? I mean, they can then delay payment till next tax season, because you can't accept cash from a cop, because he knows where it came from, but you don't, so he has probable cause for civil asset forfeiture.

[@johnmcclain3887]

They spend "our money" defending themselves and they ought to be liable out of their own pockets. I had my had ripped open by a police dog while on my paper route at age 11, in Chicago. There was "no liability" at the time because I simply continued my route and my family paid the doctor bill. That was fifty years ago, the bill was about twenty five bucks. Of course I bought a car for a hundred bucks a few years later at 16.

[@Lethr477]

I was a police dog handler in a medium sized city. I purchased the K9 and donated it to the city, which was accepted by the city. The city tried to make me put the dog license in my name for the very reason you’re talking about. They would be able to deny ownership and put liability on me as the owner. I refused this and finally the city backed off.

[@Z4Zander]

*accepted (could argue that they took exception to being registered owners)

[@Lethr477]

@@Z4Zander thank you for pointing out my error. I’ve edited my comment.

[@zacrl1230]

Stop helping the police. They are not here to help you.

[@robertsmith2956]

@@zacrl1230 How did you do in the elections? They never posted the vote count for you. Maybe he trains them to bite the popo.

[@uv6er]

@@zacrl1230 and whom you will turn to when you get mugged or car crash or breakin or bigger stuff?

[@MeRiaNevaMynd]

The utter irony! How many dog "owners" have been held liable & prosecuted in this state for having "dangerous dogs"!?! It's disgusting how now they are twisting the language in "their" favor...

[@jess_o]

Of course they'd try to argue that. They want to keep their RAS printer, without any responsibility. "We didn't violate your rights, the dog did. Also, the dog is immune"

[@AshleeKnowsNot]

RAS?

[@jess_o]

@@AshleeKnowsNot "reasonable articulable suspicion", giving police free reign to stop and harass you because they interpreted or even prompted certain behavior from their dogs

[@davidh9638]

Remote Application Server

[@ChewieDefense]

@@AshleeKnowsNot Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. The other user, however, is conflating it with PC (Probable Cause) - the threshold needed for them to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle. Such is why cops "jokingly" refer to said dogs as "probable cause on four legs."

[@newshodgepodge6329]

Didn't even know there was a vaccine for this. I don't think the court is buying it either.

[@rerun3283]

This is the police equivalent of "I'm not driving I'm traveling."

[@2CHACHOUU]

Believe it or not,if the USA was really about LAWS,those who claim "I am traveling "would all be found not guilty,but as we know the Government is all about STEALING from its citizens.

[@anthonyslazas6413]

Lmfao 😀😀😀

[@matbuchanan9765]

Bahaha 😂

[@Back_Fire2468]

😂🤣💯

[@seth7745]

Police dogs are sovereign citizens.

[@unbreakable7633]

Kind of reminds me of that joke in one of the Pink Panther movies when Inspector Cleuseau asks an shopkeeper if his dog bites and is told no but when he tries to pet the dog, the dog bites him and Cleuseau says, "I thought you said your dog didn't bite?" The shopkeeper says, "That's not my dog."

[@jayjaynella4539]

🤣🤣🤣Great pink panther series.

[@kevinbreckenridge6729]

You get my best laugh of the day reward!

[@victoriabarefoot7434]

I remember that. It's about the funniest line in any movie I've seen.

[@starhawke380]

If they are inferring that the dog is a sworn police officer and subject to qualified immunity, then it should be charged with assault for attacking a woman with no legal justification.

[@jonathanmarois9009]

Shameful how law enforcement will argue to avoid responsibility, and wilfully do more harm to everyone by setting precedents to the same law they swear to uphold....

[@thurmanluper5885]

I think the plaintiff should call the city dog catcher and report the dog as an abandoned stray and see how the state reacts.

[@IAtomicBongI]

It's called a police dog because it is a member of the force. It's in the name. They trained it, they feed it, take care of it, and pay for its care. They are responsible for it in every way. They walk it and pick up its poop. It is literally their dog.

[@blechtic]

Sic the dog catcher on them if it isn't. The owner(s) can come get the dogs from the pound thereby establishing a written record of ownership.

[@deborahcollis9814]

I've yet to see an officer pick up its dogs poo

[@vihtoripuurola3775]

But, they don't have ownership. I don't own my assigned weapon in the military. I'm responsible for it, but I don't have ownership.

[@robertaylor9218]

@@vihtoripuurola3775 that is a poor analogy. It would be like the Federal Government saying they don’t own the weapon.

[@vihtoripuurola3775]

@@robertaylor9218 Just a poorly written law saying only the owner is responsible. If you pay a dog walker and your dog injures someone then the dog walker would be responsible.

[@Yoda8945]

The only instance of a dog punching a timeclock for work, that I am aware of, was Sam the Sheep Dog and Ralph Wolf on Looney Tunes cartoons.

[@brandyroseann]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@lowercherty]

And their relief at the end of the shift.

[@lynchkid003]

I remember watching that cartoon.

[@mematoeight8709]

I follow a homesteaders who is a deputy sheriff. Some followers asked why "Max," his K9, was not in the videos. He explained that Max isn't a pet, isn't his dog and that he belongs to the county Sheriff's Dept. I personally thought everyone understood that, but I was wrong 😊

[@peterdarr383]

If a cop finds drugs or guns in your car - - it's yours. The dog was in a car at a dealership - - it's the State's dog or the individual Officer handling it.

[@stevefoss5486]

I think the court should take possession of all of these "State Police Dogs", until their owners are located. 😁

[@ingiford175]

That is what I thought when I was listening to the video.

[@larryforeman7157]

This another case of the "state" running up the bill for the plaintiff to see if the cost will entice them to fold. The AG merely sticks a junior, salaried attorney on the case and says go see if you can get them to give up. This is common in cases of qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture. It's up to the judges to punish these frivolous appeals, but unfortunately judges care nothing about the expenses of litigants.

[@GoToPhx]

Well said, Sad but true.

[@mgass1354]

I agree. But, in this case, you don't even need a lawyer. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can win this argument in court; no lawyer needed. State attorney: "Your honor, the state does not "own" the dogs" Me: "Your honor, I'd like to call the attorney to the stand"... "Sir, who purchased the dogs that are put into police K9 training?"... "Uh... the state"... "And the state then houses said dogs, feeds them, gets them veteranary care?"... "uh... yes"... "Your honor, I'd like a directed verdict"

[@brianblumer4367]

Brings a new meaning to needing a "Lawyer Dog."

[@mr.robinson1982]

Dog gone & Dog days of Summer.

[@johnnemery545]

...meanwhile, moment's after the dog incident, the same dog was called to a suspicious car thought to have cash in it...

[@BaalAdvocate]

According to that statute, it needs to be registered as a dangerous dog, needs 300k in special liability insurance, and $500 per year for licensing. Unless of course the laws don't apply to them.

[@choccolocco]

“That’s not mine, I was just holding it for a friend.”

[@pcast2005]

The State Controller probably has a copy of the receipt for the dog from the dog breeder

[@michaeltelson9798]

Or the purchase from the trainer. Dogs can be selected by an organization that trains the dogs based of the animal’s personality. The governmental organization then purchases the animal. My former agency trains dogs for their and or agencies including DHS. A retired animal isn’t returned to the training facility as it isn’t a rental.

[@hydrolito]

@@michaeltelson9798 They need to train both dog and person using it. Dog training is about training the user as well as the dog.

[@michaeltelson9798]

@@hydrolito Yes, but finding the dogs with the correct temperament comes first. Handler candidates are then sent to join up with their canine partners. Dogs do flunk out as well as handlers while in training.

[@janeraymond5214]

WHO left the dog in the car that caused the incident of injury? That's the one I'd hold responsible.

[@Fun4GA]

Many years ago when I lived in a city, a police K-9 unit was visiting someone across the street. Upon walking back to the cruiser, my neighbor said, "I like your dog." The officer said "you want to see him?" He dropped the leash and commanded, "go see the nice lady." It started walking to her, but started picking up speed as it closed in. It destroyed her chest and couldn't be called off. When the officer grabbed it's collar and pulled it off, it ripped into her leg and damaged that too. After the surgery to put this woman back together, she call the police to ask where to send her bills for the deductibles. The dispatcher came unglued and said the report stated she provoked the attack and they would charge her for extortion if she called them again. So she went and hired the best lawyer and took the City and the personal officer both to court. She won her case HUGE and they each had to send monthly installments. Last weekend, another K9 unit from the same city was demonstrating their dog at an Easter carnival. The dog attached the prepared padded bad guy on command, and couldn't be called off. The officer grabbed the leash and pulled it off, but the dog wasn't done. It attacked the handler and wouldn't let go of his unprotected knee. I grabbed the toddlers we brought and got them out of there.

[@Br0nto5aurus]

People think police dogs are so well trained, but that's nonsense.

[@Fun4GA]

@Brontosaurus I've seen plenty of well trained police dogs. This department buys discounts and rejects. One other factor is that the handler needs to be well trained, too.

[@jons1148]

I'm a retired cop and my last tour was working the third shift and I used to pick up this stray Beagle every night in this one neighborhood. The little guy would ride with me all night, go on calls and help me eat my lunch. When ever I transported prisoners, the Beagle sit in the front passenger seat, backwards, and would keep a death stare on the prisoner in the back seat. At the end of my shift I would drop him back off at the same corner I picked him up at until the next night. This went on for months and I finally retired. I never knew who he belonged to and I often wonder if the owners would have approve of their little K-9 moonlighting as a cop? And just for the record, he never bite anyone! I never gave him the chance, I knew I was responsible if he did (even if I wasn't the "owner"), unlike the State of Minnesota.

[@hi-if7lj]

What a wonderful and cool story. Thanks for sharing it.

[@solutionsforabrightfuture3579]

That dog helped calm people more than anything

[@shadowgarr7649]

Appears a good cop has been revealed. Thanks for sharing this story.

[@blechtic]

Just to play the devil's advocate, you either kidnapped someone's dog for whole days or didn't adopt a stray dog you spent loads of time with?

[@solutionsforabrightfuture3579]

@@blechtic interesting perspective

[@davidferia4018]

I'm surprised they didn't say that they had done a thorough investigation and the dog did nothing wrong ...

[@JayTemple]

The dog was white and the citizen was black, is my guess.

[@karenstein8261]

Everyone knows dogs have owners. Now, had it been a cat . . .

[@ChewieDefense]

Cats don't have owners. Cats have humans that they command when they're not knocking things off of tables.

[@b0rd3n]

@@ChewieDefense yes, that's specifically what the comment meant! hehhe

[@Nirrrina]

Sooo does that mean my cats are responsible if I bite someone?

[@scottcooper4391]

Everyone knows "Dogs have owners, cats have staff."

[@waiting4aliens]

Cats have staff.

[@kevinfreeman3098]

According to the State, that stray and dangerous animal should by the written law be put down, I'd press the case for that and then see how they react...

[@jamesbrother9597]

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure if you were to attack a police dog that the law states that you are attacking a police officer. Therefore, the police on the dog. Love your video Steve, keep them coming.

[@QALibrary]

I am surprised they not said police dogs have sovereign immunity

[@AndrewClark4MarkRacing]

☺️

[@phobos258]

I mean the dog is an "officer" so why wouldn't it qualify? 😢

[@countbenjamin1442]

​@@phobos258my guess is they aren't citizens and hence not entitled to our rights. After all the government does say they are property...just not theirs .

[@anthonyantoine9232]

@@phobos258 Dogs get qualified immunity, and how could you expect them to be aware of any legal ruling? So what they lied about smelling drugs on you? They didn't know it was illegal!

[@cgi2002]

​@@phobos258it would have to claim it, and as it lacks the required language skills to do so (or to pass the tests to become an officer) then it can't claim it. I thought about this logically, there are 3 arguments the judge can give the state and say "pick one". 1) Not states dog, then it's not state property or an officer, meaning it now can't have immunity, can't be a source of "evidence" and can't assault anyone. All police dogs that bit people are now dangerous dogs and must be destroyed, all convictions that had a dog provide "probable cause" (drug dogs) must be thrown out. 2) Dog is property of the state (US defines dogs as property, nothing more), the States property bit the woman, pay out (honestly best case for the state). 3) Dog is an officer not property, dog must now preform as an officer, so it must testify in court when called to (in English), must fill out all paperwork and pass the tests to become an officer (dogs can't have their own tests, thats discrimination), and is liable for pay and benefits. State has violated labour laws and owes millions in back pay, taxes and benefits. Also state may now be in trouble for breaking slavery laws, as the officer in question had no say in wether it became an officer. This is silly, but it also is the kind of legal arguement you could make. Oh and because dog is an officer, it must claim immunity, not its employer, and it must do so in understandable language, good luck with that.

[@Rwededyet]

I'm surprised they didn't try to accuse her of resisting arrest while she was servicing their vehicle

[@gordonshumway7239]

There was a cartoon in my college Business Law book. It went something like: My dog couldn’t have bitten the man because I don’t own a dog; But if the court finds that I do own a dog, it couldn’t have bitten the man because it never leaves the house; But if the court finds it did leave the house, it couldn’t have bitten the man because it’s a very friendly dog … That always stuck with me. :-)

[@TheOnespeedbiker]

There is a legal issue that in some cases, before a trial all defenses must be stated; the end result was as stated. To normal thinking people it is an admission of guilt.

[@johaquila]

This kind of absurd language is an artifact of how the legal practices in Common Law countries developed. This kind of nonsense is what makes your legal system so expensive. Under different legal regimes, it is not necessary.

[@owenclark7210]

If the dog is registered and papered, it's legal owner will be listed on that paperwork. The owner's name will also be listed in the Vet records.

[@Andres64B]

"My dog did not bite you." "Maybe my dog bit you, but it was because you were harassing it." "It's not my dog." So if the state police don't own the dog then I guess it would be fine if I just went and took the dog home with me. I didn't steal it since they didn't own it.

[@machintelligence]

I had a friend who was employed by the City of Boulder as an attorney. At one point I asked about a stand that the city had taken on a case that was silly and doomed to fail. He said that he was told to argue it anyway, essentially to make life difficult and waste time for the folks that were suing the city. I guess it happens all of the time.

[@mystichawk1612]

This is where lawyers should be punished for wasting everyone's time. They are the authority they should be able to tell the government, no you will lose you are in the wrong.

[@lowercherty]

That's what lawyers do. Trained to take either side of any case.

[@markbernier8434]

The process is the punishment.

[@roberteltze4850]

I just read about a case this morning where my city lost one of those doomed to fail lawsuits. The court made the city pay the attorneys fees for the plaintiff. The city appealed on just the lawyers fees and that cost them another $17k for the lawyers fees on the appeal. City lost an extra $27k for trying to be difficult.

[@downhomesunset]

@@roberteltze4850 the sick part is, the city didn’t lose anything, the taxpayers did.

[@BIGSTANK1983]

I found this channel not long ago and I had no idea law videos would be this interesting and enjoyable. Thank you sir for the work you put into this. I've learned a lot in the short time I've been here

[@DragonJohn]

Is good to have a person that can explain it in plain-speak

[@dorianward4909]

Every episode he hides a $100 bill in the background,it moves around.

[@james-faulkner]

In this video the C-note is stage right. good luck :)

[@vivianking4563]

If you like this channel you would also like Good Luck America, Lackluster,and James Freeman are all good too.

[@charmaintrout174]

​@@dorianward4909 I've found the best way to find it is to take a screenshot and look for it. Otherwise, I get too distracted by the story. Lol

[@bus-ted]

It's sad that almost everyone. Especially our government won't just stand up and take responsibility for what they do. Is their anyone left on this planet with morals. How does our government officials do what they do and go home and face their wife and kids.

[@Hatbox948]

They belong to a club we're not in, and tell themselves they can do whatever they want to us.

[@huwhitecavebeast1972]

They are sociopaths/psychopaths. When you realize they make up 4% of the population, and that they gravitate towards positions of power so they can fulfill their evil desires, it is not a surprise. The problem is the 96% of us who are not do not recognize the problem. Or too few of us do.

[@davidh9638]

Anyone with morals probably isn't in the news much.

[@timspence3092]

Why do we give even give them the chance? Anyone making such a silly argument ought to "disappear" and no one should go looking for them.

[@WitnessingTyranny]

Because there are certain personalities attracted to power and they're not the good ones.

[@Tygearianus]

I love your energy, the way you talk about stories displays such good sense. I think you'd make a most fair and reasonable judge.

[@Thasunkawitko]

If they're arguing that they're not the owner, and police dogs are considered police officers, that would make them the employer -- Just the payroll/benefits and tax implications would be such a nightmare that they're FAR better off claiming ownership

[@RoseKindred]

I would expect the department as a whole would be the responsible "owner." The human partner is a caregiver/partner until retirement or re-assignment. It may vary on the department but doesn't the costs of training, medical, and even retirement come out of the police budget?

[@maryricketts7337]

The K-9 officer foots the bills with no stipend in my area.

[@RoseKindred]

@@maryricketts7337 Ouch. Well, hopefully, they save receipts for tax time as work-related expenses.

[@mf--]

​@@RoseKindred ouch? Maybe the officer should not have an attack dog.

[@Greensprings1]

… interesting and in the future they will change the rules to Make this explicit… the owner of the dog will be the officer who uses it… it will become a piece of equipment the officer uses… similar to a gun or taser… and then the question is does the officer own his service weapon… if it is baught and paid for by the government?

[@johnmcclain3887]

A year ago, my dog, a pit bull, attacked a neighbor's dog. I paid over two grand for the vet bill of the dog attacked. This is ridiculous and simply evil. There's no end to the State efforts to avoid their responsibility. What a crock!

[@nothing4mepls973]

Least insane pitbull owner

[@MeRiaNevaMynd]

I agree John.

[@equallawandorder5393]

Because every criminal that is caught via a dog would sue for 90 million dollars. It should only be for medical costs. Put a realistic upper limit. Perhaps the dog had an open warrant on the person ⁉️🤠 Less lethal than a 9mm❗️

[@jarrod752]

@@equallawandorder5393 It's different when the dog is engaged under the active control of a police officer and when the dog had no business biting someone. It's not like this woman was some kind of criminal doing something that deserves to get chased down and bitten by a dog.

[@PureMagma]

@@equallawandorder5393 There is a huge difference between a criminal and a person at work trying to do their job. The woman that was bitten, was at work in the service department at the dealership where the police vehicle was being serviced. Think of a situation more along the lines of: "She reached in to pop the hood of the vehicle so they could perform an oil change and the police dog attacked her." and now, instead of being accountable for the unprovoked attack (because why was the dog even in the vehicle) the Police Department is expending tax payer resources by fighting the injury claim and arguing "Can you really OWN a police dog?"

[@Alastriona]

I’m surprised that the state didn’t argue that the police dog is a police officer and has qualified immunity

[@mikezupancic2182]

Qualified immunity likely would not be granted as courts have ruled that dogs have violated people's constitutional rights in the past.

[@jamesdunn9609]

I am with you on this Steve! The very first thing that came to my mind was "Who pays the dogs medical bills? Because whoever does that is the owner. It seems pretty straight forward (barring someone compelled to cover expenses due to liability or other such exceptions.)

[@JimSkeen4041]

I agree also. Since I took my dog to the vet yesterday, I looked at my receipt that they gave me. It clearly states the owners name, which is my name and also the pets name. Therefore, on each individual record of the state police dogs that are serviced by the vet should have the owner listed.

[@death13a]

Police Officer that handles that dog should be responsible for the dog.

[@JK-un3wp]

Love these types of videos, you continue to amaze me.

[@KerryCarleton]

Spot on Steve. Get the vet history for that dog and who was bill/paid for its care.

[@askbobcarson1141]

I don't own my dog, we're just traveling ✌😂

[@WitnessingTyranny]

That makes zero sense unless you're riding on your dog.

[@TrumpsEarBandage]

In that case you’re feee to go

[@roflchopter11]

Sir, step out of the vehicle * Magdumps into you and your/the dog*

[@karenstein8261]

A cop once wanted to keep a dog that failed training. The department wanted $$$$$. I stepped up and funded the purchase. Therefore the department owns the dog.

[@RoseKindred]

If you don't mind, about how much was the animal after the failure? I know some agencies get the animals through shelters or even donations, but I have seen breeders charge 5K+ for purebred German shepherds (without papers) so dunno how they are claiming purebred but that is another subject.

[@hydrolito]

Past tense they owned it then you did.

[@karenstein8261]

You’re quite right - proper police dogs are $$$$. This is especially true when the dogs are brought over from Europe. Today such a dog can cost $12,000 - before completing training.

[@chadlampson]

If they try to claim that "The People own the dog" then individually sue them all.... that should tie up the court for at least a day or two.....

[@bjmccann1]

The next time one of those vehicles came in for service, I would let them know that for the safety of our employees and clients, we don't service vehicles with dogs in them, and we don't allow dogs on the property. I would try to encourage other shops to adopt a similar policy. We would still service their vehicles, but their dogs would have to be elsewhere.

[@matthewwain9958]

Why does doing the right thing seem so difficult?

[@gregogrady8027]

You can't sue us because it isn't our dog

[@troodon1096]

Actually first argument they tried is "you can't sue us because we're immune." That one failed. Now they're trying the argument of "you can't hold us liable because it's not our dog." Hopefully this one fails too, and there is precedent saying it should, because courts have held that municipal police dogs are owned by the municipality, and the municipality is thus liable for what their dogs do. But then they countered with the argument that they're a state and not a municipality. Why that distinction makes a difference as to who own the dog and thus who is liable for the dog biting someone, I don't know; hopefully it's held that distinction doesn't make a difference.

[@MattHudsonAtx]

If it's not their dog, then I it's a stray and I can take it home.

[@Nirrrina]

Me too!

[@jeffreybussie5087]

This made my day Steve... Thanks for all of your great content

[@larrylanham2779]

If the state doesn't own the dog then she should request the dog be surrendered to her so she can sell it for damages

[@kevinstewart7792]

As poorly trained as the dog was, I’d bet it was expensive and someone paid for it… who paid for it? Wouldn’t that imply ownership?

[@leev4206]

If the police vehicle was at a dealership for servicing, the dog SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN in the vehicle. First, non-technicians are not supposed to be in the servicing area. Second, technicians need to be able to access the interior (to pop the hood, for example). For the safety of both the dog and the technician, the dog should have been together, either in the waiting area or outside the building. I do not know how dogs in that jurisdiction are trained to respond when a stranger accesses or enters “its” vehicle, but the situation should never have arisen in the first place.

[@PeterShipley1]

agreed what department purchase a dog and pays for upkeep and continued training?

[@GeorgeVCohea-dw7ou]

Sue to have the dog euthanised, and whoever steps up to defend, that's the one to sue!

[@HenryLoenwind]

@@leev4206 All of that doesn't matter when there's a no-fault liability law for dog bites.

[@1diggers1]

It's really disappointing, in our society where so many try to avoid responsibility for their actions, that we see state police and government doing the same thing.

[@katblu8874]

They're the worst culprits of all. There is no such thing as taking responsibility and being accountable. That's exactly why they have qualified immunity, so they don't have to do so.

[@FnRenner]

If they don't own the dog then why do they get to keep the dog when it "retires"? Why does the dog go home with the officer every night?

[@Vykk_Draygo]

It might not be your intention, but you're arguing that the officer owns the dog, not the state.

[@WitnessingTyranny]

Why do they let it remain with their negligent handler if it kills an elderly neighbor and her dog on a walk? Or ship it to the Netherlands to work when it mauls a two yr old in Florida? Our gov is an institution. It has no morals and no accountability.

[@charlesdoyle3630]

​@@Vykk_Draygo He is an agent of the state. This should be a simple easy answer

[@nativestacker4185]

I guess what they are saying is that if a dog that works for The State Patrol happens to like you , since they don't own the dog you could take it home with you . ( if they don't own the dog , they can't stop you ) LOL

[@Helladamnleet]

This sounds like a pretty open and shut case of "Then who's dog is it?" then fining the state police for having unregistered dogs.

[@franciscodelgado6884]

Sounds like another Sydney movie.... FINDING FIDOS OWNERS

[@JKlein713]

The state/city purchased the dog. The dog is, for all practical purposes, a police officer and it generally lives with its handler and family. Now, I can understand the argument that the cop isn't the owner because he/she didn't purchase the dog, but somewhere there is a certification or registration that shows who the owner of the dog is. And it likely lists the owner as "County/City/State of XYZ."

[@greg227]

So the dog is a police officer and it can make rational decisions to apply and enforce the law, use law enforcement techniques and represent the municipality to the public? I'm not buying that. A dog is a tool for law enforcement, it is just like a vehicle or a shield, it is used to help the officers do their job, and using the idea that they are officers means that a vehicle or shield is also an officer.

[@JKlein713]

@@greg227 That's not what I'm saying. The government entity here is saying it's not their dog. I'm saying that somewhere, on some official record, the government entity is listed as the owner of the dog. But yes, police dogs are considered police officers. Not in the sense that they can make rational decisions, but in the sense that they are recognized as police officers by police departments. K9 handlers commonly refer to their dogs as their partner.

[@rakninja]

@@greg227 those tools are officers the same way that soldiers are government property. they are all organs in the cybernetic superorginism that is the department. also, damage to government owned tools and equipment is still a felony.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

A friend of mine is a retired judge and another is a judge. I just informed the retired judge of this and his question is "Then who owns the dog?" Because if the State does not own the dog, then who does, legally.

[@sarowie]

There is also the simple test: If you would take the dog, what would you be charged with?

[@Faesharlyn]

Who signs the checks that pay for the dogs license and vet care?

[@singatune]

The taxpayers

[@katblu8874]

I believe the answer to that question is quite simple. They bought, trained, licensed, feed, groom, veterinary care and anything else, comes from the citizens and our hard earned money that the Gov't confiscates in taxes. So, if they pay for all the above with our tax dollars, then wouldn't the dog technically be all of the citizens who paid taxes? 🤔🤷🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️

[@your_royal_highness]

It’s like the Peter Sellers movie where his character, Inspector Clouseau asks the hotel clerk about the dog sleeping in the doorway he wants to walk through. He asks “Does your dog bite?” Without looking up the clerk said “no.” Sure enough the dog chomps on his leg. When Clouseau yells out “I thought you said your dog doesn’t bite!” Clerk’s answer: “that’s not my dog”

[@juanaboynkin1196]

That was my first thought when I saw the headline. You, sir, win the internet today!

[@your_royal_highness]

@@juanaboynkin1196 👍

[@randomstuff-qu7sh]

Do they fight these lawsuits, even when they're clearly in the wrong, because they're afraid if they pay up, it'll start a flood of lawsuits?

[@whyjnot420]

Food for thought: My mother knowing that I don't have much money, will regularly pay larger bills for my cats. addendum: That joke at the end about taking your next trip in Km reminded me of something I have done on occasion. Get a map, decide on a max distance out from my starting point, draw a circle based on that, then look at things within that circle that might be nice. If I did as the video says and instead of 200 miles I put 200 Km, I would undoubtedly use less gas.

[@cluelessinky]

While listening to Steve I couldn’t help but be reminded of Inspector Clausea and the dog joke. “Does your dog bite?”

[@Primalxbeast]

I used to hang out 7-11 at night and chat with a friend who worked there, and some officers would also hang out there at night, so I kind of knew them. I heard one of them had been bitten by a dog, and assumed it was a random pet dog. Next time I saw them, I found out it was a K-9, and I had a hard time not laughing. I would have had a bit more sympathy if it was a pet dog, but him getting bitten by a fellow "officer" was somewhat amusing.

[@robertsmith2956]

Capt created a hazardous work environment at the office. SUE.

[@elanahammer1076]

Well… I am an animal lover so this is a fabulous story. I am wondering if the municipality does not really own the dog? Then who is buying the biscuits and bones? Someone has to pay for treats! Makes my mind wonder about a whole host of issues for these police dogs. Ya, know things like worker rights, union dues, various concerns. Lol Thank you great story. 🤔❤🇺🇸

[@fredericrike5974]

You know, it does sound like a "sub contractor mambo" deal. If those dogs aren't owned by the police, who are they "owned" by? And why would the officer, next in line on that ownership question be exempt- sovereign immunity does not protect an officer when not on duty- see what happens when they DUI someplace "not home base".

[@robertsmith2956]

A lot of these crazy cities also have laws against feeding strays. Could be another can of worms they opened up.

[@stevepettersen3283]

I imagine when the state attorney loses this argument the next one will be "The dog is an independent contractor, therefore we are not liable".

[@RM-mv5yz]

My question is: If the dog does not belong to the state,, then who does it belong to? Does it belong to the police dog handler? If so are they then personally liable for the injuries sustained when the dog bit the woman? Which then leads into a whole mess of other legal questions such as: If the handler is liable, and was carrying out official duties at the time, can the handler then claim reimbursement from the state if they have to pay the fines and costs associated with the case? another question is: Is the dog now considered to be a "Dangerous animal" as it attacked a woman unprovoked and without a command? If so can a dangerous animal legally be utilized for law enforcement purposes?

[@jamessimms415]

I’m friends w/a BNSF Railroad Police Officer who used to be a K9 handler. After both of his dogs retired, he was able to keep them & give them a solid home. He now has his son’s Working Dog while his son was a K9 Handler w/the Marines on Okinawa. Only reason his son doesn’t have it, is the son is also a K9 Sheriffs Deputy.

[@alanmcentee9457]

Most police dogs live with their handler as a pet. That keeps their loyalty high and training on commands constant. But, because dogs that size are costly maintenance, the handlers are reimbursed the costs.

[@Peter_Vidgeon]

I'm from the UK so am asking are all dogs required to be registered like they are here? It would be interesting to note who registered the dog in the first place.

[@Hatbox948]

No. Many are not.

[@Vykk_Draygo]

Not generally, no. There may be places that require it, but no where that I have lived. Most laws regarding dogs are related to leashing, and perhaps requiring tags that relate ownership information.

[@willelliott2671]

Generally yes, you're required to get a dog license most places in the US.

[@RoseKindred]

Not in the USA, as a whole. I don't know about the "governmental" animals but personal and even "service" do not require registration. This can vary by county/state though, typically though there is a Rabies requirement if you use public areas like dog parks and those can be tracked. Everywhere I have lived there has been no forced city/county registry but if I head about an hour south I would be required to register and tag the dog every year.

[@kiljaeden7663]

I should add that dogs in the UK don't only need to be registered - they need to have an embedded microchip by the time they're 8 weeks old. Non-compliance comes with a £500 fine.

[@lprice5583]

I live in MN. I am ashamed that they are not taking responsibility.

[@kenreynolds1092]

Find the check they wrote to pay for the dog and see if it State anywhere on it.

[@ABT212]

"Does your dog bite?" -- Inspector Jacques Clouseau of the French Sûreté

[@ericwooden6938]

I thought you said your dug does not bite, that's not my dug""

[@hemogoblin8950]

Does your dog bite? Put Inspector Clouseau on the case!

[@kuyajeff6552]

I thought you said your dog does not bite.

[@juliearaiza3465]

If the state police don't own the dog then how can the state rely on the findings of the dog when the dogs alert to drugs or other contraband. Therefore the dog is an independent contractor that has no over site and can operate without impunity.

[@harveywallbanger1738]

What law requires me to refrain from protecting myself from an 'unowned' street dog? Better yet, what law bars me from adopting an 'unowned' dog?

[@satguy]

I am deeply concerned with Minnesota as of late. This is really simple who pays the dogs bills, that's the owner.

[@HomicidalTh0r]

Oh, you shouldn't have in your possession a dog that isn't yours. Time to take them all away . Don't worry we'll find their owners eventually. :)

[@stephaniejean2426]

The fact that so many legal arguments are in bad faith is so disheartening sometimes. 😢

[@EnthalpyAndEntropy]

It just makes me all the more righteous… as I clean and lube one of my second amendment tools.

[@stephaniejean2426]

@@EnthalpyAndEntropy ok...I'm lawfully armed and protected as well, though always going around saying so isn't a good look, imo.

[@EnthalpyAndEntropy]

@@stephaniejean2426 as Dale Carnegie once said, you should be more concerned with your character than your reputation. Your character is who you are whereas your reputation is merely who others think you are. As for the lawfulness goes, what law are you talking about? According to the second amendment EVERYONE who is armed is lawfully armed.

[@rakninja]

@@EnthalpyAndEntropy really? i'll have to let the felons know. i'll also have to let those officers outside know that because of the second amendment, my ma deuce and hand grenades are perfectly legal, go away. i'll also let all those gang members know they can stop filing the serials off of their pieces, it's all legal! say, since you're an expert on the second, what does the bit about a "well regulated militia" mean?

[@EnthalpyAndEntropy]

@@rakninja the well regulated militia thing is a prefatory clause. It gives a justification for the operative clause. We needed a well equipped populace to retain our rightful liberties. It doesn’t limit the right to keep and bear arms to militias nor grant the government authority to regulate anything according to your myopic and misinformed definition of regulate. As for felons, suppose for the sake of argument that I agree that dangerous people should have their rights infringed upon. Do you realize that everything is a felony these days? That’s assuming you actually did it too, whatever ‘it’ is. That’s a huge assumption as innocent people are convicted and take plea deals regularly. The legal system in the US couldn’t care less about truth or justice. Finally, that’s nice if a gang banger files the serial numbers effectively. The guy he stole the gun from had it rough enough getting robbed. The guns owner doesn’t need cops harassing him for a murder he didn’t commit too.

[@dark_winter8238]

So I can just take any police K9 home with me

[@RoseKindred]

Just like ducks in the park, free pets.

[@Ryarios]

Who paid for the dog? There must be a bill of sale.

[@scottmacd37]

I agree with everything you’re saying about ownership, however, could they have sued the officers under failure to maintain security and control of a weapon ?

[@Z4Zander]

There are laws for control of animals that would be appropriate but they would most probably claim Qualified Immunity.

[@Matt-yg8ub]

Not enough info to determine that. It’s unusual that the vehicle would be getting worked on with the dog in it without the officer present in the first place. That likely means the vehicle was getting minor external work done, perhaps the officer stepped away to the restroom for a moment, a worker at the dealership entered the vehicle unbidden and the dog defended its territory.

[@mjmeans7983]

It should default to the "operator" of the dog, much like the operator of a motor vehicle. It should also invoke the "Last Clear Chance Doctrine" especially since this case and the doctrine involve animals (Davies v. Mann).

[@tomstokoe5660]

That dog just owns itself man, far out, woodstock, etc.

[@chriscunanan]

I'm sure they'll be happy the next time they need their patrol cars serviced and the dealer(s) say "sorry, we can't touch it, you're too much of a liability to deal with."

[@falcorthewonderdog2758]

If the cops don't want to take ownership of the dog and responsibility for it's conduct the only other option is to put the dog down just like they would if your dog bit a cop.

[@mojoman2001]

Success has many fathers. Failure is an orphan.

[@whearts]

Put the dog down.

[@obsidiansands]

Typical, law enforcement (and some govt officials) will do anything to escape liability.