Convict sues police dog!
- Thread starter Gempress
- Start date
The last part about filing a counter claim is too, too funny 
We had a couple we defended once with a similar case. They were a husband/wife truck driving team. They were travelling with their female dog, who was in season. They'd stopped at the weigh station to get checked and one of the officers had a male drug dog. Of course, the male dog zeroed in on their truck with the female in heat inside the cab. Of course, the officer refused to be shown that the dog was in heat and jumped at the chance to tear the cab of their truck to shreds - literally - on a slow, boring afternoon.
As it turned out, there were two hits of speed in the cab - not really a big deal, and the dog wasn't trained to spot on pills, just coke and pot (not to mention this particular dog had a very spotty record of accuracy - not more than 50%), so the case had to be dismissed as the search was illegal.
We had a couple we defended once with a similar case. They were a husband/wife truck driving team. They were travelling with their female dog, who was in season. They'd stopped at the weigh station to get checked and one of the officers had a male drug dog. Of course, the male dog zeroed in on their truck with the female in heat inside the cab. Of course, the officer refused to be shown that the dog was in heat and jumped at the chance to tear the cab of their truck to shreds - literally - on a slow, boring afternoon.
As it turned out, there were two hits of speed in the cab - not really a big deal, and the dog wasn't trained to spot on pills, just coke and pot (not to mention this particular dog had a very spotty record of accuracy - not more than 50%), so the case had to be dismissed as the search was illegal.
Well, the dog is a police dog. He was under the supervision and control of the police department. That makes him an "employee," such that the county running the police force can be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the conduct of the dog, provided it was in the course and scope oh his employment. Thus, if he can get a judgment against the dog, he can hold the county responsible, too. It is likely that the county would have insurance that covers the liability of its employees. So, he probably can try to force the insurance company to satisfy the judgment through a proceeding supplemental. Ain't the law fun?