Judge Dwight Stewart criticized the use of a police dog in an arrest, finding the use of the dog violated Charter rights
Police have a “culture of complacency” when it comes to deciding whether to use dogs to make arrests, thus putting suspects, officers and the public at unnecessary risk, a provincial court judge says.
Recommended Videos
Judge Dwight Stewart criticized the use of a police dog to arrest Preston Hale Jaramillo, who was the subject of an arrest warrant in January 2023 because he was suspected of an aggravated assault. Stewart found the use of the dog in his Campbell River arrest violated Jaramillo’s Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.
Jaramillo described a chaotic scene, with officers yelling commands at him to get on the ground while the dog pulled on its leash and was standing on its hind legs.
He said he could not hear officers’ commands over the dog’s barking, Stewart wrote in his decision. That led to a pausw between going down to his knees and then going onto his stomach, which an officer perceived as a threat, putting Jaramillo at risk.
“I find that because there was no formal or informal risk assessment supporting the use of a police service dog, the actions of the police here created a real risk of harm to Mr. Jaramillo,” Stewart said when sentencing Jaramillo in December for possession of firearms.
Jaramillo was found not guilty of the aggravated assault for which he was arrested, but was found guilty of possession of firearms. He pleaded guilty to firearms charges and was sentenced to three years and one month, reduced from four years as a result of the violation of his Charter right.
Even though the police dog did not bite Jaramillo, Stewart called it a “logical fallacy” to conclude the use of the police dog was well reasoned.
“A careful review of this record reveals a degree of institutional nonchalance concerning the use of a police service dog in effecting an arrest,” Stewart said.
“Despite the fact that there was an opportunity to make a considered or reasoned decision about when and whether to involve a (police dog) in the execution of this search warrant, this did not occur.”
Instead the record shows a “presumptive use” of the dog whenever the dog handler responded to a call, Stewart said.
There was almost no oversight of the dog handler, Const. Kurt England, and no consideration before bringing out the dog, he said.
Stewart said his focus was on the broader police culture related to the use of dogs, not the single incident.
Defence lawyer Sarah Runyon, who represented Jaramillo, said the case is the first she’s aware of that explicitly acknowledges that police dogs, like any other weapon, can and do cause harm, and that police are expected to consider the necessity of using a dog before using it.
“It inherently increases the volatility of any situation,” Runyon said.
Potential injuries from police dogs to a detainee can be just as severe or worse than those from a Taser, Runyon said.
Police need to have some form of analysis they can work through before deciding to bring a dog to a scene or using it, she said.
“Something that’s going to prompt the officer to stop and think, ‘Is this dog truly necessary on scene?’ Why? Why am I bringing this dog on scene? Is it going to increase or decrease the volatility of the arrest scene? And do I need to deploy this dog? What’s my reason for deploying him?’” Runyon said.
“The judge deems it helpful for there to be at least some level of oversight so that the decision doesn’t rest strictly on the shoulders of the handler.”
The province brought in standards on the use of dogs in 2014, saying police would no longer be able to let dogs bite people suspected of minor crimes. The standards followed a 2014 report by Pivot Legal Society that found dogs were the leading cause of injury by police forces across B.C.
But the guidelines are “so ambiguous that they can be moulded to suit any particular situation,” Runyon said.
Doug King, a lawyer who wrote the 2014 report, said there has been a reduction in the use of police dogs and better controls over how dogs are used, but problems persist.
King said the default training for police dogs is what’s called “bite and hold,” where the dog is instructed to bite a person and hold until its handler tells it to release.
The province should default instead to a “bark and hold,” which has a dog stop short of an individual and bark until an officer can make an arrest, King said.
“We’re still seeing those situations where police dogs are being instructed to bite individuals and biting the wrong individuals,” he said.
The use of police dogs is “uniquely dehumanizing and exceptionally problematic,” Meghan McDermott, policy director at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said in a statement.
“We completely reject the use of dogs as police weapons. It is extremely difficult to mitigate or regulate the scope of harm that dogs are capable of — including grievous bodily harm and even death — and B.C. policing standards (are) not strong enough to protect the public from such harm. The only role of dogs in public safety should be as cadaver dogs or for search-and-rescue missions,” McDermott said.