so you're good to go you're not detained in custody nothing we sorry go that dog not only did it bite me it wouldn't let go it's so it took multiple cops to get this dog off of me while it was basically chewing imagine that you're at home asleep in bed you've committed no crime you've done nothing wrong due just to a misunderstanding the cops bust open your door and they release a canine into your house to track you down and viciously attack you L Kine speak to me now a dog find a [ __ ] come to me come to me it's me get on the ground it's fing me then afterwards they just say oops sorry have a nice day can you imagine getting bit by a dog and you should have or sorry this I dog and they accept no responsibility or accountability whatsoever and they claim that they did not violate your civil rights can they do that well this is exactly what happened and a lawsuit was just filed let's go through it and I went home it was kind of like a thanks for being a good Campa and not really giving us a hard time but goodbye this is Derek Williams he had been living in this apartment that was leased by his friend for about a month with no incidents but on this particular day as he was asleep in bed the friends ex-girlfriend who had moved out before he moved in came to collect her belongings and saw Derrick asleep in her former bed and I still didn't make out the voice I didn't get up I just heard a voice and a door slam even though she wasn't living there anymore she called 911 and reported a burglary then the cops arrive but Derrick is still asleep in the bedroom they threatened to release a canine into the house L kanine speak to me now a dog dog finds me a [ __ ] I couldn't make out I was still sleep like sleeping almost like I don't know it just felt abrupt then they did release the canine into the house even though they had no idea who was in the house or even who was supposed to be in the house and we all know what happened next Derek was attacked by the dog come on stop coming to me come here come on stop coming to me come here come to me come to me it's me get on the ground it's me then the S have a hard time getting the dog off of Derek for no reason oh my God oh my God oh my God not only did it bite me it wouldn't let go so it took multiple cops to get this dog off of me while it was basically chewing and then only after Derek had been viciously attacked by a pet that had been weaponized by our government did they bother to investig and realized that oops the female actually spoke to the leasing office and stated that she knew her ex-boyfriend was letting someone move in but she did not portray that to us at all Derek had committed no crime and they had to let him go we're in in my opinion we're in a position where this guy is in a sticky situation right cuz we let a dog in he's been bit by a dog and he's under assumption he's allowed to be here and we Act information that so what do they do do they sort of apologize yes do they take any accountability what soever of course not can you imagine getting bit by dog and you shouldn't so you're good to go you're not detained in custody nothing we're sorry go by dog this is Derek's lawyer Philip georgees from Nashville Tennessee and he makes the case that if you're going to let a dog loose inside a structure that is a decision to use Force and if it's a situation where you don't even know who you're using force on or why how is that justified there is no right or authority for that officer to have released that that Kine at all he could have it on a leash to help him search but he must be in maintained control of that animal at all time I went on Pacer and downloaded the full complaint or amended complaint in this case that was filed I'll post it at the blog Linked In the first pin comment below so that if you want to you can read all of the allegations that are being made in the lawsuit but they're fighting back hard the defense lawyers have already filed two motions to dismiss I also pulled those off of Pacer and will post those at the blog Linked In the first pin comment below and there's also defense being made in the media there like in their motion to dismiss to the court they're basically blaming the ex-girlfriend and arguing that they were entitled to rely on what she reported but but attorneys for Chesterfield County are seeking a dismissal of the suit they argue that painter gave five warnings and Loud directives before the bite and despite the presence of the police and the dog Williams quote never identified his location never announced his intent to surrender and never physically showed an intent to surrender until the very second the K9 located him the police officer used good verbal commands repeated himself was in communication with the unknown person who was in the house in terms of putting out a lot of verbal information Mark bong is a defense attorney with experience representing police against criminal charges he is not involved in this case but says generally officers actions are influenced by dispatcher information which could lead to the Reasonable Suspicion of a threat well this is a case where the police used a dog to bite a subject and they didn't they lacked probable cause for an arrest and the courts over the years in Virginia have looked at this situation several times and surprisingly the canine Officer is on fairly firm ground legally for the use of the dog in this way now that's not the actual lawyer who's litigating the defense of this case but reviewing the motion to dismiss argument the Crux of their argument is this that they were entitled to rely on this 911 call by the ex-girlfriend where she reported a crime informing the officers that she was the only person on the lease for this apartment and that she had not given permission to or had any knowledge of any other persons being in the apartment or allowed in the apartment she also told Corporal painter who was the primary officer involved here that this man was still inside the apartment so their argument is that Corporal painter and his fellow officers were entitled to rely on that information that was provided to them by the ex-girlfriend as the basis for their actions there as the basis for entry into the apartment and a use of force inside this is what they say based on the facts known by Corporal painter the other officers at the time of Entry an objectively reasonable officer would conclude that a breaking and entering had occurred a burglary was in progress and that at least one suspect remained in the complainant's apartment therefore there was probable cause for Corporal painter to deploy his police canine to seize the Intruder as you can see their argument is that yeah we engage engaged in a use of force but that was objectively reasonable because we believed that this very serious felony crime was occurring inside but in fact there was no serious crime it was just this guy Derek sleeping inside this apartment indeed the exgirlfriend does seem to be at fault here in reporting basically false information to the cops but are they entitled to just rely on that and just release a canine into a house before we get to my opinion on this you may remember a case that I had that was extremely similar a client of mine was severely injured when she refused to come to the door candy open the door now or we're going to kick it in candy Last Chance open the door I'm kicking it in then the cops couldn't find her inside the house they did have a warrant but they couldn't find her candy make yourself known now candy give yourself up I'm bringing a canine in you will be bit so they just let the dog off the leash and let the dog search for her candy Last Chance K9 is in the trailer I W release him you will be bit and when the dog found her the dog chewed on her arm BL filed a lawsuit arguing that that was an unreasonable amount of force that was used in a situation where there was no immediate safety threat to the officers no serious crime had occurred that should have been a civil rights violation of excessive force right in that case we did make it pass qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage however we ended up losing at the summary judgment stage basically they get two bytes it qualified immunity we lost on the second one and there are differences between these cases and I'll point out what those differences are the Court held the video of the incident reveals several instances of the officer shouting to plff while in the same room is plff that he was getting the dog and that the dog would bite her the two fourth circuit cases demonstrate that whether a victim is given such a warning is crucial to the use of force inquiry given the danger posed to the officers by the condition of the house in general the fact that the officers could not determine whether plaintiff was armed and plaintiff's continued silence in non-compliance with the officer's commands and overt warnings that the canine would be dispatched to bite the plaintiff this is not such an obvious case that the officers were effectively put on notice that their actions exceeded the bounds of the Fourth Amendment the lack of an analogous case establishing plaintiff's relevant rights entitles defendant Johnson to qualified immunity so that's what happened in that case we lost because we were not able to point to a sufficiently identical prior case involving the same set of facts the defense lawyer that was interviewed by the media I think is correct this is a difficult fact pattern to win on so it's going to be important to point out that while warnings were given the body cam footage shows that we don't yet have any evidence that Derek heard and ignored those warnings so that is a key difference that's very very important also the concerns of Officer safety in my case were that this house was messy and the officers were aware that the individual they were trying to apprehend knew they were there and was hiding in the house they didn't know whether she was armed whereas in Derrick Williams case the officers basically knew nothing all they knew was what this random 911 complaint that this ex-girlfriend told them but like I said you have to take that with a grain of Sal it is not reasonable to just take what some 911 caller says and then just use any amount of force based on that especially where here they had time to Stage to wait for other officers to arrive to conduct some limited amount of their own investigation to corroborate what the 911 caller said there doesn't appear to be any reason to have rushed into this scenario and just let that dog loose in the house don't get me wrong I want to see Derek win here and I absolutely think that what happened to him was wrong and a Fourth Amendment violation here's the thing the older procedure for canine handlers basically was make sure you give a warning multiple times before you release the dog and that's what they'd have in their policy you can see that guy is doing that here in this case Lise Kanan speak to me now a dog do find and he's doing that for the body cam much like saying stop resisting stop resisting or drop the gun drop the gun in recent times many of the police canine policies have been updated to treat releasing a canine inside a structure just like any other violent use of force where you have to go through the gram factors regarding the severity of the crime at issue whether there's an immediate safety threat and whether or not the suspect is attempting to evade or flee and that's how those incidents should be evaluated and that's how this one is being evaluated in the current litigation but because litigation used to focus on whether or not a warning was given there's just not a lot of great case law out there to get past this qualified immunity hurdle there is absolutely no doubt that things could have and should have gone down differently there was no need to choose violence for first there was no need to just release that dog inside the house what was the rush they were told that the guy was sleeping in the house maybe he was sleeping in the house sometimes you have to investigate some unless you have reason to believe that there is an emergency occurring somebody sleeping inside a house they're not supposed to be sleeping in is not the same thing as an armed robbery or an armed kidnapping or hostages being held you have to be able to use common sense and differentiate those different scenarios here yeah it could be a felony level burglary technically under state law it also might not be you have to be very careful before you use all the power of state government to inflict violence on somebody and hopefully the court here will agree that officer painter's decision to do so was unreasonable and also they have pointed out in the amended complaint and in the media that this same officer painter has a history he was caught on body cam at a traffic stop unnecessarily and illegally punching a guy in the face he was also the same officer involved in a recent controversial shooting the complaint also cites previous claims of excessive force against officer painter including a settled case involving a 2019 traffic stop in which video shows painter punching a driver and an active case involving the 2023 deadly shooting of Charles buers records we obtain show that painters unleash K9 also bit a woman along a nature trail in 2022 and the county paid $100,000 to the victim's lawyers is it a coincidence that it's the same officer with this department who not once not twice but three times now has gotten himself into the news into Federal lawsuits by his violent and poor decisions I don't think so so if you want to follow this litigation I hope to do so as well you can subscribe both here and at the blog at the civils lawyer.com remember our rights don't end where your fear begins freedom is scary deal with it