The Problem 

of Dog-Related 

Incidents and 

Encounters

Cynthia Bathurst

Donald Cleary

Karen Delise

Ledy VanKavage

Patricia Rushing
The opinions contained herein are those of the authors and do 

not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, 

companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement by the authors or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion 

of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of 

the original date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites 

are in constant flux, neither the authors nor the COPS Office can 

vouch for their current validity.

Recommended citation: Bathurst, Cynthia, Donald Cleary, Karen 

Delise, Ledy VanKavage, and Patricia Rushing. 2015. The Problem 

of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters. Washington, DC: Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services.

ISBN: 978-1-935676-31-7

First published 2011

Revised 2015
The Problem 

of Dog-Related 

Incidents and 

Encounters

Cynthia Bathurst, Ph.D.

Principal Director, Safe Humane Chicago

National Director, Project Safe Humane, Best Friends Animal Society 

Donald Cleary

Director, Communications and Publications

National Canine Research Council, LLC

Karen Delise

Director of Research

National Canine Research Council, LLC

Ledy VanKavage, Esq.

Sr. Legislative Attorney, National Manager, Pit Bull Terrier Initiatives

Best Friends Animal Society

Patricia Rushing, Ed.D.

Center for Public Safety and Justice

Institute of Government and Public Affairs

University of Illinois

i

Contents

About COPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Letter from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

CHAPTER 1. The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents 

and Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters Covered in This Guide . . . . . . 1

General Description of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters . . . . 2

Extent of Dog Ownership in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Types of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Frequency of Dog Shootings by Police Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Factors Contributing to Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters . . . 6

Reckless, Uneducated, or Inhumane Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Insufficiently Trained Police Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Harms Resulting From Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters . . . . 7

CHAPTER 2. Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CHAPTER 3. Responses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents 

and Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . 13

Developing Effective Strategies Within the Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Forming Partnerships in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Responding Properly to the Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Specific Responses to Dog-Related Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Effective Police Responses When Encountering Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Effective Police Responses When Investigating Dog-Related Incidents . . . . 30

Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

ii

The Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services (COPS Office) is 

the component of the U.S. Department 

of Justice responsible for advancing the 

practice of community policing by the nation’s state, local, territory, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies through information and grant resources.

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that 

support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to 

proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues 

such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.

Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, 

community policing concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the 

atmosphere of fear it creates. Earning the trust of the community and making 

those individuals stakeholders in their own safety enables law enforcement to 

better understand and address both the needs of the community and the factors 

that contribute to crime.

The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies to hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy 

cutting-edge crime fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative 

policing strategies. COPS Office funding also provides training and technical 

assistance to community members and local government leaders and all levels of 

law enforcement. The COPS Office has produced and compiled a broad range of 

information resources that can help law enforcement better address specific crime 

and operational issues, and help community leaders better understand how to work 

cooperatively with their law enforcement agency to reduce crime.

•	 Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion to add 

community policing officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting 

technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide training and 

technical assistance to help advance community policing.

•	 To date, the COPS Office has funded approximately 125,000 additional officers 

to more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the 

country in small and large jurisdictions alike.

•	 Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government 

leaders have been trained through COPS Office-funded training organizations.

•	 To date, the COPS Office has distributed more than 8.57 million topic-specific 

publications, training curricula, white papers, and resource CDs.

COPS Office resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—

from school and campus safety to gang violence—are available, at no cost, through 

its online Resource Center at www.cops.usdoj.gov. This easy-to-navigate website is 

also the grant application portal, providing access to online application forms.
iii

Letter from the Director

Dear colleagues,

In the United States, dogs are an integral part of society, which means 

police engage with dogs quite often in the line of duty. There are a variety of 

circumstances where a dog could be involved in a police call, and it is critical that 

police departments not only develop effective departmental strategies advocating 

for the proper handling of dog-related incidents and encounters, but also 

proactively create tactical-response strategies, ensuring humane treatment of dogs 

and safety for the public and officers.

The COPS Office understands the importance of dog-related incidents and 

encounters for the public, law enforcement, and dog owners alike. With the number 

of dog fatalities by law enforcement on the increase, as well as concerns for officer 

safety, law enforcement officers must advance beyond automatically using their 

weapons when encountered by a dog. There are many other ways to ensure public 

and officer safety through diffusing dog encounters.

With The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters, law enforcement 

officers have a valuable resource to help them improve incidents involving dogs—

internally, externally, and with political audiences—and to build the knowledge, 

skills, and awareness necessary to succeed in these encounters. This publication 

offers an in-depth look into developing effective strategies in assessing a dog’s 

environment; what dog posture, vocalization, and facial expressions mean; options 

for distracting and escaping from a dog; defensive options in dealing with a dog; 

asking the right questions in dog investigations; and effective gathering of dog 

evidence and report writing. Presented here are important findings as well as 

powerful recommendations for agencies to improve their dog encounter processes 

and illustrate those processes to the public in a way that promotes safety for 

officers, the public, and dogs they encounter.

By developing effective strategies in dog relations and communicating these 

strategies to all officers and the public, law enforcement will gain the advantage 

of strong relationships with internal, external, and political audiences. Some of you 

may remember that I served as a law enforcement dog handler for several years 

during the 1970s, and I know this would have been a wonderfully useful publication 

to have back then. I am proud to be able to share this resource with you now, and 

hope you all reap its benefits.

Bernard K. Melekian, Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

iv

Acknowledgments

The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters was developed under the 

auspices of the University of Illinois Center for Public Safety and Justice, Institute 

of Government and Public Affairs, and made possible by a grant from the National 

Canine Research Council, LLC. 

The authors wish to thank Susan Patterson of the University of Illinois; Kara 

Gilmore, Manager and General Counsel of the National Canine Research Council; 

Cliff Froehlich; and Janis Bradley for their generous assistance in the completion 

of this project.
1

CHAPTER 1. The Problem of DogRelated Incidents and Encounters

Americans love dogs. There is roughly one dog for every four people in 

the United States, and they live in a variety of relationships with humans. 

Because dogs are so much a part of American society, police routinely deal 

with them in the line of duty, and not just when responding to calls about 

inhumane treatment or animal abuse or when dogs are seen to present a 

danger to people. In fact, officers encounter dogs in the course of almost 

every kind of police interaction with the public, from making traffic stops 

and serving warrants to interviewing suspects and witnesses and even 

pursuing suspects. 

A problem-solving policing approach to dog-related incidents and 

encounters should recognize the complexity of the human-canine 

relationship; the need for education concerning the human-animal bond 

and its well-documented benefits; and the need to regulate reckless 

and inhumane owner behavior to encourage public awareness of risk 

factors and to address human and animal behavior problems within the 

context of applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. The goal is safe, 

humane communities.

Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters Covered 

in This Guide 

This guide discusses the tools, practices, and procedures that contribute to 

effective responses to dog-related incidents and encounters where dogs 

happen to be present. Primary goals include ensuring public and officer 

safety and considering community needs and demands.

Although dog-related incidents and encounters may also be related to 

inhumane care and animal cruelty (including animal hoarding situations 

and dog fighting), this guide does not directly address them. Each of those 

requires its own analysis and response. Nor does it directly address publicpolicy issues (such as dog breed discrimination) or departmental policies 

that fail to incorporate effective practices.
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

2

General Description of Dog-Related Incidents 

and Encounters

Extent of Dog Ownership in the Community 

There are approximately 77.5 million owned dogs in the United States.1 Indeed, 

dogs are likely to be encountered in 39 percent of residential locations. A recent 

poll revealed that approximately 53.5 percent of owners consider their dogs 

family members, another 45.1 percent view them as companions or pets, and 

less than 1.5 percent consider them mere property.2

Of course, all owners do not maintain their dogs to the same level of positive, 

humane care. Owners may keep dogs exclusively on chains, in kennels, or in yards 

and deny them the opportunity for positive interaction with human beings. They 

may have obtained dogs for negative functions such as guarding, protection, or 

irresponsible breeding. 

Types of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters 

An officer may encounter a dog in a wide array of situations. Most often, officers 

are called to respond to situations in which dogs are central to the incident:

•	 Reckless dog owners and serious 

dog-related incidents or threats to 

public safety

•	 Loose or stray dogs that may be 

perceived as threats to public safety

•	 Disputes between neighbors 

involving dogs

However, officers also encounter dog 

owners and dogs in a host of other settings:

•	 Traffic incidents (e.g., dogs in cars 

at routine traffic stops or traffic 

accidents, dogs on the street injured 

by vehicles) 

•	 Residential settings (e.g., dogs 

encountered in homes and apartments 

when responding to calls for service, 

serving warrants, or investigating 

other situations)

 

Resident dogs are dogs

whose owners maintain them exclusively 

on chains, in kennels, or in yards; or dogs 

obtained for negative functions (such 

as guarding, fighting, protection, and 

irresponsible breeding). Because resident 

dogs are maintained in ways that segregate 

them from normal human interactions, 

they cannot be expected to exhibit the same 

behaviors as companion animals or family 

pets that have been afforded the opportunity 

to interact with humans on a daily basis and 

in positive and humane ways.
CHAPTER 1: The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

3

•	 Commercial settings (e.g., dogs guarding a gated industrial facility) 

•	 Streets and parks (e.g., dogs on leads, dogs running loose, dogs locked 

in a vehicle on a hot day) 

•	 Public places (e.g., service dogs in restaurants)

Serious bites are relatively rare, and no particular breed

is more likely to be responsible for serious bites: 

•	 In 2007, of the 2,158 bites reported to the County of San Diego Department of 

Animal Services, only 7.4 percent were classified as “serious.” (Source: San Diego 

Department of Animal Services, Dog Bite Data from Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2007.)

•	 In a two-year period, from 2007–2008, there were 2,301 bites reported to the 

Indianapolis Department of Public Safety–Animal Control. Only 165, or 7.2 percent, 

of these reported bites were classified as “severe.” The 165 severe bites were inflicted 

by 34 different breeds of dogs. (Source: Indianapolis Department of Public Safety–

Animal Control, Dog Bite Data from Jan.1, 2007–Dec. 31, 2008.)

•	 In 2007, only 10 (5.5 percent) of all reported dog bites in Washington, D.C., were 

classified as “severe.” The 10 severe bites were inflicted by nine different breeds of 

dogs. (Source: Government of District of Columbia, Bureau of Community Hygiene, 

Animal Disease Prevention Division, Dog Bite Data from Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2007.) 

Dog Bites

The overwhelming majority of dog bites are minor, causing either no injury 

at all or injuries so minor that no medical care is required. Fewer than 2 

percent of the individuals visiting an emergency room complaining of a dog 

bite require hospitalization. By way of comparison, in 2009, almost five 

times as many people went to an emergency room because they had been 

assaulted by another person as people who went because they had been 

bitten by a dog. Approximately 5.7 percent of those assaulted by another 

person were thereafter hospitalized.3
Despite popular belief, there is no dog-bite “epidemic.”

There is no national system in the United States for tallying reports of dog bites. 

The often-repeated estimates of a nationwide total of dog bites are derived from 

telephone surveys, the first of which was conducted in 1994. From among the 

5,328 persons who responded to this survey, interviewers obtained reports 

of 196 dog bites believed to have occurred within the 12 months prior to the 

interview. Only 38 of those sought medical attention.

However, even as the canine population has steadily increased over the past 

three decades, the number of reported dog bites has drastically decreased. For 

example, New York City has seen reports of dog bites decrease from more than 

37,000 per year in the early 1970s to fewer than 3,600 in 2009 (Sources: D. 

Harris, et al. 1974. “Dog Bites—An Unrecognized Epidemic.” Bulletin of New 

York Academy of Medicine, 50, no. 9, October; New York City Department of 

Health and Mental Hygiene.) 

The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

4

Actual Number of Reported Dog Bites 1971 & 2005
CHAPTER 1: The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

5

In fact, dogs are seldom dangerous. According to Janis Bradley, author 

of “Dogs Bite, but Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous,” more 

people are killed by lightning each year than by dogs. Despite the 

increase in the number of dogs and people in the United States, dog 

bite-related fatalities are exceedingly rare and have not increased over 

the last two decades: 25 were reported in 1990 as compared to 24 in 

2008. Although the number of fatalities fluctuates, it remains low from 

year to year.4

There is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to 

bite or injure a human being than another kind of dog. The American 

Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression 

and Human-Canine Interaction has strongly cautioned against using 

statistics to target particular breeds as more likely to bite: “Dog bite 

statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate 

picture of dogs that bite.”5

Most factors that trigger aggression in dogs toward unfamiliar people and 

can result in bites fall squarely on owners and include the following:

•	 Lack of socialization. Isolated dogs that have not had regular, 

positive interaction with people may be uncertain, fearful, or aggressive 

when encountering people or other animals.

•	 Lack of supervision and restraint. Dogs left alone on the premises 

are likely to see an intruder as a threat. This is made worse if the dog is 

chained and thus unable to flee.

•	 Reproductive status. Available public-health reports show that more 

bites are inflicted by unsterilized dogs. 

•	 Pain and illness. Dogs who are in pain from injury, disease, or 

neglect are more likely to see any approach or contact with a human 

as a threat of more pain. 

•	 Abuse. Dogs who have reason to fear humans may try to drive away 

the threat.
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

6

Frequency of Dog Shootings by Police Officers

In most police departments, the majority of shooting incidents involve animals, 

most frequently dogs. For example, nearly three-fourths of the shooting incidents 

in Milwaukee from January 2000–September 2002 involved shots fired at dogs, 

with 44 dogs killed by officers during that period.6

 Information furnished by 

various California law enforcement agencies indicated that at least one-half of all 

intentional discharges of a firearm by an officer from 2000–2005 involved animals.7

It is in the interests of every department to reduce such occurrences. Departments 

should review firearm-discharge reports to determine the frequency of the incidents 

and the circumstances involved and then take steps to reduce the number of incidents. 

Factors Contributing to Dog-Related Incidents 

and Encounters

Reckless, Uneducated, or Inhumane Owners 

•	 Owners who allow dogs to run at large

•	 Owners who leave tethered or chained dogs unattended

•	 Owners who neglect or abuse dogs, either failing to provide for their basic 

health, shelter, and sustenance needs or actively abusing them

•	 Owners who keep dogs in a chronically unclean, unhealthy environment

•	 Owners who train or keep dogs exclusively for purposes of personal or 

property protection

•	 Owners who are largely absent

•	 Owners who irresponsibly breed dogs

•	 Owners who keep a large number of dogs in a small space

•	 Owners who fight dogs
CHAPTER 1: The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

7

•	 Owners who fail to sequester females in heat from males

•	 Owners who fail to sequester female dogs nursing young puppies

•	 Owners who are ignorant of laws or available resources

Insufficiently Trained Police Officers

•	 Officers who make judgments concerning a dog they encounter based on 

its presumed breed or physical appearance rather than its behavior

•	 Officers who view a dog running toward them as a threat (the dog could 

be friendly and merely greeting the officer)

•	 Officers who are unaware of leash laws or the laws governing 

potentially dangerous, dangerous, or vicious dogs in their city or state 

•	 Officers who lack knowledge of available animal welfare resources

•	 Officers who lack skills in handling dogs or reading dog body language

•	 Officers who lack needed canine-communication skills

Harms Resulting From Dog-Related Incidents 

and Encounters

From the police perspective, the most obvious harm that can result from a 

dog-related incident is the injury to an officer when a dog bites.

If a responding officer shoots at a dog, however, other harms can result, 

including bystanders and other officers being shot by friendly fire. For 

example, in Detroit in 2010, an animal control officer was injured when a 

police officer fired at two dogs that were running at large.8

 An even more 

dramatic incident occurred on July 23, 2006, when New York police officers 

were called to mediate a tenant-landlord dispute. When a dog at the 

building began biting the leg of an officer, 26 shots were fired at the dog, 

and three officers were grazed by bullets.9

When an officer kills or injures a dog that is not a serious threat, other 

significant harms can result. Such incidents often do serious damage to 

community trust in the department and profession. Controversy particularly 

arises when an officer’s assessment of “imminent danger” is challenged by 

witnesses, the dog’s owner, or a video record of the incident.
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

8

The killing or injuring of a dog also opens 

the officer and the department to lawsuits 

and other legal actions, including 42 

USC 1983 claims (deprivation of property 

without due process) and internal affairs 

investigations. For example, in 2002, a 

Chicago woman whose dog was fatally 

shot when it lunged at a Chicago police 

officer was awarded $120,000.10

Trained officers can mitigate the harms to 

themselves, fellow officers, bystanders, 

and the community perception by learning 

to defuse potentially harmful situations. 

A video of a real-time example of a safe, 

effective use of the Taser®—which 

ensures the safety of the officers, 

bystanders, and dogs and provides an 

opportunity for effective community 

policing as well—can be viewed at 

www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1d_1192690532.

In 1998, officers from the

San Jose (California) Police Department 

raided two homes owned by Hell’s Angels 

motorcycle club members and killed three 

dogs. The city paid the motorcycle club 

nearly $1 million as a result. Two other 

departments—Santa Clara and Gilroy—

also paid for their involvement in the event. 

The grand total in damages reached nearly 

$1.8 million. City appeals were struck 

down by the courts, which cited Fourth 

Amendment violations, a failure to consider 

an alternative for “isolating” the dogs in the 

week-long planning of the raid, and a failure 

to use less lethal weapons. (Source: Lisa 

Spahr, “The Canine Factor: To Shoot or Not 

to Shoot,” Subject to Debate, a publication 

of the Police Executive Research Forum, 

January 2007.) 
9

CHAPTER 2. Understanding Your 

Local Problem

The information provided in the previous chapter about the problem of dogrelated incidents and encounters is a generalized description. Officers must 

combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of their own 

local problem. Officers will also need to address incidents involving police 

shootings of dogs, apart from other dog-related incidents in the community, 

in order to focus on the department-level training that is needed. With that 

information, and in collaboration with local stakeholders as appropriate, the 

police department can help develop a plan to improve the current situation 

and make the community safer and more humane. 

Asking the Right Questions 

The following are examples of questions that should be addressed in 

understanding local problems related to dog ownership and dogs: 

•	 What are the existing reckless owner/dangerous dog ordinances 

and state laws? Are problem dogs required to be microchipped or 

permanently identified? Are problem dogs required to be sterilized? Are 

persistently reckless owners or convicted felons prevented from owning 

or residing with dogs? 

•	 Are current laws being enforced uniformly? Are current policies realistic, 

fair, and enforceable? Have the proper resources been provided for 

successful implementation (e.g., animal care and control funding, police 

training in animal behavior)?

•	 What are the current dog ordinances? Are dogs required to be licensed? 

Is there differential licensing for dogs that offers an economic incentive 

for neutering/spaying? Are dogs required to be leashed? Is tethering of 

dogs restricted to times that the owner is present?

•	 What animal care and control services are available to the community? 

Do police officers have access to those services? 

•	 Have the local stakeholders been identified (e.g., dog owners, 

veterinarians, veterinary technicians, humane societies, animal control, 

dog trainers, behaviorists, animal-business owners, teachers, medical 

professionals, public officials, community members)? Is there an 

advisory council of those stakeholders?
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

10

•	 Does department policy recognize that dog-related incidents are a function of 

reckless ownership practices? 

•	 What dog-bite data currently exist in the community? Can the bite data be 

broken down geographically to ascertain specific areas of concern, even 

specific addresses?

•	 Does the department recognize that media characterizations of dogs are often 

contradicted by animal scientists? 

•	 Does the department recognize that breed identifications contained in available 

reports are subjective and usually inaccurate11 and are not a basis for an officer 

to make a decision in the field? 

•	 Is the connection between domestic violence incidents and dog-bite incidents 

incorporated into departmental practices? 

•	 Is there an effort to educate the public on the community standards for 

pet ownership?

•	 How often do police officers discharge firearms in dog-related incidents? 

How many dogs have been killed? Have fellow officers or community members 

been injured in these incidents? Have lawsuits resulted from these incidents?

The city of Calgary, Alberta, has applied a communityoriented approach to animal control that could serve as a potential model for others. 

Calgary focuses on pet owners and has written a law that codifies its four principles of 

responsible pet ownership: license and provide permanent identification for pets; spay and 

neuter pets; provide training, socialization, proper diet, and medical care for pets; and do 

not allow pets to become a threat or nuisance. Calgary promotes compliance with these 

principles with education, programs, collaboration, and, when necessary, enforcement, 

with strict and meaningful penalties. 

For information about Calgary Animal and Bylaw Services, see www.calgary.ca/CSPS/

ABS/Pages/home.aspx, accessed August 1, 2012. 
11

CHAPTER 2: Understanding Your Local Problem

Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement allows police departments to determine to what degree 

their efforts have succeeded and suggests how a department might 

modify its responses and policies if they are not producing the intended 

results. Measures of the problem should be taken both before and after 

the implementation of responses to evaluate them objectively. Any 

observations of increases or decreases in key numbers, such as those 

listed below, must be understood in the context of other factors, such as 

departmental policy, change in laws or procedures, media campaigns, and 

seasonal variations. 

The following may be useful questions leading to general measures of the 

effectiveness of police efforts in the community: 

•	 Is there an increase in the number of inter-agency responses?

•	 Is there an increase in the quality or availability of animal services 

in the community?

•	 Is there an increase in the number of dogs licensed or otherwise 

permanently identified in your community?

•	 Is there a reduction in the number of complaints or calls for service? 

•	 Is there a reduction in the number of incidents where officers encounter 

loose or stray dogs? 

•	 Is there a reduction in the number of disputes involving canines 

and neighbors?

•	 Is there a reduction in the number of dog-related incidents? 

•	 Is there a reduction in the number of stray dogs in the community?

•	 Is there an increase in the number of loose dogs picked up and returned 

to their owners? 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

12

Departments will need to take into account that increased attention to dog-related 

incidents may result in a short-term increase in some numbers where a reduction

is the outcome sought.

The effectiveness of the efforts within the police department should also be measured: 

•	 Is there a reduction in the number of firearm discharges?

•	 Are available police reports more focused on the role of the owner in most 

dog-related incidents?

•	 Is there access to information on properties whose residents may be keeping 

their dogs in such a way as to create a risk to officer safety?
13

CHAPTER 3. Responses to the 

Problem of Dog-Related Incidents 

and Encounters 

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy

Developing Effective Strategies Within the Agency

Effective departmental strategies mean that departmental leadership 

not only advocates for the proper handling of dog-related incidents and 

encounters but also proactively creates tactical-response strategies. 

Basic and in-service training should include the following:

•	 Training on dog behavior by qualified professionals

•	 Partnering with animal control and other animal services

•	 Training in appropriate use of nonlethal tools and the force continuum 

•	 Information on local resources 

•	 Organizational policies and procedures that facilitate appropriate outcomes

Forming Partnerships in the Community 

Law enforcement may be the lead agency for the response to and reporting 

of dog-related calls. Therefore, it is prudent to establish an inventory of 

the resources that may be available to provide expertise and assistance 

and to develop collaborative partnerships with these resources in the 

community, providing a foundation for proactive problem solving and 

effective police response. 

Law enforcement organizations that advocate the principles of community 

policing understand that public safety issues such as dog-related incidents 

cannot be resolved by the police in a vacuum. Collaborative partnerships 

and the local multidisciplinary teams will engage and promote ownership 

of the solutions to issues involving reckless or inhumane owners and their 

dogs. A little enforcement presence at the early stages can encourage an 

owner to take corrective actions.
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

14

Assemble the team based on the stakeholders in the community. Representation 

on a local multidisciplinary team might include animal control, animal advocates, 

humane investigators, veterinarians, the medical community, media, and members 

of the community. Involving the community in anticipation of dog-related issues 

prepares stakeholders for a collective response to an event, as predetermined by 

law enforcement personnel.

Central to the goal of addressing dogrelated incidents is promoting the use 

of the scanning, analysis, response and 

assessment (SARA) problem-solving 

process. The application of the SARA 

problem-solving model empowers 

community members by accurately and 

proactively identifying and resolving 

problematic dog-related issues. 

steps in the saRa pRoblemsolving model

•	 SCANNING: Identifying the problem 

•	 ANALYSIS: Learning as much as 

possible about the problem to identify 

causes

•	 RESPONSE: Looking for long-term, 

creative, specific solutions

•	 ASSESSMENT: Evaluating the 

effectiveness of the response 

Responding Properly 

to the Media 

Police who effectively deal with the 

media report only the known facts and 

the nature of the investigation, using 

the interaction as an opportunity to 

educate the public about responsible 

pet ownership. 

For instance, if a dog-related incident or encounter results in a death, the 

department should be careful not to term it a dog bite-related fatality until the 

coroner has determined the cause of death. (Such incidents are extremely rare. 

Only one person in 10 million dies in a dog-related incident per year.12 Very few 

officers or even departments will ever be called on to deal with a fatal event.) 

An exclusively fact-based approach will save the department from potential 

embarrassment, avoid problems in prosecution, and build community trust. 

A good example of what to avoid occurred in 2007, when between August 3 and 6 

more than 300 entertainment and media outlets publicized police allegations that 

dogs belonging to actor Ving Rhames had mauled to death his friend, who was the 

dogs’ live-in caretaker. On August 7, the Los Angeles County Coroner ruled that the 

dogs had not caused the death of the man, and that although the man “sustained 

bite and claw marks,” the injuries were “superficial and not sufficient to cause his 
15

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

death.” Many of the articles and quotes attributed to police about this 

“dog death that wasn’t” can still be found on the Internet.13

Similarly, the agency should not attempt to identify the dog by breed. 

Breed identification of dogs of unknown pedigree is extremely unreliable 

and, in many cases, later investigation will require a retraction.14 For 

example, in March 2007 in Friendswood, Texas, police originally reported 

that a dog believed to have killed a woman was a "pit bull."15 Subsequent 

to this report, a family member informed the authorities that the dog was 

a mix between an American bulldog and a Catahoula. A correction was 

then published.

An agency can avoid unnecessary complications by precisely describing a 

dog’s appearance, along with any identifying collar, harness, etc. (e.g., a 

black, 100-pound, long-haired, intact male dog).

Police and the general public come to wrong conclusions

because incidents involving certain types of dogs receive a disproportionate amount 

of coverage. Consider how the media reported two incidents that occurred in 

December 2008:

•	 In Coconino County, Arizona, an elderly woman was killed by one or two dogs 

reported to be Labradors. The sheriff’s office issued a press release to all media. 

However, this incident was reported in only one local newspaper. (Sources: Coconino 

County Sheriff’s Office Media Release, December 2, 2008; Arizona Daily Sun, 

Flagstaff, Arizona, December 3, 2008)

•	 In Riverside County, California, a man was killed by his grandson’s two dogs, both 

of which were reported to be “pit bulls.” The incident was reported in at least 285 

media outlets, both nationally (in 47 states) and internationally (in eight other 

countries). MSNBC, Forbes, USA Today, Fox News, CBS News, and ABC News all 

picked up the story. (Source: Google search conducted by National Canine Research 

Council on December 21, 2008, using location, victim’s name, and keywords to 

capture articles dealing exclusively with this incident.) 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

16

Careful handling of media attention is especially necessary when a dog is shot. 

Police shootings of any kind are almost always high-profile events, and the 

shooting of a dog has a set of issues and sensitivities all its own because such a 

high percentage of dog owners now regard their animals as either family members 

or companions.16 Determinations about whether the shooting was justified should 

be avoided until a thorough investigation has been conducted. 

Specific Responses to Dog-Related Incidents 

Effective Police Responses When Encountering Dogs 

Dogs use their teeth to get food, manipulate objects, establish and maintain social 

relationships, and protect themselves and their group from danger. Their teeth are 

their main tools for interacting with the world, much like a human’s hands. Even 

when they use their teeth to settle conflicts with other dogs and with humans, most 

use only a fraction of the pressure of which they are capable. This is called bite 

inhibition and is comparable to a human pulling his punches. Even when a threat 

escalates to tooth contact—most often because the dog’s non-contact warning 

signals have not been heeded—the objective is still usually to drive the intruder 

away with minimum damage and risk to the dog and others. Almost all dogs will try 

to bluff or threaten before resorting to actual contact. In this sense, their approach 

is similar to the force continuum used by police officers. (See "Applying Force in 

Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters: A Continuum" on page 26.)

Dogs do bite, however, so a careful assessment needs to be made when first 

encountering a dog. How an officer reads and responds to a dog’s behavior is 

often the most important factor in determining whether a dog will bite, attack, 

or withdraw. It is equally important to assess the dog’s environment. Many dogs, 

like people, can be territorial.

Assessing the Risk 

Before doing a careful assessment of the environment, an officer should assess the 

risk by first giving attention to the behavior of the dog(s) and the situation:

•	 An injured dog (e.g., from a traffic accident): Even a friendly, well-socialized 

dog may bite if injured. Dogs do not understand that a person touching them 

when they are in pain is trying to help. Therefore, injured dogs should be 

muzzled before being handled or moved (improvise a muzzle using leashes, 

belts, or even first aid gauze). 
17

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters Photo Credit: Best Friends Animal Society, “Best Friends’ ABCs of Dog Life” 

(www.bestfriends.org/theanimals/pdfs/dogs/ABCsofDogLife.pdf)

Gauze can serve as a makeshift muzzle for an injured dog.

•	 A frightened dog: Fearful dogs are usually low to the ground with their 

tail tucked between their legs. Their ears may be flat on their head. The 

best strategy would be to not approach this dog. 

•	 An approaching dog: Most dogs happily greet a new human. Some will 

be so enthusiastic about greeting that they will do this at a full run and 

then launch themselves at the officer. Absent any of the warning signals 

described below, an approaching dog is almost always friendly. A dog 

who feels threatened will usually try to keep his distance. 

•	 A barking and lunging dog: This dog is usually restrained by a barrier 

(e.g., fence, door) or a tie-out (e.g., chain, rope, leash). The restrained 

dog that barks and lunges at the approaching officer is the highest 

risk to bite if the officer enters the area the dog can access. The best 

strategy with a restrained dog is to maintain as great a distance as 

possible. Still, only a minority of such dogs will actually bite, and 

even fewer will bite with force. Some dogs will bark and lunge out of 

simple frustration at not being able to access people and dogs, and 

the behavior will not occur if the dog is at liberty. The dog straining at 

the end of a chain or rope may simply be trying to greet the person, 

particularly if the dog is not barking or displaying any of the warning 

signs below. The unrestrained dog who barks and snarls and growls 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

18

but does not approach or stops approaching before actual contact is clearly 

communicating a warning, not an intent to bite. The dog is only likely to bite if 

the warning is not successful in driving away the intruder—in other words, if 

the officer continues to approach the dog or fails to retreat despite the warning. 

•	 A dog stimulated by quick movement: Most dogs will chase any rapidly moving 

object. Thus, a running officer or member of the public is likely to be chased by 

any dog in the vicinity, and chasing behavior can then escalate to grabbing and 

biting. This is not aggression, in the sense of responding to a threat, but rather 

a game for the dog; it’s a response to the same impulse that causes a dog to 

chase a tennis ball or a toy. Running in an area that a dog can access therefore 

should be avoided whenever possible. 

Assessing the Environment 

There are numerous signs that indicate a dog may be present. These include the 

following:

•	 Signs, posters, or window stickers that alert people to the presence of a dog

•	 Food or water bowls in the yard

•	 Dog toys or bones

•	 Worn trails along the fence line

•	 Chains or tie-outs

•	 Dog waste

•	 Barking, whining, or growling

If an officer determines that a dog is present and there’s sufficient time, animal 

control should be called to handle the dog. If that’s not an option, the officer should 

take several steps to minimize risk.

First, the officer should recognize that dogs are territorial and may defend their turf. 

They often use the same landmarks as people to decide where their territory starts 

and stops, including fences, gates, sidewalks, and houses. 

Therefore, if the officer is entering a yard and sees signs of a dog, the dog should 

always be alerted to the officer’s presence when possible. This can be done by 

calling out to the dog in a friendly voice and then waiting to assess the dog’s 

response. Many dogs will have learned that certain sounds, such as gate latches 

opening and footsteps on porches, predict the approach of a person. If there are 

signs of a dog, the officer should try to amplify such noises (in case of a sleeping 
19

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

dog) and wait several seconds after making such noises to see whether a 

dog appears and what the response is. Only the most desperately fearful 

(or deaf) dog will fail to make an appearance when indicators of a human 

approach are heard. It’s a rare canine who can’t be bothered to investigate 

a new human. Being alert to these possibilities puts the officer in a better 

position to control the encounter. The extremely fearful dog who is hiding 

may escalate to trying to drive the intruder away if the officer inadvertently 

approaches the hiding place, so it’s advisable to be aware of places where 

dogs might seek refuge, such as behind debris and bushes, under porches 

and in crawl spaces, and, most obviously, in dog houses or shelters. 

Dogs will often become upset and even protective of their family when 

people in their presence are behaving in an agitated or confrontational 

way. So questioning a suspect or even a witness in the vicinity of an 

unrestrained dog is unwise. When entering a residence, the owner should 

be asked to contain the dog. Asking the person to put the dog in the 

bathroom works best because bathrooms usually have doors, whereas 

bedrooms sometimes do not. When practical, the owner should be asked 

to contain a dog that is in the yard before the officer enters the area. 

A highly publicized shooting of a dog named Patton

during a traffic stop in Tennessee resulted in a state law requiring that highway patrol 

officers receive training in dog behavior. The Smoaks, a North Carolina family traveling 

through Tennessee, had stopped for gas. Mr. Smoak had left his wallet on top of the car. 

As the Smoaks drove off, money started flying off the car. Someone called the police, 

incorrectly stating that there might have been a robbery. Police officers stopped the 

Smoaks’ car and handcuffed Mr. Smoak, his wife, and their child. The Smoaks asked the 

officers to please shut the car door to secure Patton; when they did not, Patton came out of 

the car, wagging his tail. A Cookeville police officer shot and killed the dog in front of the 

vacationing family. The family later filed a Section 1983 civil suit over the death of Patton. 

The suit was settled out of court for $77,000. A video of the incident can be viewed at 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv0T2X1dXcI. (Source: Fred Brown, “Dog’s Blood Stains 

City’s Name,” KNOX, January 11, 2003, available at www.knoxnews.com/archives, 

accessed December 5, 2010.) 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

20

Dogs may also consider the vehicles in which they are traveling to be part of their 

territory or may simply be eager to exit the car for any number of reasons. In traffic 

stops, it’s consequently important to make certain the dog is controlled. This often 

can be accomplished by hooking the dog’s leash or collar to the safety belt. If a dog 

bolts into traffic, an accident can result. Therefore, if the owner exits the car, the 

officer should ensure that the windows are rolled up enough to prevent escape, 

while providing sufficient air, and that the doors are closed. 

Assessing the Dog’s Behavior: Warning Signals versus Friendliness

Dogs are extremely adept at reading human body language. They follow our gaze, 

investigate things we show interest in, and quickly learn human behaviors that 

predict both safety and fun for them, as well as any likelihood of a human attacking 

them. Most also see a few common human behaviors as threatening. 

Dogs respond to us by communicating through their own body postures, facial 

expressions, and vocalizations. Without staring at it, the officer should look at the 

entire dog, checking both for behaviors that show the dog is uncomfortable and 

feeling threatened and for behaviors that signal comfort and friendliness. An officer 

should look quickly at the whole dog to get an overall impression of the dog’s state 

of mind. Staring at the dog’s face should be avoided, as this can create an eyecontact challenge. 

This dog’s posture says, “I’d like to play.” An officer may approach walking normally. 

Photo Credit: Janis Bradley
21

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

Body postures 

•	 Is the dog loose and wriggly or is it stiff? Full body wags mean the dog 

is friendly. The dog that solicits attention by wriggling, curving the body 

almost into a “C” shape, and approaching with head low and to the side 

is anxious for attention but a little afraid. 

•	 A dog that approaches slowly with legs and tail held stiffly is warning 

that a decision hasn’t been made as to whether the human is safe 

or dangerous. The dog may be ready to escalate if the officer does 

anything that appears threatening. 

•	 Dogs that stop their approach or change direction, although probably 

wary, are demonstrating an inclination to retreat rather than to try to 

drive away a threat. 

•	 Dogs that show noninteractive behaviors (e.g., stopping to scratch or lick 

themselves) are either nonsocial or showing stress. They are unlikely to 

escalate to warning signals if they are not approached.

•	 Tail position and wagging are complex aspects of dog body language 

and should not be relied on as strong indicators of likely behavior. The 

only exceptions are a tail tucked tightly between the legs and under 

the body, which indicates a very frightened dog, and a rapidly, loosely 

wagging tail when shown with the full body wag described above, 

which is a reliable indicator of friendliness without fear. 

Remo, a victim of cruelty from a dog fighting bust, has the posture of a dog saying, 

“I’m relaxed and happy.” An officer may let such a dog approach. 

Photo Credit: Safe Humane Chicago
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

22

Photo Credit: Best Friends Animal Society, “Best Friends’ ABCs of Dog Life” (www.bestfriends.org/theanimals/pdfs/dogs/ABCsofDogLife.pdf)

Facial expressions (mouth and eyes)

•	 Dogs warn (“please don’t make me bite you”) by tensing their lips to expose their 

teeth in what we commonly call a snarl. They either pucker the lips forward to 

show a lot of front teeth or pull the lips tightly back, exposing a larger number 

of teeth but not up to the gumline. The latter expression indicates more fear, but 

either may escalate to biting if not heeded. Friendly, comfortable dogs often have 

their mouths open in an expression dog professionals call “play face.” The mouth 

is relaxed, and the dog often pants. A dog giving a warning almost never pants.

•	 Yawning or lip-licking usually means a dog is anxious or uncomfortable. As with 

all fear communications, these can escalate to a warning if the dog is pressured. 

Continuing to approach may pressure the dog. 

•	 Dogs often warn by holding a direct gaze, especially if doing so while also 

moving (or standing still) stiffly as described above. Many will also respond to 

direct eye contact from humans as a threat. 

•	 Dogs that guard their resources (e.g., sleeping spaces, food, bones, toys, and 

sometimes people) will often freeze extremely stiffly and show the whites 

of their eyes to warn people and other dogs to leave their stuff alone. This 

is quite different from a dog that is simply resting or standing still. It looks 

like a sudden freeze-frame shot in a movie. Such a dog is extremely unlikely 

to escalate unless pressed by the officer approaching closely or attempting 

to remove the possessions, in which case the dog will probably emphasize 

displeasure by growling. 

This dog’s posture clearly says, “I’d like to be friends.”
23

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

Vocalizations 

•	 Dogs bark for many reasons: to express 

frustration at the squirrel up the tree, to 

alert the household to visitors, to solicit 

play or ask for goodies. Dogs even bark 

out of boredom. So barking by itself 

is not enough to constitute a warning 

signal. If it is accompanied by lunging, 

snarling (see “Facial Expressions” 

above), and growling, the dog is clearly 

trying to warn away a threat.

•	 Whining indicates that the dog 

is requesting something or is 

uncomfortable.

•	 Growling is one of the dog’s clearest 

warning signals. A growling dog should 

never be approached.

It is generally true that a dog whose tail, 

body, head, and sometimes ears are low or 

who is yawning or licking lips may be fearful 

or worried. The impression may be that the 

dog is leaning back away from the officer. 

Approaching this dog would be a further 

threat, but even with these dogs, a wriggly 

body means “wants to greet anyway.” 

High tail, head, body, and sometimes ears as well generally mean a dog 

is confident; such dogs look as though they’re leaning forward toward 

the officer or standing tall. With the “high” or “forward” dog, a stiff body 

means “keep away,” and a wriggly or relaxed body with relaxed, open 

mouth means “eager to greet.” 

Dogs who stare at an officer without moving or show the whites of their 

eyes are indicating that they are agitated or fearful or feel threatened. 

Again, in all instances, avoid an extended look or stare to determine these 

things. Giving distance, averting looks, or turning eyes, shoulder, or body 

away signal there is no challenge. 

Threatening or warning

behavior is not necessarily a predictor 

of biting behavior. An officer should 

not assume the animal is always 

going to bite or attack. There are other 

reasons that a dog shows upsetting 

behavior. From the dog’s perspective, 

the officer often appears as dangerously 

unpredictable to the dog as the dog 

appears to the officer. Moreover, 

behavior motivated by fear of strangers 

will often be mitigated if the animal 

is removed from an abusive situation 

and given opportunities for normal 

socialization. It is more useful to think 

of a dog as behaving aggressively in this 

situation right now than to think of it as 

an aggressive dog. 
This dog is saying, “You look threatening. 

Please back off.” An officer should not 

approach or make eye contact, and should use 

either a passive stance or retreat.

This dog is saying, “You scare me. Please 

don’t make me bite.” An officer should not 

approach or make eye contact. 

This dog is saying, “Please don’t make me 

warn you.” An officer should let this dog 

make the move to approach and should 

always watch for abrupt cessation of panting 

and closing mouth with stiffening or freezing 

of body. 

This dog is saying, “Please don’t hurt me. I’m 

being as small as I can.” An officer should wait 

to allow this dog to approach and should not 

stare. 

The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

24

Illustration Credit: Janis Bradley
25

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

Reacting to Dogs

Officer behavior on initial encounter

First rule: If you have an animal control or animal services agency, engage 

their help as soon as possible. 

The use of a weapon is seldom required in dog-related incidents or 

encounters. This subsection is intended to give an overview of how 

an officer should proceed when a dog is present.

Despite the seemingly complex description of dog behavior in the previous 

section, two simple strategies will keep officers safe in the vast majority of 

encounters with dogs. 

The first strategy is to use treats to prevent and defuse overtly 

threatening encounters. Many high-value treats, such as bits of dried 

liver, are readily available and can be easily stored in a pocket in a small 

plastic bag. A handful of these can be tossed in a smooth underhand 

motion (an overhand throw is likely to be perceived as an impending 

blow) to a dog at a distance. The food will scatter and take the dog a bit 

of time to collect. This simple tactic is likely to win over the suspicious 

and mildly fearful dog and to distract and sometimes even win over the 

overtly warning one. It is the ultimate in de-escalation and also provides 

valuable information, as a dog that will not eat tasty treats is very 

frightened. The only time this tactic is not advised is with multiple dogs 

in the same space, as competition over the food can spark a fight. Handfeeding any but the most overtly friendly dogs is not advised, however, as 

drawing a fearful dog closer may make the dog feel more threatened. 

The second strategy is to turn the body to the side, look down, and keep 

the hands close to the body. This approach says “I’m no threat” to the dog, 

according to “Bark, Stop, Drop, and Roll,” a video by the Tennessee Highway 

Patrol and the American Humane Association. It’s the best way to handle 

dogs that approach in a nonthreatening manner and to prevent fearful 

signals from escalating to warning signals and warnings from escalating to 

bites. In addition, it says “I’m no fun” to the overenthusiastic greeter, thus 

causing a dog to lose interest and not be an impediment to officers doing 

their job. Some dogs will nip, either in play or as a warning, if a person turns 

his back completely, so this sideways orientation is preferred. 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

26

Thus, when encountering a dog, officers should stop all forward movement and 

turn their bodies to the side. Officers should drop their eyes and watch the dog 

using peripheral vision. Under no circumstances should an officer stare at a dog. A 

direct stare is often seen as a threat. When passing by a restrained dog, the officer 

should toss treats as described above, even if the dog is barking and lunging. 

The officer should speak calmly to the dog in a friendly tone while scanning the 

surroundings for escape routes that will not bring the officer closer to the dog 

and for barriers that can be used for protection in case of escalation. If the dog is 

overtly warning by barking or growling, the officer should toss treats to move the 

dog farther away. Some dogs respond to verbal cues, so saying “Sit” in a pleasant 

tone and then tossing treats if the dog responds can sometimes distract the dog 

and defuse the situation. 

Most importantly, the officer should never run. A human cannot outrun a dog and, 

as already noted, many dogs respond to people, animals, and objects that are 

running or moving quickly by chasing, catching, and even biting. This is play for the 

dog, not fear or hostility, but serious injury can result. This impulse explains why 

bicyclists, joggers, skateboarders, and skaters are often involved in problematic 

encounters with dogs, whether as a result of bites or, more commonly, falls. 

Officer behavior if bitten

In the rare event of a bite, the officer should avoid the impulse to pull away. 

Such an action can increase injury, changing a less serious puncture into a 

deep laceration. 

If a dog has bitten the hand, the officer should move into the bite, forcing the 

hand into the dog’s mouth. The dog will instinctively release the hand.

If knocked down, the officer should curl into a ball with hands locked behind the 

neck and arms to protect the neck and throat, with face and front toward the 

ground to protect vital organs. Most dogs will lose interest if the person attacked 

stops moving.

Applying Force in Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters: 

A Continuum 

The force-continuum concept for police interactions with people was introduced 

in response to public and professional concern about excessive use of force by 

some departments or individuals in dealing with potentially violent or dangerous 

suspects. One of the principles of such a continuum is that an appropriate response 

is proportionate to the potential risk to the officer and the public. 
27

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

Force-continuum principles can also 

be applied to dogs. Officers should 

understand that no single dog presents 

a plausible risk of fatality to an 

able-bodied adult accompanied by 

other humans. In fact, only a very 

few dogs of the very largest types 

can match the force potential of even 

an unarmed human. A dog’s teeth can 

only be characterized as “weapons” 

in the sense that human fists can be 

so characterized. 

Departments should adopt written 

policies on proper responses to 

situations involving potentially 

dangerous animals that reflect a 

force-continuum approach. It should be 

emphasized that the necessity to shoot 

a dog is rare in most situations.

To ensure force is used properly in dog encounters, law enforcement 

agencies should provide officers with the following:

•	 Training on dog behavior

•	 Access to animal control or services

•	 Training in appropriate use of nonlethal tools

•	 Up-to-date equipment that can be used as an alternative to lethal force

When lethal force is used against dogs, departments should require 

thorough reporting and investigation of incidents and accurate reporting 

to the public and media.

Distractions and escape options

If a dog encounter turns threatening—in other words, if the dog is actively 

giving warning signals as described above—officers should first see 

whether any distractions are available. Many dogs are distracted by food or 

play toys such as a ball. It is difficult to overstate the usefulness of routinely 

carrying dog treats as described above: a handful of treats tossed to the dog 

can allow enough time for the officer to back away to the police vehicle.
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

28

It’s also helpful to put an object, such as a chair or garbage can, between the 

officer and the dog.

If a dog continues to warn while approaching despite the officer adopting the 

passive stance described above, tossing treats, and discreetly moving away from 

the dog, the officer should attempt to move to a location that the dog cannot reach 

(e.g., the inside of the police vehicle) rather than risk a bite.

Defensive options

When a bite has occurred and the dog continues to bite (rather than biting and 

then immediately retreating), or a bite clearly cannot otherwise be avoided and the 

dog is large enough to inflict significant injury, defensive options may be needed. 

These should be

•	 effective;

•	 safe and humane;

•	 easily deployable;

•	 acceptable or defensible to the observing public;

•	 no risk to the observing public. 

Commonly available items 

There are several items commonly available in police vehicles that can be used to 

stop a dog that is biting or to prevent an imminent bite when other means to defuse 

the situation have been exhausted:

•	 Flashlights, clipboards, and road flares: All of these items can be used for 

blocking or redirecting a dog attack. In addition, fast-opening umbrellas often 

scare dogs. An open umbrella can serve as a shield, and a closed umbrella can 

be used as a bite stick. 

•	 Batons: A baton can be used for blocking or redirecting a dog attack or used as 

a bite stick. However, it should be noted that the motions involved in opening a 

baton are seen as threatening by some dogs. 

•	 Fire extinguishers: A fire extinguisher produces noise, cold, a bad taste, and an 

expanding cloud—a combination that frightens dogs. Many police departments 

use fire extinguishers effectively when going in on drug raids if they believe a 

dog might be on the premises.

•	 Bullhorns or air horns: Any item that will produce a loud noise is useful. 
29

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

Chemical repellants and disabling agents

•	 Citronella spray (such as Direct Stop or SprayShield) is effective on dogs 

but not people. Dogs are averse to both the taste and odor.

•	 Oleoresin capsicum (OC), or pepper spray, is highly effective on dogs. 

In a study conducted with the Baltimore Police Department, dogs were 

sprayed with OC in 20 incidents where the animals posed a danger to 

officers. Officers sprayed dogs at distances greater than those from 

which they sprayed people, with the majority sprayed from a distance of 

3 to 8 feet. Ten of the dogs weighed between 25 and 50 pounds, and six 

weighed more than 50 pounds. OC was effective nearly 100 percent of 

the time, and no officers using OC were injured.17

•	 Some departments have found PepperBall a useful tool when executing 

search warrants in drug houses where dogs may be present.

Electrical disabling device 

•	 When using a Taser® on dogs, officers must deploy it differently than 

when using it on people. Most of a dog’s body mass is horizontal, 

or parallel to the ground. Because of this, shooting a Taser®

 from a 

vertical position in the hand—the position employed when aiming at a 

person—will cause the Taser®

 to spread perpendicular to the body mass 

of a dog rather than parallel to it. To properly use the Taser®

 on a dog, it 

needs to be held sideways, so that the probes spread horizontally when 

fired, in line with the body mass of the dog. In addition, because a dog is 

smaller than a person, an officer firing a Taser®

 must be closer to a dog 

than to a person, preferably less than 10 feet, with 10 to 12 feet serving 

as the practical maximum range.19

•	 A Taser® can cause serious injury or death to an animal and so should be 

used sparingly. 

Tranquilizer guns 

Tranquilizer guns should only be used on rare occasions when a dog cannot 

be safely captured in other ways. They are of no use in disabling an animal 

that is already biting. These tools require special training and permits for 

access to the tranquilizing agents. The drugs are somewhat slow-acting, 

and there is often a risk of losing track of dogs that have been darted.
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

30

Lethal force

Lethal force is a last resort and rarely necessary. If lethal force is used, an 

investigation should be conducted, and it should include any other prior shooting 

incidents that the officer may have had involving dogs.

Effective Police Responses When Investigating 

Dog-Related Incidents

Dog-related incidents should be investigated in the same manner as any other 

incident to which police are called. This is essential to understanding the local 

problem and preventing other incidents. It is only through adequate investigation 

that the officer and department will have the information needed for prevention 

and effective response. 

Asking the Right Questions

Police officers need to ask a series of pertinent questions when investigating 

dog-related incidents, particularly serious dog-bite incidents, to inform 

subsequent decisions about the disposition of the dog and about criminal 

and civil liability. Information collected will also help guide future public policy 

decisions to prevent such incidents. These questions should be informed by 

the knowledge that any abuse observed or discovered may be an indicator of 

other abuses in a family or community.

Questions about the dog owners 

•	 Where did you get this dog?

•	 Why did you choose this dog?

•	 Why do you have a dog?

•	 How long have you had the dog?

•	 Is the dog licensed?

•	 Where does the dog sleep?

•	 Where does the dog stay when you are home? When you are absent?

•	 How do you contain the dog?

•	 Have you trained the dog? Has anyone else?

•	 Do you discipline the dog? How?

•	 When did you last take the dog to a veterinarian? For what?
31

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

Questions about the dog

•	 Has your dog injured anyone by biting them 

previous to this incident? Was the injury 

treated by a physician?

•	 How old is your dog?

•	 Who are the previous owners of your dog?

•	 Is your dog on any medication?

•	 Has your dog ever been injured?

•	 How is the dog’s hearing and eyesight?

•	 Is your dog spayed or neutered?20

•	 Is your dog in heat? 

Questions about the incident 

•	 Where did the incident take place?

•	 Who was present (including people and 

other animals)?

•	 Was anyone interacting directly with 

the dog immediately before the incident?

•	 What was the victim doing immediately 

before the incident?

•	 What was everyone doing in the few 

minutes before the incident?

•	 What did the victim do when the 

incident occurred?

•	 What did everyone present do?

•	 How long did the incident last?

•	 How did it end?

•	 What did the dog do when the incident 

was over?

In 2005, Hamtramck, 

Michigan, police responded to a 

call of a dog bite-related fatality. 

The sergeant arrived on the scene 

and determined it was necessary 

to shoot the dogs. However, he 

noticed that after the dogs had 

died, they both excreted brightgreen fecal matter. Observing and 

noting the unusualness of this 

was instrumental in prompting 

a necropsy to be done on the 

dogs. It was determined that the 

aggressiveness of the dogs may 

have been due in part or in whole to 

rodenticide poisoning. The dogs had 

been abandoned in the basement of 

a home without food or water and 

had resorted to eating rat poison in 

an effort to survive. (Sources: Karen 

Delise, personal interview with 

responding officer; necropsy and 

laboratory results from Diagnostic 

Center for Population and Animal 

Health, Lansing, Michigan, at request 

of Michigan State Police.) 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

32

According to the American Humane Association, 

“A correlation between animal abuse, family violence, and other forms of community 

violence has been established....In many communities, human services, animal services, 

and law enforcement agencies are sharing resources and expertise to address violence. 

Professionals are beginning to engage in cross training and cross-reporting through interagency partnerships.” (Source: www.americanhumane.org/interaction/support-the-bond/

fact-sheets/understanding-the-link.html, accessed on July 12, 2011). 

In addition to the above, the officers should also look for answers to several other 

important questions:

•	 Are signs of abuse present?

•	 Are signs of neglect present?

•	 Are other dogs present? If so, what is their physical condition? 

Are there any puppies onsite? 

•	 Is there any evidence of domestic violence?

Making a Record of the Incident

The officer should interview witnesses and gather evidence to determine what was 

going on immediately before and during the incident.

Gathering the Evidence 

Officers responding to a serious bite or a dog bite-related fatality should collect 

items that link an individual dog to the victim and help re-create the actions 

between the dog and others at the scene of the incident. 

Physical evidence is especially important in the following cases:

•	 A person who has been seriously injured is unable to identify the exact dog.

•	 An incident happens in a setting where there are multiple dogs (in pack situations, 

it’s important to identify the individual dog or dogs responsible for the injuries).

•	 A dog owner refuses to cooperate with an investigation. 

Items to collect include clothing fibers, victim’s hair, fur, blood, soil, grass, and dog 

DNA (which can be extracted from blood, clothing, or skin wounds on the victim; 
33

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

dog feces or hair; or items with which the dog has come in contact such as 

fences or gates and collars, tags, leashes, and chains). 

Photos should be taken that thoroughly record the incident, including the 

dog, the scene, and the environment. For example, photos of the dog should 

be taken from all angles, including the top. Photos should also be taken of 

the dog’s environment and how the dog was maintained (i.e., doghouse, 

food, water bowl, any restraints).

The officer should talk to previous owners, if possible, to determine past 

treatment of the dog.

If euthanasia of the animal is ordered, a necropsy should be performed on 

the dog. Pertinent forensic evidence includes the following:

•	 Saliva

•	 Stomach contents

•	 Toxicology from the dog and the victim

•	 Bite-wound analysis (to identify the species of animal that caused the injury 

and to discriminate between bite injuries and other sharp force wounds)

•	 Bite impressions (to determine whether the right dog has been apprehended)

When gathering evidence, photos should be taken of the dog or dogs in the 

environment in which they were kept. 

Photo Credit: Steuben County Sheriff’s Office, compliments of Karen Delise 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

34

Writing the Report

The following areas should be 

addressed when writing a report on 

a dog-related incident (these are 

important elements both for responding 

effectively to the incident at hand and 

for understanding and preventing others 

in the future):

•	 Description of the dog’s 

appearance: Dogs should be 

identified in the same way that an 

officer identifies property and human 

suspects. In the academy, officers 

are taught not to list gold rings as 

gold because they don’t know if 

they are in fact made from gold. 

Such rings are instead described as 

yellow or gold-colored. Similarly, dogs 

should be identified by their physical 

characteristics, not their perceived 

breed. For example, the dog may be a 

short-haired, muscular, reddish-brown 

female dog with cropped ears and tail, 

weighing approximately 50 pounds. 

•	 Description of the dog’s environment: The conditions in which the dog lived 

should be noted. Were the surroundings clean or dirty? How much dog waste 

was in evidence? Were food, water, and shelter available? Was the dog tethered? 

•	 Description of the dog’s care: The dog’s general state should be assessed. 

Was the dog a family dog in good health? Were there signs that the dog was 

unsocialized or neglected? Did the dog have any obvious medical conditions 

or injuries?

•	 Description of the dog’s behavior: The manner in which the dog behaved 

while in the officer’s presence should be recorded. What did the dog do when 

the officer entered or the dog first saw the officer? Did the dog approach the 

officer in a friendly way (see "Assessing the Dog's Behavior: Warning Signals 

vs. Friendliness" on page 20)? Did the dog exhibit threatening or fearful body 

language? Did the dog remain close to the owners or go off on its own? If 

confined out of sight, was the dog barking and lunging at the door or quiet? 

Many eyewitnesses have

problems correctly identifying dogs, 

even dogs that may have allegedly bitten 

them. In a high-profile case involving 

singer Vanessa Carlton, a dog named 

Bella was acquitted of biting Carlton 

because the bite wound on her leg didn’t 

match a mold of Bella’s teeth. (Source: 

Howard Frank, “Pit Bull Accused of 

Biting Vanessa Carlton Wins Reprieve,” 

Pocono Record Writer, July 8, 2010, 

available at www.poconorecord.com/

apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100708/

NEWS/7080315/-1/NEWS01, accessed 

August 1, 2012. 
35

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

A good example of effective evidence gathering is a

2007 case in Steuben County, New York, in which a child was killed by his father’s dog. 

The investigating detective determined the following:

•	 The father had owned the dog less than a week.

•	 The unsterilized dog was just over 1 year old and had already had five different owners.

•	 The dog was chained to a junk pile.

The detective then tracked down all previous owners, including one who had left the 

dog in the basement and frequently failed to feed the dog. He discovered that the father 

had previously been charged with owning a dangerous dog after the child was bitten in 

the neck and that the father had been advised by Child Protective Services not to allow 

his child to be unsupervised with the dog. Because of the detective’s work, the father 

was charged with endangering the welfare of a child. (Source: National Canine Research 

Council, available at nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/

New%20York%20Tragedy.pdf, accessed August 3, 2011.) 

These questions are meant only as prompts. The officer should describe 

specifically and in as much detail as possible what was observed. 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness

There are a variety of police responses to dog-related incidents and 

encounters that will almost inevitably yield poor results:

•	 Assuming cause of injury or fatality: To avoid reaching incorrect 

conclusions, officers should investigate fatalities that appear to be 

caused by dogs as they would any potential homicide or assault. 

•	 Attempting to identify the dog by breed, unless the owners have 

produced proof of purebred registration: Breed identification of 

dogs of unknown origin is likely to be incorrect. Misidentification of 

breed can hinder investigations. For example, if law enforcement is 

trying to find the owner and police identify the dog as a pit bull but the 

owner and neighbors have always thought the dog was a Labrador, 

the chances of locating the dog’s owner are vastly diminished. Breed 

misidentification in a police report may also lead to reasonable doubt 

and impeachment on the witness stand.
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

36

•	 Shooting the dog: Shooting a dog should always be the option of last resort. 

The safety of fellow officers and bystanders is put at risk in such situations, and 

when a law enforcement officer shoots a dog that does not constitute a serious 

threat, community trust is eroded and the department is opened to potential 

lawsuits and other legal action. 

Other inadequate responses include the following:

•	 Handling the incident in a phone conversation: Failure to observe the 

scene of an incident or the dogs allegedly involved can lead to incorrect 

conclusions and inadequate reporting, particularly regarding determinations of 

who is involved and what factors contributed. Leaving the incident to animal 

control may close the call for service but may also close the opportunity to 

address the issue with the owner. It is also a missed opportunity to build good 

community relationships. 

An inaccurate physical description can derail an officer’s

courtroom testimony, so it’s important that an officer is certain that s/he can describe the 

dog by its physical characteristics. Here is a brief list of useful identifiers:

•	 Coats: tight ringlets, short and straight, long shiny, relaxed curls, course.

•	 Colors: light tan, grey, straw, pale cream, reddish brown, brindle, black, red, white.

•	 Muzzle: long, medium, snub-nosed.

•	 Tails: curls over back, hangs down, gentle curve, without tail.

•	 Ears: long and thin, pink and cropped, folded-over tips, short, folded at side of head, 

long and thick.

•	 Unique identifiers: missing or deformed limb, missing eye, missing toe, docked or 

partially amputated tail, dark spots on belly or tongue, torn or cropped ears, scars and 

location of scars, missing teeth, missing hair.

•	 Size: approximate weight and height at the point where the neck meets the back. 
37

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

It is impossible to breed-label dogs of unknown history

and genetics solely on the basis of their appearance. In surveys conducted by Dr. Victoria 

Voith and colleagues from Western University, adoption agency personnel were asked to 

identify by visual inspection the breed or breeds of dogs whose origin they did not know. 

In only 25 percent of the dogs was at least one of the breeds proposed by the adoption 

agencies also detected as a predominant breed by DNA analysis. In 87.5 percent of 

the adopted dogs, breeds were identified by DNA analyses that were not proposed by 

the adoption agencies. It is likely that identification by law enforcement officers is 

also usually incorrect. (Source: V. Voith, E. Ingram, K. Mitsouras, et al., “Comparison of 

Adoption Agency Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs,” Journal of Applied 

Animal Welfare Science, July 2009.)

Attempts at breed identification can result in conflicting reports between agencies. 

Often, police are the first to be interviewed and quoted by the media in cases involving 

a dog-related incident, and it is not uncommon for the officers to attempt to identify 

the breed of dog involved. It is also not uncommon for animal control to later identify 

the same dog as a different breed/type. For example, in June of 2008, a small child was 

injured by a dog that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) described to the media 

as a pit bull. The following day, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Services 

issued a statement that the dog was not a pit bull but appeared to be a “shepherd mix.” 

Thereafter, LAPD referred all inquiries on the case to Animal Services. To avoid conflicting 

information between agencies, police officers should focus on identifying the correct dog 

involved in the attack and an accurate description of the dog and its behavior; officers 

should not attempt to identify the breed. (Sources: Tami Abdollah, “1-Year-Old Boy Bitten 

by Pit Bull in Pacoima,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 2008; For the Record correction of 

article, Los Angeles Times, June 6, 2008.) 
The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

38

In January 2003, while

jogging in the Dan Ryan Woods, Chicago 

resident Anna Cieslewicz was set upon and 

killed by two loose, roaming dogs. Police 

officers canvassed the area, with both the 

news media and the police describing 

the canvass as an attempt to locate the 

owners of two “pit bulls.” However, 

subsequent detailed examination of the 

dogs revealed that neither conformed to 

the standards of the breeds commonly 

known as “pit bull.” Inaccurate breed 

identification may have thwarted police 

efforts to locate the owner or owners, 

who were never apprehended. Had 

police described the dogs only in terms 

of their easily recognizable physical 

characteristics (i.e., size, color, weight, 

coat thickness, head shape), as with a 

human suspect, their attempts to locate 

the owners might have been successful. 

(Sources: S. Chan, “Pit Bull Owners 

Sought in Chicago,” CBS News, January 

13, 2003, available at www.cbsnews.

com/stories/2003/01/13/eveningnews/

main536337.shtml, accessed December 

5, 2010; findings and testimony of 

Karen Delise, expert witness for the 

Cook County Forest Preserve.) 

•	 Handling the dog(s) ineffectively 

or inhumanely: The mishandling 

of a dog may result in injury to the 

officer, residents, and the animal. 

Dog owners have a protected property 

right in their dogs, and courts in 

some jurisdictions now recognize 

dogs as family members. In addition, 

police knowledge of and tolerant 

handling of dogs can create goodwill 

in the community and lead to helpful 

communication. 

•	 Handling the scene ineffectively:

Mishandling or failing to secure the 

scene can lead to inadequate reporting 

and impeachment on the stand in 

court. It ignores the importance of 

assessing collateral damage.

•	 Failing to document the incident 

or gather evidence: Report writing 

creates a history of an incident, 

without which prosecution cannot 

take place. In addition, there is no 

way to document a pattern of incidents 

without adequate reporting. Such 

failures also leave no recourse in civil 

or criminal proceedings.

•	 Failing to cite the owner or charge 

the offense(s): With no record of 

an incident, there is no clear way 

to prevent future incidents or 

understand the local problem. It 

neglects the need to make the local 

environment inhospitable to reckless 

owners and safe for community 

residents. It does nothing to change 

owner behavior. 
39

CHAPTER 3: Reponses to the Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters

•	 Failing to follow recidivists:

Reckless owners are often 

recidivists—if one dog is removed 

from them, they simply acquire 

another. Knowing who the recidivists 

are and checking on them is essential 

to preventing future incidents and to 

ensuring safe, humane communities. 

•	 Failing to use and enforce qualityof-life ordinances such as building 

and zoning violations, noise 

ordinances, and licensing: Such 

approaches can effectively address a 

dog-related problem.

•	 Failing to have inter-agency 

response systems: Cooperation 

among agencies can not only improve 

responses to dog-related problems but 

also identify issues related to family 

violence. For example, social service 

professionals recognize that abusers 

kill, harm, or threaten children’s pets to coerce them into sexual abuse 

or to force them to remain silent about abuse. Disturbed children kill 

or harm animals to emulate their parents’ conduct, to take out their 

aggressions on another victim, or even to prevent the abuser from 

killing the pet.21

The Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

points out that reporting of “abuse of 

sentient creatures” provides valuable 

“contact information for additional 

resources concerned with violence 

perpetrated against animals and people.” 

(Source: Frank R. Ascione, “Animal Abuse 

and Youth Violence,” Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin, September 

2001, available at www.ncjrs.gov/

pdffiles1/ojjdp/188677.pdf, accessed 

December 5, 2010.) 
40

Endnotes

1 “2009–2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey,” American Pet Products 

Association website, accessed December 5, 2010, http://americanpetproducts.

org/pubs_survey.asp.

2 U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Source Book, 2007 edition 

(Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association, 2007).

3 “Nonfatal Injury Data,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, 

accessed December 5, 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nonfatal.html.

4 “Types of Dog Bites,” National Canine Research Council website, accessed 

August 3, 2011, http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/types-ofdog-bites.

5 American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression 

and Human-Canine Interactions, “A Community Approach to Dog Bite 

Prevention,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218, 

no. 11 (June 1, 2001): 1732–1749.

6 Kristin Kappelman, Analysis of Use of Force Incidents Against a Canine 

in the Milwaukee Police Department: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 

2009 (Milwaukee, WI: Fire and Police Commission, 2010), http://www.city.

milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/agendas2/100902_NB_A.pdf.

7 Lisa Spahr, “The Canine Factor: To Shoot or Not to Shoot,” Subject to Debate,

January 2007.

8 T. Asher, “Anti-Cruelty Society Worker Shot on Detroit’s East Side,” 

myFoxdetroit.com, last updated September 2, 2010, http://www.myfoxdetroit.

com/story/18474732/anti-cruelty-society-worker-shot-on-detroits-east-side. 

9 Fernanda Santos, “4 Officers Hurt (One by Pit Bull) as Police Fire 26 Shots to 

Kill Dog in Bronx,” The New York Times, July 24, 2006, http://www.nytimes.

com/2006/07/24/nyregion/24pitbull.html?_r=0.

10 Kate Schott, “Dog is Slain by Police Officer; Woman Wins Civil Rights Claim,” 

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, March 6, 2002.
41

Endnotes

11 Victoria L. Voith, Elizabeth Ingram, Katherine Mitsouras and Kristopher 

Irizarry, “Comparison of Adoption Agency Breed Identification and DNA Breed 

Identification of Dogs,” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, no. 3 

(2009), 253–262.

12 “CDC Wonder,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, accessed 

December 5, 2010, http://wonder.cdc.gov.

13 “Media Mauls Dogs First, then Snaps Back at Actor,” PRWeb press release, 

August 16, 2007, http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/

tinymce/Ving%20Rhames%20NCRC%20Press%20Release.pdf.

14 Voith et al., “Comparison of Adoption Agency Identification” (see note 11).

15 “Dog Suspected in Mauling Not a Pit Bull,” Galveston Daily News,

March 21, 2007, http://www.galvnews.com/news/article_96e81ad5-d9d2-

5626-ada4-bd317cb3415f.html.

16 Spahr, “The Canine Factor” (see note 7).

17 Steven M. Edwards, John Granfield, and Jamie Onnen, “Evaluation of Pepper 

Spray,” National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, February 1997, https://

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/162358.pdf.

18 Anthony Barnett, “The Myth of the Taser-Proof Put Bull,” Game Dog Guardian 

website, accessed December 5, 2010, http://www.gamedogguardian.com/

education-and-resources/taser-proof-pit-bull-myth.

19 According to the National Canine Research Council in 2007, in 97 percent of 

dog bite-related fatalities, the owners failed to sterilize their dog.

20 F.R. Ascione, Children and Animals: Exploring the Roots of Kindness and Cruelty

(West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2005).
42

Suggested Reading

American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression 

and Human-Canine Interactions, “A Community Approach to Dog Bite 

Prevention,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218, 

no. 11 (June 1, 2001): 1732–1749.

Bradley, Janis. 2007. Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions. Ann Arbor, MI: 

Animals & Society Institute.

Corona Research. 2009. Dog Bites in Colorado: Report of Dog Bite Incidents 

Reported to Animal Control July 2007 – June 2008. Coalition for Living 

Safely With Dogs. http://www.livingsafelywithdogs.org/mm_frameset_about_

us.htm.

Gorant, Jim. 2010. The Lost Dogs: Michael Vick’s Dogs and Their Tale of Rescue 

and Redemption. New York: Gotham Books.

Harris, David. 2005. Good Cops: The Case for Preventative Policing. New York: 

The New Press.

Horowitz, Alexandra. 2009. Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know.

New York: Scribner.

Schaffner, Joan (editor). 2009. A Lawyer’s Guide to Dangerous Dog Issues. 

Chicago: American Bar Association.

Americans love dogs. There is roughly one dog for every four people in the United 

States, and they live in a variety of relationships with humans. Because dogs are 

such a part of American society, police routinely encounter them in the line of duty, 

not just when responding to calls about inhumane treatment or when dogs are seen 

to present a danger to people. Officers encounter dogs in the course of almost every 

kind of police interaction with the public, from making traffic stops and serving 

warrants, to interviewing suspects and witnesses, and even pursuing suspects. 

The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters discusses tools, practices, 

and procedures that contribute to effective responses to dog-related incidents and 

encounters where dogs are present. Primary goals include ensuring public and officer 

safety and considering community needs and demands.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details about COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

e051116358 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-31-7

First published 2011

Revised 2015