For the second year in a row, efforts to create guidelines for police dogs in California have failed to become reality after two bills, AB 2042 and AB 3241, stalled in the state Senate. Both would have created a single statewide policy for all law enforcement K-9 units. Right now, each department uses dogs differently, from search-and-rescue to bomb detection to arrests.
The bills were linked in such a way that both needed to pass to become law. Both cleared the Assembly a couple of months ago, but they stalled in the Senate after being amended, then failed to be voted on before the end of the regular legislative session.
Had they passed, police agencies would have been required to track and publish how they use dogs. P.O.S.T, the California police training and education organization, would have had to set guidelines for using dogs proportionally to the severity of a suspected crime. Dog handlers would also have been required to carry tools to help release a bite. One of the bills also would have established training and rules designed to restrict dog injuries to bystanders and accidental bites.
Both bills would have explicitly eliminated the use of police dogs as a crowd control tactic. The San Diego Police Department says it does not use K9s for crowd control.
Get top local stories in San Diego delivered to you every morning. Sign up for NBC San Diego's News Headlines newsletter.
AB 3241 was backed by police lobbying groups like the Peace Officers Research Association of California. Its president, Brian Marvel, expressed disappointment the bills failed and hoped to bring back the effort in 2025.
"While we're disappointed that AB 3241 didn't pass this year, we recognize the visionary potential it held. By pioneering standardized practices, we would have not only built trust and accountability between agencies and communities but also continued California's legacy as a trailblazer in policing. Despite AB 3241 not making it to the governor's desk this year, PORAC and the law enforcement community remain steadfast in our commitment to championing responsible, consistent and cutting-edge practices that elevate the professionalism and excellence of police canine units. We're eager to spearhead future advocacy efforts on this crucial issue, aiming to reintroduce this transformative bill next session and cement California's position as the vanguard of 21st century law enforcement standards."
San Diego Police sent a statement reacting to the failed bills:
“The San Diego Police Department’s Canine Unit is widely recognized as a leader in law enforcement canine programs across the country. Our canine unit consistently sets the standards for canine certifications, robust policies and training requirements.
"The San Diego Police Canine Unit looks forward to working with all state legislators in standardizing canine policies and procedures.
"Our department continues to support Assembly Bill 3241 in its current form, and we are hopeful this bill will be reintroduced next year. We are confident that our continued commitment to excellence and high standards will serve as a model for other departments as we collectively work to keep our communities safe."
In our previous reporting, former San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit was supportive of this year’s bill and efforts to standardize police dog use. However, he said it would change very little about how SDPD operates, saying the department already practiced the protocols suggested by the bill.
Criticism over a lack of reforms in the bills
But some are celebrating the news. Groups like the ACLU California Action opposed the passage of either bill, saying they didn’t go far enough to change the way police dogs are deployed. They don’t believe police dogs should ever be used to make arrests. The group shared this statement from George Parampathu, its legislative attorney:
“Right now, the vast majority of people severely injured by police attack dogs are not armed with any weapon, half are experiencing a mental health crisis and many are suspected only of minor crimes – this violent tool needs to be reined in. AB 3241 was written by police, for police. And AB 2042 copied the same flawed framing. Both bills asked law enforcement, through POST, to write their own rules on the use of attack dogs. These bills would have done nothing more than put the legislature’s stamp of approval on the unjustifiable status quo. That’s a far cry from the sort of real reform and accountability that’s needed to keep communities safe from unnecessary violence.
"The only supporters of these bills were law enforcement. And when community organizations tried to work with the proponents, we never got a meeting. Luckily, our power lies with the communities we advocate for. When community members read the bills and saw their obvious flaws – hundreds of them reached out to their state representatives to voice their concerns and demand real limits on the use of police attack dogs. That made all the difference. Each of them should be commended for taking the time to engage with the democratic process on bills they cared about, and the members should be commended for listening to their communities and rejecting both bills, rather than following the wishes of the police lobby.”
Another bill that would have limited K-9 use was on the table in 2023 but also failed to clear the legislature. AB 742 died after several police chiefs across the state, including Nisleit, campaigned heavily against it. That bill would have banned the use of police dogs during arrests with the exception of people suspected of violent felonies. At the time, Nisleit claimed it would have eradicated San Diego’s K-9 unit, a move that he said would have resulted in more violence for both officers and suspects.
A racial disparity of suspects bitten by K-9s
Attacking suspects of nonviolent or minor crimes and/or suspects experiencing mental illness are not the only uses of K-9s under scrutiny. There’s also the color of the skin on the receiving end of a police dog’s teeth.
A national investigation by the Marshall Project found most bite victims are men, and in some places, disproportionately Black.
Here in San Diego, SDPD provided NBC 7 Investigates with five years of its K-9 bite data. Between 2018-22, San Diego police dogs bit 161 people. Two-thirds of them were Black or Hispanic. This, despite the fact that Black and Hispanic San Diegans comprise only 36% of the city’s population (U.S. Census).
“I think using demographics to look at crime is not a good scientific method to use,” former SDPD Police Chief David Nisleit told NBC 7 during an interview earlier this year. He argued the decision to release a dog, and thus to allow a dog to bite, is not one made by the handler, but, rather, “that’s a choice by the suspect.”
“This is a reactive tool,” Nisleit said. “That suspect is given ample opportunities to surrender before a K-9 is sent. So to me, if you don’t want to meet one of our K-9s, don’t commit violent crimes. And then, surrender. If you don’t surrender, there’s a good chance you will be bit by a K-9.”
