Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Canine Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST proposes updated canine regulations and minimum supervisor training ahead of AB 400
Summary
POST staff briefed the advisory committee on a planned review of canine regulations and minimum training standards for apprehension canines, aiming to align POST guidance with the proposed AB 400 legislative requirements and to consider standards for handlers and designated supervisors.
The advisory committee received a briefing on June 3 about a planned regulatory review to update guidance and minimum training standards for law‑enforcement apprehension canines, a subject brought into sharper focus by the pending Assembly Bill 400.
Bureau consultant Michael Dalisay said POST republished updated canine guidelines in March 2025 and is proposing a meta‑analysis to establish minimum training content for K‑9 handlers and their supervisors, with an emphasis on apprehension techniques and reporting requirements. “What I'm proposing here is a meta analysis that establishes minimum training standards and course content for K‑nine handlers…and their supervisors with a particular emphasis on strictly apprehension techniques,” Dalisay said.
Key points - Background: POST revised canine guidelines in March 2025 (prior update in Feb 2014). Several legislative proposals, including AB 400, would require standardized training protocols and reporting standards for K‑9 programs. - Scope of proposed regulation: POST staff offered to define minimum content and delivery standards for K‑9 handler and supervisor training, and to consider whether supervisor training should be a standalone course or integrated into existing supervisor curricula. - Implementation considerations: committee members noted variation in agency structures—some have a distinct canine coordinator while others rely on multiple patrol supervisors—so POST would likely target the program coordinator or designated canine program supervisor rather than every shift patrol sergeant.
Questions raised - Whether the supervisor training requirement should be in the standard supervisory curriculum or a separate course; how to define who is the responsible supervisor (program coordinator vs. line sergeant) and how to grandfather current handlers into new requirements. - How to update existing canine schools and trainers (a train‑the‑trainer model) and whether an update frequency requirement should be included.
Next steps: POST staff said they will proceed with a regulatory review and solicit further input to produce a clear set of minimum training content and update requirements for existing canine handlers and trainers. The advisory committee supported including an update requirement and developing a train‑the‑trainer approach.
