Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety K9 Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pataskala officer urges council to let him buy K9 Rico as debate prompts talk of canine policy
Summary
A Pataskala police officer, who identified himself as Rico’s handler, asked city council to allow him to purchase the department’s K9 after he was ordered to return the dog; council and the police chief discussed the department’s ownership, past practice and the need for written policy.
Josh DeJesus, who identified himself as Rico’s former handler, told the Pataskala City Council on Jan. (address on file) that he wants to buy the department’s narcotics dog, Rico, after being ordered to return the animal on Dec. 12.
DeJesus said he bonded with Rico during training in 02/22 and described that the dog had been central to his work: “For 2 years, Rico has been at my side,” he said, and he cited deployments and arrests the team handled together. DeJesus asked council to “please have discussion for me to purchase Rico for a fair and agreeable price.”
The request prompted a longer council discussion and comments from Chief Brooks about the department’s position and past practice. Chief Brooks told council the department has consistently treated working dogs as department property and that there were updates provided to the mayor on Rico’s condition. The chief said the current separation between the handler and the dog was different from a prior case when an officer left the department, and that those earlier circumstances helped inform how the city treated that previous animal.
Council members pressed for clearer, written procedures. One council member said the city should clarify that a department dog is “assigned as a station to Pataskala, not to an individual,” and urged staff to draft formal policy language. A member asked whether a standard operating procedure exists that handlers sign, and the chief replied the department had not created such a written agreement in the past.
Council also referenced a prior legal determination about selling a city canine: council was told that, in a previous case, the law director said a living police canine could not simply be sold and instead had to be disposed of through surplus/auction procedures. Council members said the prior case resulted in the dog being sold at auction after a GoFundMe paid the winning bidder’s price; they cited that as part of the reason to establish clearer rules.
As a result of the discussion, council asked staff to work with Christine (city staff) and Human Resources to develop policy language clarifying ownership, assignment to the station, and procedures to follow if a handler separates from the department. No formal motion to sell or transfer Rico was made at the meeting, and no change in the dog’s status was recorded on the council floor.
The exchange included personal appeals from DeJesus about the bond between handler and animal and technical questions from council about fair-market valuation and surplus disposition requirements. Council members explicitly distinguished between the officer’s request to buy the dog and the city’s obligation to treat the animal as department equipment under existing procedures.
