Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the K9 Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST drafters take K‑9 guideline feedback; commissioners ask for stricter evaluator standards, off‑leash obedience and documentation
Summary
POST staff presented a draft of statewide K‑9 certification guidelines on Aug. 28 and received detailed feedback — including calls for off‑leash obedience testing, stronger evaluator qualifications, and extra documentation requirements — with a revised draft scheduled for the commission’s December meeting.
The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training received a status update on draft statewide K‑9 guidelines on Aug. 28 and commissioners offered extensive technical and policy feedback intended for inclusion in a December revision.
Law‑enforcement consultant Mike Dalisay introduced the draft and thanked Captain Brad Meyer of the Butte County Sheriff’s Office, one of several subject‑matter experts who helped craft the standards. Commissioners used the public discussion to press for clearer evaluator qualifications, stronger consistency in testing, and tighter language about canine deployment.
Key commissioner suggestions included: - Evaluator qualifications: Several commissioners asked that the guidelines adopt a clearer list of minimum qualifications for K‑9 evaluators (for example, referencing Western States Police Canine Association standards) and not rely only on a prohibition of financial conflicts. - Off‑leash obedience testing: Commissioners — including Captain Meyer and Commissioner Brazil — favored certification testing that assesses obedience off‑leash rather than on‑leash, arguing that most operational K‑9 deployments are off‑leash and off‑leash testing better demonstrates control and public safety readiness. - Narrow crowd‑control exceptions: Commissioner Brazil suggested replacing language that says canines “should not be used for crowd control” with a stricter formulation used in some national guidance: “except in narrowly defined circumstances, canines shall not be used for crowd control,” and to identify those narrow circumstances using the Ferguson report or similar national guidance. - Tactical release and corrective devices: Commissioners recommended removing lists of suggested “supplemental equipment” from the guidelines and instead require handlers to demonstrate methods to safely release and regain control of a dog using the tools an agency elects to use. The suggestion included replacing references to “e‑collar” specifically with more generic references such as “correction device” so agencies are not constrained to one method. - Documentation and agency policy: Commissioners urged inclusion of recommended agency practices for tracking training and deployment — for example, logging every search (not only successful apprehensions) to provide a fuller operational record and to support transparency and liability protection.
Several presenters and commissioners agreed there was broad consensus across agencies on many core elements but asked the staff to return in December with a revision that would show strike‑outs and additions so agencies could compare changes. POST staff said they would present the redline draft at the December meeting.
Why it matters: The draft will be used as a statewide reference for K‑9 team certification and recertification. Commissioners’ suggested changes focus on clarifying evaluator standards and testing protocols that would shape how agencies certify K‑9 teams and how courts, oversight bodies and the public assess canine deployments.
What’s next: POST staff will incorporate the input and return with a redlined draft at the commission’s December meeting for further deliberation and possible adoption.
