Minnesota argues it is not liable for police dog attack – Sovereign immunity in the case of a car dealership employee bitten by a K-9 may hinge on the question of whether the state can be “the owner” of a dog under Minnesota’s dog-bite statute. [More]
You can tell a lot about character from people who won’t clean up after their dogs.
[Via Michael G]
It seems to me, it’s very simple: Somebody owns that “state police” dog.
If it’s not the handler, maybe it’s his department. If it’s not the department, then the state.
If none of them are willing to admit ownership of their K-9s, then deductive reasoning says that those K-9s are ownerless. Ownerless dogs are, by definition, strays. Anyone attacked by a stray dog is well within his/her rights to put it down by force.
Do the police departments in Minnesota really want to claim that nobody owns their K-9s? Especially given how useful they are for warrantless vehicle searches and civil asset forfeiture?
Are they really prepared for every unintended consequence that crossing that bridge entails?