In 2013, a police watchdog organization accused the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department of overusing its dogs to bite suspects, rather than to find and corner them. One allegation was that the overwhelming majority of the victims are black and Latino. National Public Radio interviewed Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips for the article, In Los Angeles County, It’s ‘Bark and Hold’ vs. ‘Find and Bite.’
In 2025, the same issues are front and center in the case of Fernando Villanueva-Galvez v. City of San Jose, et al. (USDC, Northern District of California, Case 5:24-cv-09055-VKD). The Complaint alleges that the city and individual police officers violated the Plaintiff’s civil rights by allowing a “blood-thirsty K-9 to viciously maul Fernando, chewing Fernando’s face, arms, neck and biting off half of his ear.”
The Complaint also alleges:
The conduct of Officer Eliseo Anaya, and the San Jose Police Department constitutes not only a dereliction of duty but a total disregard for Fernando’s humanity. Fernando, now 20 years old, is permanently disfigured and forced to carry the indelible mark of the recklessness and indifference displayed by the very people sworn to protect him.
Proper standards for the training and use of police dogs are long overdue. It is an issue for lawmakers rather than the courts. Policy must be decided: to what extent should K9’s be allowed to inflict pain on suspects?