An investigation has found the police were not justified in deploying a dog that bit a man during an arrest, requiring him to need stitches.
There were other options available to a police dog handler before releasing his dog while arresting a man, an investigation has found. (File pic) Photo: RNZ
The man was pursued by police after failing to stop when an officer flagged him down for driving very slowly and swerving near a school in Greymouth in May, 2020.
A police dog handler had joined the slow-speed pursuit when the gravel road conditions with overgrown gorse and native bush forced the man to stop, and the police dog was deployed.
It bit the man during the arrest, causing injuries to his leg that required stitches.
An investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority found the use of a police dog to bite the man was not justified or necessary and his offending did not warrant the dog being deployed.
But it found the pursuit itself was justified.
The man claimed the officer did not warn him before deploying the police dog which the officer challenged, saying he immediately gave the warning - "Police dog handler - stay there or I'll let the dog go".
The authority said it was unclear if the dog handler gave the appropriate warning before releasing the dog.
The authority said the man claimed he was standing by his open driver side car door waiting to the arrested when the police dog was used to apprehend him.
"I didn't run away in a bush or that type of carry on … in a situation where somebody's got a gun or something and is gonna shoot heaps of people I suppose a vicious dog would be needed in that situation and would probably work out quite well but not just, you know, a silly bugger like me driving my car. It's a bit different, I wasn't armed, had no knives or guns," the man told the authority.
The officer told the authority the man ran and was looking for an opening into the bushes at the side of the road and using the dog was the only option available to him to keep him from entering the bush.
"I again challenged the driver ... and told him: 'I'm a police dog handler - stay there or I'll let the dog go'. The driver's continued like he's looking for a place to go over the bank and then I've sent the dog and commanded … him to apprehend the driver… The whole time the driver said nothing to me and ignored me like I wasn't even there," the officer told the authority.
In its findings, the authority said it accepted that if the man had been under the influence of alcohol, he would have posed some risk to the public if he had continued to drive, but he was not in a position to do so when the dog was released.
It found it was reasonable for the dog handler to remove the dog from his vehicle as he believed he would be arresting the man by himself.
But the authority said the officer had no reason to think the man was a risk to himself or anyone else, and there were other options available before releasing his dog.
"In this case, the seriousness of the offending and suspected offending, and the risk posed by Mr X if not immediately apprehended, was not sufficient to justify the degree of force used."
West Coast Area Commander Inspector Jacqui Corner said the police acknowledged the investigation's finding.
"These are fast-moving and dynamic situations that require situational awareness and an ongoing risk assessment by the officers involved," she said.
"We believe our officer acted appropriately given their risk assessment of the situation.
"However, we acknowledge the authority's findings and have provided further training on the tactical options our staff have available in relation to the risk posed by offenders and the appropriate use of force."