Is a police dog considered an officer of the law the same as humans?

No, Honi.
They are used by officers of the law, but if you think about it, the evidence obtained by the use of the animal, is presented in court by the handler.
Any action taken by the dog, is at the command of the handler. The dogs, while highly trained, are instruments, for want of a better word, used by the police, in the prevention and detection of crime.
Some states make attacking a police dog a felony, but they are not officers of the law.

Thanks dancegirl. The reason for the question is because I was in a debate where a police dog died after his handler left him unattended in a hot patrol car for more than 12 hours before being discovered.

Some thought since police dogs that die in the line of duty are usually given high-profile funerals, that they might be considered officers.

In this case the dog will probably have a private, memorial service.


Do you think the officer should be charged? Before you answer, you might want to read about it.

link

Should the office be charged? Yes. A police officer, even a saddened dog-handler, should not be seen to be above the law or different from any other citizen who was as neglectful.This is quite a bad instance of neglect. Further, the prosecution would serve to heighten public awareness of the risks.

Is the dog an officer? No and what's more a court won't accept his evidence as reported A dog-handler is not permitted to testify that his dog 'found the scent of the suspect'. That statement is hearsay.The handler cannot speak for the dog or report what the dog 'told' him. Only the dog could give direct evidence of what he found, or what he deduced and why, and he tends to be silent under oath. However the handler can testify that e.g. he saw the dog go on a track from A to B and what he, the handler, found at the end of the track. The jury are then entitled to draw such inferences from the dog's behaviour as they think fit . (Don't you just love lawyers' logic? ) This case does not fall within the exceptions to the rules against hearsay in criminal trials. (A subtle exception which you encounter daily in the courts is that a witness is allowed to state his or her own age, even though the witness cannot be said to remember being born, let alone the date of birth, so it follows that they are relying on what they were told by others as a true statement of fact and so their own direct statement of their age is hearsay ).

Yes, he should be charged. If he had left on of his children in the car, it is to be hoped he would have remembered it, in spite of a serious distraction, before so many hours had passed.

A dog is not a 'police machine'. It is a clever, sensitive animal. I hate to think of the many hours it suffered before death finally released it.

Furthermore, this officer should not be a dog-handler on the force. The bond of loyalty between handler and dog is an important part of the function. This officer had not even minimal loyalty to his dog.

This is a very sad case, but I agree with Fred and Babs. Yes, he should be charged.
I think that the events which caused him to forget that his dog was in the vehicle, can only be considered mitigating circumstances when imposing a penalty on this officer.

That is very sad - as bad as leaving a child in the car as babs said. Not only should he be charged, but he should be barred from any future police work (not JUST be given desk duty )

I've also seen instances where a police dog killed in the line of duty was honored with a special ceremony...not quite to the extent of an actual officer, but with accolades nonetheless. I'm always touched when I see those stories about a "fallen comrade".

An update on this case:

MSN

I would like to see him locked in a car in identical circumstances and not released until he passes out. There'd be no danger of brain damage, which is usually a rish with heatstroke.

The police chielf 'railing' on him? Poor baby!

He obviously shows no remorse for a callous act of cruelty. He also lacks empathy to a pathological degree. Such people should never be in charge of people who are confined, such as in hospices, boarding schools, prisons or mental hospitals.