California’s AB-742, now codified at Penal Code Section 13653, sharply restricts when a police canine can be used against a person. The California K9 bill limits unleashed deployments to pursuits of violent felony suspects who pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, bars police dogs from any form of crowd control, and treats serious canine-inflicted injuries as deadly force attributable to the handler.1California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB-742 Law Enforcement: Police Canines The law is narrower than its public reputation suggests. It does not set training standards, impose fines, or require liability insurance. Its job is drawing a hard legal line around when a police dog can be turned on a person.
When a Police Dog Can Be Deployed Against a Person
AB-742 begins from restriction, not permission. An officer may not use an unleashed police canine to arrest or apprehend someone unless two conditions are both satisfied: the person is being pursued for a felony that threatened or caused death or serious bodily injury, and the person poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.1California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB-742 Law Enforcement: Police Canines A property crime suspect who runs from police does not meet that bar, no matter the circumstances of the flight.
A separate rule governs biting. The law prohibits a canine from biting anyone unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person coming from the individual the dog targets. This restriction applies even when the dog is leashed.2California Legislative Information. California AB-742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines In practice, an officer cannot direct a dog to bite someone who is passively resisting, fleeing a nonviolent offense, or otherwise not presenting a lethal-level threat at that moment.
Agencies are bound alongside their officers. A law enforcement agency cannot authorize any use or training of a police canine that conflicts with these restrictions.1California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB-742 Law Enforcement: Police Canines An agency policy that still permits canine apprehension for nonviolent felonies violates state law on its face, independent of whether any specific handler acts on it.
The Ban on Canines for Crowd Control
AB-742 flatly prohibits using a police canine for crowd control at any assembly, protest, or demonstration.2California Legislative Information. California AB-742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines There are no exceptions written into the statute. It does not distinguish between peaceful gatherings and unlawful assemblies, or between leashed and unleashed dogs in that context.
The Legislature’s stated intent was to prevent canine use “for the purpose of arrest, apprehension, or any form of crowd control.”1California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB-742 Law Enforcement: Police Canines The phrase “any form” is doing deliberate work, closing off characterizations an agency might otherwise use to justify bringing dogs to a public event.
Serious Canine Injuries Count as Deadly Force
Perhaps the most consequential provision of the bill is a classification. Under AB-742, the death of or serious bodily injury to a person caused by a police canine constitutes deadly force as defined in Penal Code Section 835a, and that deadly force is attributed to the dog’s handler.2California Legislative Information. California AB-742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines The label is not symbolic. It drops the handler into the same legal framework that governs an officer who fires a weapon.
Section 835a defines deadly force as any force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, and permits it only when a reasonable officer, viewing the totality of the circumstances, believes the force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, or to apprehend a fleeing person who committed a felony involving death or serious bodily injury and who the officer reasonably believes will cause further death or serious injury unless immediately apprehended.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 835a The statute also directs officers to use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible before resorting to deadly force. For canine handlers, that means weighing alternatives such as waiting out a hidden suspect or using containment tactics before releasing the dog.
Historically, many agencies treated canine deployments as a lower tier of force than firearms. AB-742 upends that assumption whenever a bite causes serious injury.
What AB-742 Does Not Do
Public discussion around the bill generated expectations the final law doesn’t deliver, and relying on provisions that aren’t there is a common mistake.
AB-742 does not require agencies to keep detailed deployment logs. It does not mandate veterinary care, living conditions, or humane treatment protocols for police dogs. It does not establish standardized training curricula. It does not impose fines or penalties on agencies that violate its provisions. It does not create audits of repeat violators. It does not grant handlers immunity from civil liability. And it does not require agencies to carry liability insurance for canine-related incidents. None of these provisions appear in the text of the law.2California Legislative Information. California AB-742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines
The absence of explicit penalties is not the same as the absence of consequences. Because a serious canine injury now counts as deadly force, an unjustified deployment opens the handler and the agency to criminal exposure under existing use-of-force statutes and to civil liability under both state and federal law.
If You’ve Been Injured by a Police Dog
Someone bitten or seriously injured in a canine deployment has two tracks to consider, and the state track runs on a short clock.
The California Government Claims Act Deadline
Before suing a California law enforcement agency or its officers in state court, you must file a formal claim with the public entity. For personal injury, the claim is due within six months of the incident. Miss that window and your state-law claims are likely gone. A late-claim application is possible, but it has to be filed within one year of the incident and must explain the reason for the delay.4California Legislative Information. California Government Code – Government Claims Act
The claim must include your name and address, the date and circumstances of the incident, a description of the injury, and the name of the officer involved if you know it. If the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, you don’t state a specific dollar figure, but you do indicate whether the case would be a limited civil case.4California Legislative Information. California Government Code – Government Claims Act
Federal Civil Rights Claims
A separate path runs through federal court. Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, anyone whose constitutional rights are violated by a person acting under government authority can sue for damages. A police dog bite during an arrest is treated as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the question is whether the force was objectively reasonable.
Courts apply the factors from Graham v. Connor: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee.5Justia US Supreme Court. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) The analysis is case-specific. Courts also look at whether a verbal warning was given before the dog was released and whether less forceful alternatives were available.
AB-742’s deadly-force classification strengthens these federal claims as a practical matter. When a state statute already treats the deployment as deadly force, it is harder for a defendant to argue in federal court that the bite was moderate or routine. A Section 1983 claim does not require a prior government claim filing and has a longer limitations period, but it demands proof that the officer’s actions were unreasonable under the specific circumstances of the encounter.