by a warning, when feasible.”). This case is analogous to cases involving the use of police dogs. Though various courts have held that the use of these dogs, when properly trained and utilized, does not constitute deadly force, e.g., Robinette, 854 F.2d at 912, courts have nevertheless found that summary judgment is properly denied to defendants when no warning was given before using police dogs. Kuha v. City of Minnetonka, 365 F.3d 590, 597-98 (8th Cir.2004) (concluding “that a jury could properly find it objectively unreasonable to use a police dog trained in the bite and hold method without first giving the suspect a warning and opportunity for peaceful surrender”), amending and superseding 328 F.3d 427 (2003); Vathekan v. Prince George’s County, 154 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Kopf v. Wing, 942 F.2d 265, 268-69 (4th
holding that it is objectively unreasonable for a police officer to fail to give a verbal warning before releasing a police dog to seize someone recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer holding that if a police officer inflicted no constitutional injury on a suspect it is inconceivable that the police commissioners could be liable to the suspect holding police officer is a public official holding that deputies use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis