The judge ruled that suit could still charge against the animal's handler and supervisors including civil rights violations, false arrest and "negligent hiring, training and supervision." An order to release the police dog was allegedly given over a phone from an off-duty supervisor, who had been drinking. The family's attorney noted that the officers present seemed to act in haste as a crisis team with a trained negotiator was en route to the scene and would have determined whether the young man was bluffing.
The judge decided that a lawsuit against the animal's handler and supervisors was still possible, alleging civil rights abuses, false arrest, and "inadequate hiring, training, and supervision." An order to release the police dog was supposedly given over the phone by an off-duty supervisor who had been drinking. The family's lawyer pointed out that the officers on the scene appeared to be acting hastily, as a crisis team with a trained negotiator was en route to the scene and would have determined whether the young man was bluffing.