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 ruled that a lawsuit against the animal's handler and supervisors could still be filed, alleging civil rights abuses, false arrest, and "subpar supervision." An order to release the police dog was allegedly made over the phone by an off-duty supervisor who had been drinking. The family's attorney noted that the officers present seemed to be acting hastily, as a crisis team with a trained negotiator was on its way to the scene and would have assessed whether the young man was bluffing.