Let me get this straight. Criminal shoplifts thousands of dollars of cosmetics from Ulta Beauty in massive retail theft. Flees from police when they arrive, hides behind bush hoping to avoid arrest. Vigilant K-9 officer arrives with dog, which goes after escaping suspect. Dog bites criminal. Criminal sues police department, receives nearly $1 million for “post-traumatic stress.”
Is this Saturday Night Live? Some kind of satire from The Onion? No, it actually went down in Brentwood (Contra Costa County). The judge in the case, which did not require a jury, is named Rita Lin. She ruled against the K-9 officer, Ryan Rezentes, who argued in his own defense that, as a police officer with a licensed dog in pursuit of a fleeing suspect, he was perfectly within his rights. But Judge Lin disagreed. In her decision, she claimed that Rezentes should have called off the dog sooner than he actually did, making it a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Can we talk?
First of all, it should be abundantly clear that Officer Rezentes had the right and the duty to sic his dog on Talmika Bates, the thief. It was his job as a cop. Secondly, it’s also obvious that Bates had no right to (1) steal, or (2) to flee from the police. Those are both crimes, and serious ones at that. As the old saying goes, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. (Or take the dog bite.)
One reason, perhaps the main reason, Republicans did so well in this election is that Americans hear about stuff like this and throw up their hands in despair. We want criminals to pay a price for their disrespectful, illegal actions. We don’t want honest cops who are just doing their jobs to be hassled by judges like Rita Lin. Now, to be fair, Judge Lin (who was appointed to the District Court by President Biden) seems like a good jurist. She was one of the top lawyers working pro bono to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, a successful effort that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage. So good for Judge Lin!
But that doesn’t mean she can’t make mistakes, as indeed she did in this case. How is a police officer to determine the precise instant when he should call off his dog? Indeed, how is a judge who wasn’t even there to determine that moment? It’s an ambiguous decision made in the fog of a rapidly changing, stressful situation. In my judgment the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the arresting officer. After all, Officer Rezentes had no reason to prolong the attack any longer than was necessary. He was simply trying to get the criminal to comply with his orders. Did his dog bite more furiously than it should have? Who’s to say? These things are matters of opinion and, as I said, unless there’s overwhelming evidence that a cop deliberately went overboard in subduing a criminal—and there is no such evidence in this case—then the matter should be dropped.
We take no pleasure in Ms. Bates’ injury, which was to her scalp. I’m sure she’ll get the best medical care—at the taxpayers’ expense, of course. I’m also sure her “post-traumatic stress” will soon heal, balmed as it will be by her new wealth. $1 million buys a lot of skin care, hair, nail and makeup at Ulta Beauty. And with Black Friday coming up, Ms. Bates can get some deals.
Steve Heimoff