California’s AB-742, codified as Penal Code Section 13653, sharply restricts when police can use canines against people. The California K9 bill limits unleashed deployments to situations involving an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury during pursuit of a violent felony, bans police dogs at protests and other crowd-control settings, and classifies any serious canine-inflicted injury as deadly force attributable to the handler.1California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB-742 Law Enforcement: Police Canines The law is narrower than early coverage suggested. 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 used against a person.
When a Police Canine Can Be Deployed Against a Person
AB-742 starts from restriction. An officer cannot use an unleashed police canine to arrest or apprehend someone unless two conditions are both met: 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 someone else.1California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB-742 Law Enforcement: Police Canines That is a high bar. A property-crime suspect who runs from police does not meet it, regardless of the circumstances.
The law contains a separate restriction on biting. A canine may not bite anyone unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person from the individual the canine targets. This applies even when the dog is leashed. In practice, an officer cannot direct a dog to bite a passively resisting suspect, someone who is merely fleeing a nonviolent crime, or anyone who does not present a lethal-level threat at that moment.2California Legislative Information. California AB-742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines
Agencies are bound too. 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 That language puts responsibility on the agency, not just the individual handler. A department policy permitting canine apprehension for nonviolent felonies would itself violate state law.
The Ban on Police Dogs at Protests and Crowd-Control Settings
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 No exceptions. The law does not distinguish between peaceful protests and riots, or between leashed and unleashed dogs in this context. If the setting is a gathering of people, a police canine cannot be deployed for crowd management.
The Legislature stated its intent 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” closes loopholes around how an agency might characterize its use of dogs at public events.
Why Serious Canine Bites Now Count as Deadly Force
One of the most consequential provisions of AB-742 is the reclassification of serious canine-inflicted harm. Under the law, 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 canine’s handler.2California Legislative Information. California AB-742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines That is not a symbolic label. It triggers a specific legal framework.
Section 835a defines deadly force as any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury. Under the same statute, an officer is justified in using deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that 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
Section 835a also directs officers to use other available resources and techniques when reasonably safe and feasible before resorting to deadly force.3California Legislative Information. California Penal Code 835a For canine deployments, that means considering whether alternatives to releasing the dog exist. A suspect hiding in a building does not automatically justify a canine bite if officers could safely wait the person out or use other tactics.
Tying canine injuries to this framework means every serious canine bite is evaluated under the same legal standard that governs officer-involved shootings. A handler whose dog causes serious bodily injury faces the level of scrutiny an officer who fires a weapon would face. That is a significant shift from the way many agencies historically treated canine deployments as a lower tier of force.
What the California K9 Bill Does Not Do
Early public discussion of AB-742 generated expectations about provisions the law does not contain. Understanding what is absent matters, because agencies and individuals sometimes assume protections or requirements that are not there.
AB-742 does not require agencies to maintain detailed records of canine deployments. It does not mandate veterinary care standards, 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 a system of audits for 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.2California Legislative Information. California AB-742 – Law Enforcement: Police Canines
The absence of explicit penalties does not mean violations have no consequences. Because serious canine-inflicted injuries are now classified as deadly force, an unjustified deployment can expose the handler and agency to criminal prosecution under existing use-of-force laws, and to civil liability under both state and federal law.
If You Were Injured by a Police Canine
Anyone injured by a police canine deployment has potential remedies under both state and federal law. The state path comes with a short clock.
State Claim: Six-Month Deadline
Before suing a California law enforcement agency or its officers in state court, you must first file a formal claim with the public entity. For personal injury, the claim must be filed within six months of the incident. Miss that window and your state-law claims are likely dead. A late-claim application can be submitted within one year of the incident, but it must explain the reason for the delay and is not guaranteed to be accepted.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 known. If damages exceed $10,000, you do not state a specific amount but must indicate whether the case would be a limited civil case.4California Legislative Information. California Government Code – Government Claims Act
Federal Civil Rights Claim Under Section 1983
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 canine bite during an arrest is analyzed as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the central question is whether the force was objectively reasonable.
Courts evaluate reasonableness using the factors from Graham v. Connor: the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or fleeing. Courts also consider whether the officer gave a verbal warning before releasing the dog and whether less forceful alternatives were available.5Justia US Supreme Court. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
AB-742’s classification of serious canine injuries as deadly force strengthens federal claims in practice. When California law already treats the deployment as deadly force, it is harder for a defendant to argue in federal court that the force was moderate or routine. A Section 1983 claim does not require filing a government claim first and carries a longer filing deadline, but it demands proof that the officer’s actions were unreasonable under the specific circumstances.