Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

RCW 4.24.410

Police dogs—Immunity.

Applied in 3 court decisions — leading case 68 Wash. App. 610 - State v. Kisor (1993)

Most recently applied in Finch v. Thurston County (October 2016)

2024 c 305 s 2; 1993 c 180 s 1; 1989 c 26 s 1; 1982 c 22 s 1.

How often courts cite this section

199320002010201610
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Police dog" means a dog used by a law enforcement agency specially trained for law enforcement work and under the control of a dog handler.

(b) "Accelerant detection dog" means a dog used exclusively for accelerant detection by the state fire marshal or a fire department and under the control of the state fire marshal or his or her designee or a fire department handler.

(c) "Dog handler" means a law enforcement officer who has successfully completed training as prescribed by the Washington state criminal justice training commission in police dog handling, or in the case of an accelerant detection dog, the state fire marshal's designee or an employee of the fire department authorized by the fire chief to be the dog's handler.

(d) "Lawful application of a police dog" means employment or specific use of a police dog as allowed by law.

(2) Any dog handler who uses a police dog in the line of duty in good faith is immune from civil action for damages arising out of such use of the police dog or accelerant detection dog.

(3) A state or local government or law enforcement agency is not strictly liable for damages resulting from the lawful application of a police dog.

Official source: Washington State Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Washington statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.