Spencer Erickson considered a career as a vocalist before a Lakewood police dog bit his throat, permanently damaged his vocal cords and nearly killed the 25-year-old.

Erickson would have died if the dog’s teeth had penetrated millimeters further and severed his jugular vein, he alleges in a lawsuit filed in Colorado’s federal court. Lakewood police officers’ decision to use the dog was disproportionate to the severity of the call they were responding to and officers failed to contact Erickson themselves before releasing the dog, causing it to attack Erickson while he slept, the lawsuit states.

Erickson had no history of violent crimes and the call for service did not include allegations of violence against another person, said Adam Frank, Erickson’s attorney.

“It’s just shocking,” Frank said. “The Lakewood police were serving a couple of low-level warrants and investigating a misdemeanor property damage crime. This is policing 101. This is what officers across the metro area do 100 times a day.”

Lakewood police spokesman John Romero on Monday afternoon said the agency could not comment on pending litigation. He said the police dog involved in the incident, Finn, remained on the force. He also said that there is no body camera footage of the evidence because Lakewood officers do not wear cameras.

Six Lakewood officers responded on Sept. 21 to Erickson’s apartment in the 7300 block of West Hampden Avenue after his roommate called 911. The roommate said that Erickson had created a hole in building’s attic and might be in the crawlspace. She also said that Erickson may have warrants out for his arrest and may have been drinking and smoking pot earlier in the day, according to the lawsuit.

Erickson did have warrants for three misdemeanors: failure to appear in court for a drug possession case, failure to appear for a criminal mischief case and failure to comply in a DUI case.

Six officers responded to the home. One of the officers called and texted Erickson’s phone, instructing him to come out of the apartment building with his hands up and that “if he failed to do so, a K-9 unit would be deployed within the home,” the lawsuit states.

Erickson did not respond to the call or text because he was asleep, Frank said.

The officers then yelled for Erickson to leave the apartment and, when he failed to do so, they released K-9 Finn to search, the suit states. The dog found Erickson in his bedroom and bit his neck, creating wounds more than 2 inches deep.

Erickson faced charges of obstructing a peace officer and failing to leave property on request of an officer in connection to the incident, but both charges were dismissed. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal mischief for the damage to the building and received a sentence of probation, Frank said.

The incident shows that Lakewood police need more training on the use of police dogs and effective ways to serve warrants, Frank said.

“This clearly was not one or two officers going rogue,” he said. “Six officers got together, came up with this plan and decided this was the way to serve this warrant.”

The dog used in the attack also previously attacked a handler and should not have been used after that incident, Frank said.

“K-9 Finn’s near-murder of Mr. Erickson or an incident like it was the inevitable consequence of Lakewood’s unforgivable choice to continue using a dog they knew was violent and dangerous,” the lawsuit states.

Erickson suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the attack and struggles to sleep, Frank said. Erickson endures nightmares and flashbacks and the damage to his vocal cords distorts his voice. The scars around Erickson’s neck make it appear like he tried to kill himself and the injuries continue to cause him pain.

“This disfigurement has had a significant negative impact on Mr. Erickson’s mental health, ability to find employment, potential for career advancement and promotions, and his capacity to form friendships and relationships,” the lawsuit states.

Lakewood Police Department policies posted online do not appear to specifically address when a police dog should be deployed. The general use-of-force policy states officers may use deadly force when they believe their own lives are in danger or if a violent felon is attempting to flee and police believe the person poses an imminent danger.

“In no instance shall police agents use force other than that which is objectively reasonable to lawfully and properly neutralize an unlawful assault, to overcome resistance by a person being taken into custody or into protective custody, to prevent a suicide or an attempted suicide, or to prevent the escape of a person in custody,” the police states.