EAST BAY / Berkeley residents snarl over police dog plan / Some say canines could be used to intimidate low-income people and racial minorities

EBEMILYc-C-12JUL01-EF-KW - (l to R) Holding the "toy" a stick that is the dogs reward, Alameda Police officer, Patrick Wyeth watches as his police dog, Kenzie, searches for a gun during an evidence search drill at the old navy housing in Alameda. SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE PHOTO BY KAT WADE less EBEMILYc-C-12JUL01-EF-KW - (l to R) Holding the "toy" a stick that is the dogs reward, Alameda Police officer, Patrick Wyeth watches as his police dog, Kenzie, searches for a gun during an evidence search drill ... more Photo: KAT WADE Photo: KAT WADE Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close EAST BAY / Berkeley residents snarl over police dog plan / Some say canines could be used to intimidate low-income people and racial minorities 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

When Pleasant Hill police asked for money for a canine unit last month, not only did city leaders give them money to buy two dogs - but citizens donated thousands of dollars to help with program startup costs.

By contrast, Berkeley citizens are up in arms about a proposal by their Police Department to buy two German shepherd patrol dogs because they say the animals could be used to intimidate low-income people and racial minorities.

The city, which three decades ago rejected a Police Department attempt to buy dogs, may be the only large city in California without its own canine unit.

"A lot of people harken back to '60s and have bad memories of dogs being used inappropriately," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, particularly against civil rights activists in the South. Bates thinks a dog program could be useful, but will only support one if the city's Police Review Commission approves it.

Right now, that doesn't seem likely, even though Berkeley police estimate they use dogs from neighboring police agencies about 30 times a year, typically to search for armed suspects.

"I am totally against having a canine unit in Berkeley," said Commissioner Bill White, whose position is backed by the group Copwatch. White said most citizens who have spoken publicly have opposed the proposal, which could come up for a vote at the commission's March 24 meeting.

White argues that the need is not great enough to justify the $30,000 startup costs and $12,000 to $16,000 a year to maintain a dog program. Police say the money would come from asset-seizure funds that must be used for front- line police work and would thus not affect the city's general fund.

White also worries about what police will do with the dogs when they are not searching for armed suspects or missing people.

"I'm thinking they're going to just use these dogs when there's nothing else to do to harass people in the lower income parts of Berkeley," White said.

"When police cars come and people see dogs barking and frothing at the mouth, it's just an intimidating factor," he said. "I don't want to see Berkeley turn into a community where they have dogs like that."

Lt. Dennis Ahearn, who is shepherding the dog proposal before the Police Review Commission, said officers would use dogs more frequently if they did not have to rely on outside agencies like BART, and the Oakland and Richmond Police Departments.

"We don't like to be a burden on surrounding agencies and use up all our good will," he said. Dogs are much faster at searching areas for armed suspects, a process that can be very labor intensive, he said.

"A block search can easily tie up eight to 10 officers for a couple of hours," said Ahearn.

Berkeley, which has about 200 sworn officers, is perhaps the only police agency of its size in the state that does not have a canine unit, according to Ahearn.

By contrast, the Pleasant Hill Police Department, which will pick up two German shepherds from a specialized Menlo Park company today, has 50 sworn officers. Until now, the city has had to rely on dogs from outside agencies when conducting searches.

The Contra Costa city's police department faced no opposition when it asked for the dogs. "The city council and the citizens were in full support," said Corporal Todt Clark, who will be one of the department's dog handlers.

Berkeley had a canine unit in the 1930s, Ahearn said, but disbanded it for reasons unknown to him.

Then in 1975 the department proposed establishing a new dog unit, but in 1977 the City Council rejected the idea and banned the use of dogs, Ahearn said.

The Police Review Commission later complained that the department subsequently did use dogs from neighboring agencies when an armed suspect barricaded himself in a store on Telegraph Avenue and when "Stinky" the rapist terrorized the city's flatlands neighborhoods.

In response, the City Council in 1982 adopted its current policy of allowing the use of dogs from neighboring agencies in certain circumstances, Ahearn said. There have been no major incidents in recent memory involving dogs from outside agencies, and no lawsuits, he said.

Ahearn did not know whether his department would go to the City Council if the police commission rejects the idea, which he said seemed likely.

"They've made every indication that they're going to vote against it," he said.

Bates said he wants to investigate the use of dogs in other progressive' cities like Santa Cruz and Santa Monica. He thinks it could be beneficial to have police dogs and handlers under the city's control.

But he said the idea will probably be dead if the commission gives the thumbs down.

"Berkeley is Berkeley, so we have to do what we can to make sure we reach a balance," he said.