Stricter Penalties for Killing Police Animals: Kansas Leads the Way

The penalties for killing police animals, which currently include dogs and horses, may strengthen in Kansas soon. The initiative was adopted following the legislative committee’s approval and reinforced by a tragic event. The tragic event occurred in Wichita, the state’s largest city, a year ago when a suspect strangled a police dog. 

The Republican-controlled State House on Friday endorsed the bill with an astonishing 115-6 vote. The bill states that a first offender convicted of murdering a police animal may be given more than three years in prison. That sentence could rise to five years if the offender killed the animal while fleeing from law enforcement. The bill also suggests a sizeable $10,000 penalty.

Existing Laws and Proposed Changes

Under the current law, the penalties for killing a police dog are capped at a year’s imprisonment and a fine ranging between $500 and $5,000. The penalties for killing horses are not specifically covered.

House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican and principal advocate for the bill, emphasized the time and resources invested in training these animals. He asserted that the loss of an animal trained for law enforcement warranted a more severe penalty.

Senate Approval and Next Steps

The bill, despite having cleared the Republican-majority Senate, did so by a relatively narrow margin of 25-15. This narrow approval highlights the contention surrounding the measure, with the division largely falling along party lines. The legislation now progresses to the office of Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, marking the final step before it can be enacted as law.

Governor Kelly is known to sign measures that receive wide bipartisan support traditionally. Therefore, this will be a tough decision for the governor since the Senate approved the measure without most of the Democratic Senators. It is worth mentioning that the Governor’s signing will be a huge statement on the matter. Supporters and critics of the bill will closely watch whether she signs the bill.

Nationwide Trend

The move to increase penalties for killing police animals is not unique to Kansas. The spirit of the bill has been sweeping across the nation. This proves that there is a growing national agreement on the issue of honoring service animals. For example, Colorado approved a similar bill last month by the local democrat-led general assembly. 

Such heavy support means the state acknowledges the contribution of these animals to the police force. And, invariably; they know the safety of the public is imperative. Across the aisle, GOP-controlled legislatures in Missouri and West Virginia are racing to pass mirrored bills. Despite their leadership from the opposite parties, these states demonstrate a shared commitment to protecting service animals, transcending party lines.

Moreover, these measures have been introduced in at least four other states, further highlighting the growing national momentum behind these initiatives. This trend represents a larger shift in public sentiment towards recognizing the value and contribution of service animals in law enforcement and an increasing willingness to enact laws to protect them.

Driving Force Behind the Measure

The Kansas measure was triggered by the death of Bane, an 8-year-old Wichita police dog, in November. A domestic violence suspect ran into a storm drain to hide and strangled the dog sent in to catch him. However, some people argue that the ban will not be enough to prevent the killing of dogs during police operations. It raises the question of proportionality in the use of dogs, especially on colored suspects. Critics refer to the sad history of dogs used in policing during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Staff attorney at the National Lawyers Guild’s National Police Accountability Project, Keisha James, emphasized police dogs may be a strong threat: “Police dogs have jaws strong enough to puncture sheet metal. Victims of attacks by police dogs have sustained serious and even fatal injuries. It follows that an individual being attacked by a police dog would respond by trying to defend themselves.”