Wendell Nope UPOA 2011 K-9 Web Pages

Wendell Nope Web Pages
UPOA 2011 K-9
Web-Based Presentation
Expert Witness Pages - Main Page

K-9 Allegations in Law Suits
What they claim ... what they allege!

This text is from actual Expert Witness Reports.
When you are named in a Patrol Dog related law suit, the Plaintiff's are claiming you have acted wrongly, committed a misdeed, or even have acted in an unlawful manner. You are the defendant. That is why you are not allowed to go into the courtroom in uniform when you are sued. The opposing attorney is likely to use very harsh language in the "Complaint" against you. The opposing Expert Witness is likely to use equally strong language to support the attorney's allegations. Make no mistake about ... YOU are on trial here. Remember, the "Burden of Proof" in a civil court is "Preponderence of Evidence" which is translated to "more likely than not." That is why O.J. Simpson was convicted in the civil trial, although he was acquitted in the criminal trial.

1970's Just The Facts
Sample Report

This text is from an actual deployment report.
In the beginning years of what we now term as "The Era of Modern Law Enforcement," a prevailing concept ruled report-writing. This concept I'll nickname "Just The Facts." Officers were discouraged from inserting their feelings, perceptions, and observations ... and were counseled to stick to the "facts" of the incident. This was also in an era wherein law enforcement officers were looked upon as emotion-less and almost robotic, and in some jurisdictions it was not uncommon for citizens and courts to believe that cops getting beat-up or injured or even shot at was "part of the job." For example, in these years it was a common feeling that an officer should wait until a gun was pointing at him/her and the trigger being pulled - before engaging defensively. This image of law enforcement officers and "facts only" concept has been slow to evolve.

2011 Same Incident
Sample Report

This text is expanded with actual Handler observations, perceptions, feelings, reactions, etc. which came to light after the initial report was written.
With this presentation, I hope to change evolution into revolution. A K-9 Officer should now write a report - especially if the K-9 engaged the suspect in the capture process - with the Judge or Jury as the audience. Observe how the same incident reported in Just The Facts is now articulated for the court.

1990's Incident

2011 Same Incident

This is another Case Study.

Threat Elements
A list of issues to articulate

What makes the difference between Just The Facts Report #1 and the 2011 version is that the threat elements which the K-9 Handler faced in the incident are articulated. These elements include feelings, perceptions, and circumstances which caused the K-9 Handler to react the way s/he did. By articulating the threat(s) experienced, s/he provides the Judge and/or the Jury with a sequence of events they can visualize. The Handler's intent is to cause them to see the events through his/her eyes so they can understand why s/he did what he did. By understanding the Handler's view of things, they are more likely to internalize the Handler's actions as their own. In this way, they can support his/her position and the actions taken as being reasonable.

Expert Witness Pages - Main Page

HDMI Converter

K-9 Allegations in Law Suits What they claim ... what they allege! This text is from actual Expert Witness Reports.	When you are named in a Patrol Dog related law suit, the Plaintiff's are claiming you have acted wrongly, committed a misdeed, or even have acted in an unlawful manner. You are the defendant. That is why you are not allowed to go into the courtroom in uniform when you are sued. The opposing attorney is likely to use very harsh language in the "Complaint" against you. The opposing Expert Witness is likely to use equally strong language to support the attorney's allegations. Make no mistake about ... YOU are on trial here. Remember, the "Burden of Proof" in a civil court is "Preponderence of Evidence" which is translated to "more likely than not." That is why O.J. Simpson was convicted in the civil trial, although he was acquitted in the criminal trial.
1970's Just The Facts Sample Report This text is from an actual deployment report.	In the beginning years of what we now term as "The Era of Modern Law Enforcement," a prevailing concept ruled report-writing. This concept I'll nickname "Just The Facts." Officers were discouraged from inserting their feelings, perceptions, and observations ... and were counseled to stick to the "facts" of the incident. This was also in an era wherein law enforcement officers were looked upon as emotion-less and almost robotic, and in some jurisdictions it was not uncommon for citizens and courts to believe that cops getting beat-up or injured or even shot at was "part of the job." For example, in these years it was a common feeling that an officer should wait until a gun was pointing at him/her and the trigger being pulled - before engaging defensively. This image of law enforcement officers and "facts only" concept has been slow to evolve.
2011 Same Incident Sample Report This text is expanded with actual Handler observations, perceptions, feelings, reactions, etc. which came to light after the initial report was written.	With this presentation, I hope to change evolution into revolution. A K-9 Officer should now write a report - especially if the K-9 engaged the suspect in the capture process - with the Judge or Jury as the audience. Observe how the same incident reported in Just The Facts is now articulated for the court.
1990's Incident 2011 Same Incident	This is another Case Study.
Threat Elements A list of issues to articulate	What makes the difference between Just The Facts Report #1 and the 2011 version is that the threat elements which the K-9 Handler faced in the incident are articulated. These elements include feelings, perceptions, and circumstances which caused the K-9 Handler to react the way s/he did. By articulating the threat(s) experienced, s/he provides the Judge and/or the Jury with a sequence of events they can visualize. The Handler's intent is to cause them to see the events through his/her eyes so they can understand why s/he did what he did. By understanding the Handler's view of things, they are more likely to internalize the Handler's actions as their own. In this way, they can support his/her position and the actions taken as being reasonable.