“He’s part of my family, we love him, I just don’t understand,” said Kaetzel.

Complicating the issue is the fact that Kaetzel filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Bedford Heights on July 19, seeking back pay, for overtime hours that he claims he worked over the years while caring for and training the police dog.

So he wants the dog for $1.00 and be paid overtime for caring for "a part of my family"?

I'm having a bit of trouble working up any sympathy for Kaetzel.

^ my thoughts as well. Wants it both ways.

Also, the city paid for the dog, and paid for the training. Dog belongs to the taxpayers.

While I agree with the above I wonder how well if at all the dog will work with a new partner. Are these dogs trained to work with multiple partners or are they totally imprinted to their officer and totally useless to someone else? Or maybe the dog will be loyal to whoever feeds it. I am no expert on dog training. Our dog knows way more English words than I know dog words.

His lawsuit follows the same path as one for Officer Jim Smith from Liberty Ohio - which Jim won - Anybody that deals with these dogs will tell you there is a strong bond that forms if they are handled by only one handler and the dog resides with the handler full time. The Dog generally cannot be re-trained with a new handler unless it is very young. The lawsuit has a basis - since the officer cared for the dog (police property) after hours as part of his regular job and if he is an hourly employee then he is entitled to compensation. I am sure the lawsuit will be dropped if they come to terms with the dog.

It is the Department's Dog. But sadly he is trained to work with him.and has a bond.
He or his new department should pay a reasonable amount to acquire the dog. It is whats fair.
What that amount is i have no idea.

I'm all for this type of solution to allow him to keep the dog - cop (or his new department, preferably, if they're going to use the officer as a K9 officer) pays a pro-rated portion of the cost paid by the current department to obtain and train the dog. Average service time is 8-10 years. Let's call it 9 for the sake of discussion. Dog has 5 years in the role, 4 years left based on a 9 year service life. Pay current department 45% of the cost and keep the dog.

This is largely a question of morality and compassion, if seen through the dog's eyes. The dog is not an appliance, even though he could be considered "police equipment" in isolated logic.
I just cannot regard animals as inert or unfeeling devices.
Hopefully, the human stuff can be worked out.

There are thousands of military working dogs currently on duty.
You do not get to keep them as pets when you PCS, ETS, or whatever.
They can be and are re-trained to work with a new handler. To imply that this "can't be done" is not true.

If you are the type of person who chafes at calling a working dog "property", then instead call them "a beloved co-worker that you will really miss working with." Either way it should stay at the PD.

The problem with just selling him the dog is Ohio Law for disposal of public property - as the "property" must be disposed of through a public auction - the course of action would have to be the officer at the auction submitting the winning bid for the dog.

Is there a provision for transfer of assets from one entity to another? Bedford Hts. to his new department, for example?

It would have to be within the same taxpayer base like police to fire or the school district - its just a budget reallocation then - its gets really complicated trying to transfer to another municipality

What they did in Officer Jim Smith's case is hold an auction and Jim was the only bidder at $1 - there was no other person that had the stones to bid in front of an angry crowd

I'm sure the dog would prefer to be with his family

I'm sure you're right. As a taxpayer, I'd want something in return though. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to want to keep the dog, but I think it's very unreasonable for him to expect the city to just give the dog to him.

I've no idea what it costs to train a dog for police use, but to me the dog's happy family life carries great weight.
What even small gov'ts waste on office supplies and goofy stuff is ridiculous, and working dogs age out anyway.
I'm sure the dog has earned some peace in his life by now.

Will the dog simply be a pet, or will it become part of a K9 unit team at the new job?

How many K9 units does the old department have? If this dog is the only one, how long does it take to get and train another dog? Is there another qualified handler already at the old department?

From a tax payer's perspective, who has to pay for the training of the replacement dog, and how much does that cost? Will there even be a K9 unit after this dog and the officer leaves?

Is the trained dog going to be part of the officers K9 unit at the new Police department? In other words, is he taking his trained dog with him to the new job as part of the job? Does that next city already have an established K9 unit, or will this officer and the dog be the new K9 unit? If that was the case, it would seem the new city should be paying for the previously trained dog, especially if this dog IS the new K9 unit.

The guy wanting back pay for "taking care" of the dog for 5 years is way out of line. I believe it was a simple way to try to blackmail the department into letting him keep the dog, but it was a pretty poor plan for a police officer, speaks volumes about him.

I believe that's the only K9 in that department.

EDIT: He returned the dog to the department today.

Two things, he should have file for the over time while working for that department, not wait until switching jobs
the other thing, who cares if he wins or loses on that law suit The taxpayers in that area will pay for the lawsuit and they will have to pay if he wins the settlement, no win for us either way

My nephew is Odin's K9 officer. I don't know what his thoughts are on the story, but I am pretty sure that Odin won't be going anywhere when either of them retire.

Of course, and it seems to be typical that the dog remains with the handler when the dog is retired from service. That's not the case here. This officer got a job with another department, sued his former department for OT pay for time spent caring for the dog during off hours, and then wanted to keep the dog, THe dog is not due to retire from service yet.