Home Forums California Kings County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Fausnett

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22904 Reply
    CBKN76
    Keymaster

    On January 8, 2001, Deputy Fausnett was involved in an incident where he released his K9 dog ‘Dash’ on a suspect who had exited his vehicle with hands up. Following the K9’s engagement, Deputy Fausnett allegedly struck the suspect behind the head with his fist while the dog was mauling the suspect. The suspect attempted to cover his face from the dog and the punches thrown by Deputy Fausnett. The incident led to allegations of excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as the suspect’s finger was severed during the encounter. The court found that the plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Deputy Fausnett for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was allowed to proceed on these claims. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/1%3A2021cv01170/397922/10/?utm_source=openai))

    [Return to blog post](https://watchaudits.com/deputy-fausnett-kings-county-sheriffs-office/)

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
Reply To: Deputy Fausnett
Your information:




Welcome to Police Accountability Database

Our Mission

We're building a comprehensive database of police interactions to promote accountability and transparency in law enforcement.

How You Can Participate

  • View the Blog: Read about documented police interactions
  • Share Your Experience: Submit your own police interaction story
  • Browse the Forums: Check if your local law enforcement has been documented

Important Community Guidelines

It is strictly against our rules to:

  • Make threats of any kind
  • Share private information such as personal emails, home addresses, or phone numbers

Violation of these rules will result in immediate content removal and possible account suspension.

Why This Matters

By organizing this data, we can potentially demonstrate when officers were previously aware of laws they later claim ignorance of, challenging qualified immunity defenses and promoting accountability.