Review finds flaws in officer's actions after 2020 police dog attack | February 11, 2022 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - February 11, 2022

Review finds flaws in officer's actions after 2020 police dog attack

Report from independent auditor takes issue with victim interview after incident

by Gennady Sheyner

When a Palo Alto police officer directed his dog to repeatedly bite Joel Alejo as he slept in a backyard shed in June 2020, the incident triggered anger from police watchdogs, a claim against the city by Alejo and, ultimately, a $135,000 settlement.

This story contains 1237 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a member, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Membership start at $12 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Join

Email Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner at [email protected]


Posted by John
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 4, 2022 at 5:43 pm

John is a registered user.

Agent Enberg is regularly involved with the arrest of dangerous felons and is exactly what the city needs in this time of spiking crime and criminals running free. When the homeowner tells police that there is no one in his backyard and then cops locate someone on a search, tensions are going to be higher than just about any commenter here could ever imagine. "Where's his hands?" "It sounds like he's choking the dog!" "Do I need to shoot?" "Oh man, I had to make 50 decisions in 4 seconds, I hope the Palo Alto Online crowd is reasonable once they've had months to carefully reflect on them."

Posted by felix
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2022 at 7:07 pm

felix is a registered user.

I'm disgusted by two examples here of police who lie in their reports. We know this from videos that we and our Independent Police Auditor see, but these were ignored by Internaal invetigations. Police investigating police is a conflict of interest. That the investigatiors didn't attempt to interview the dog bite victim is illustrative.

Officer Enberg should be fired. Thirty or more times he ordered the dog to bite a man, yet Enberg went on to lie in his report, saying the man tried to run and choked the dog. On the video you even hear him tell the victim to "stop resisting" as he is being mauled.

In a TASER deployment, there are officers and a supervisor, saying a man was behaving wildly and aggressively, yet the vidio proves these to be lies.

It's good some policy changes have been made, I assume over time more weaponized dogs will maul more innocent people. In the meantime there seems to be a ho-hum attitude about officers and supervisors manufacturing reality and investigatiors ignoring it. Is hard evidence ever planted? How far does this dishonest behavior go in the PAPD?

Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 4, 2022 at 9:26 pm

Online Name is a registered user.

What a totally lame excuse to conclude the victim was guilty BECAUSE he tried to defend himself from dog bites. Who wouldn't instinctively try to protect and shield himself from an attacking dog?

Posted by Jennifer
a resident of another community
on Feb 5, 2022 at 8:50 am

Jennifer is a registered user.

A valuable lesson -- consent to search your property. It's human nature to comply with LE for those of us who respect the police. You have to ask yourself -- was it worth it? Liability is part of the equation.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.