Was the Use of Police Dogs in Ferguson Evidence of Racism?

One of the most troubling aspects of the Department of Justice report on the City of Ferguson was the description of the use of police dogs by the Ferguson Police Department. The report seemed to suggest that the FPD regularly loosed police dogs on African-Americans, noting the “FPD’s use of dog bites only against African-American subjects is evidence of discriminatory policing”.  For older residents with memories of the Civil Rights movement, the report called up images of Bull Connor unleashing police dogs to attack peaceful marchers. 
 
When the report came out, one option discussed was to have the Ferguson Police Department give up its police dogs as a way of moving beyond the scathing implications in the report.  However as we started discussing the police dogs with a member of the Ferguson Police Department, he made a much different point – police dogs save lives.  The officer pointed out that the dogs were only to be used in a pursuit situation where a crime had been committed.  If the police dogs weren’t available more officers would be going into potentially dangerous situations, likely with their firearms drawn and an increased chance of someone getting shot.  The police dogs, by contrast were nonlethal and didn't require the officer to go with them. Having the police dogs allowed officers to avoid dangerous situations which might have resulted in a loss of life.
 
We asked the officer why only African Americans were bitten.  He said he didn’t know why some people chose to stop hiding and give up, and why some didn’t, and that it was very difficult to draw generalizations from something that happened so rarely.  He noted that the department was tightening its supervision and clarifying when police dogs should be used and that this was good for the force.  However he vigorously denied that there were any motivations other than cautious policing for the use of police dogs – he returned to his original point, that sending police dogs into vacant buildings to search for suspects was better than sending in officers with their guns at the ready. 
 
The issues facing Ferguson and indeed the United States are complex.  We understand how a cycle of mistrust can happen, with African Americans distrustful of the police and so more likely to run, police expecting African Americans to run and so more quickly using police dogs, in turn reinforcing the distrust.  We understand that a lack of respect can translate into a faster decision to use force or deploy a police dog.  We aren’t presuming to know what was in officers’ or suspects' minds, or suggesting that the actions of the Ferguson Police Department are perfect. 
 
However the starting point for any meaningful change, any real progress, needs to be an understanding of what actually happened, the many shades of gray that make up any situation.  The DOJ report on Ferguson was ultimately just a summary of findings with almost no details, almost a prosecutor’s summary of their case.  This isn’t enough.  The residents of Ferguson – indeed, the citizens of the United States, want to know what the DOJ found.  We want to know the details and the context of all of the Ferguson Police Department’s use of police dogs.  The DOJ needs to provide transparency and release all of the information it collected on the City of Ferguson and its Police Department.