Mr. Kirkbride refused to exit the van, and K-9 Panzer was deployed. Mr. Kirkbride punched Panzer in the snout and grabbed his gums. These actions were clearly done knowingly, causing or attempting to cause physical harm to Panzer while Panzer was assisting Deputy Wisecarver in the performance of his official duties. The basis for the outstanding warrant the deputies were serving upon Mr. Kirkbride – that is, whether it was for a felony offense or a misdemeanor offense – has no bearing on whether the elements of the criminal offense of assaulting a police dog were satisfied.
State v. Kirkbride
Fifth District Appellate Court
Muskingum County, Ohio
June 1, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. Kirkbride demonstrates how courts evaluate canine deployments during warrant service. The decision reinforces that officers may rely on a police canine when a suspect refuses repeated commands, conceals himself in a confined area and presents an unknown threat. The case also confirms that a suspect cannot claim self-defense against a reasonably deployed police canine during a lawful arrest.
Background
On November 27, 2024, Mr. David Kirkbride was indicted on one count of obstructing official business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31(A) and (B), a felony of the fifth degree; and, one count of assaulting a police dog in violation of O.R.C. §2921.321(A)(1) and (E)(1)(a), a misdemeanor of the second degree. Mr. Kirkbride pleaded not guilty at his December 10, 2024, arraignment. The matter proceeded to trial on July 31, 2025, at which the following evidence was presented.
Mr. Kirkbride was Known as Dangerous So Canine Panzer is Assigned to the Arrest Team
On or about November 20, 2024, Deputy Matthew Kallgren and K9 Division Deputy Michael Wisecarver of the Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office were assigned the task of serving outstanding warrants, one of which had been issued for Mr. Kirkbride on a child endangering charge unrelated to this appeal. Deputy Wisecarver participated in the task with his K-9 partner, Panzer, as Mr. Kirkbride was known to Sheriff’s Office personnel to be a potentially dangerous individual.
Cigarettes – Mountain Dew – Crackers and Crouched Down on His Knees
Deputies first went to Mr. Kirkbride’s last known address, but did not find him at that location. Next, they went to another home which Mr. Kirkbride was sometimes known to frequent. Deputies arrived at said home, where they observed Mr. Kirkbride’s vehicle. Deputies knocked on the front door, and when the homeowner answered she gave them her consent to search the property. Deputies began walking around the property, where they observed Mr. Kirkbride’s truck with the door open and a pack of cigarettes, an open Mountain Dew, and crackers inside. Deputies also observed a barn, a dump truck, and a van on which the sliding doors were open. Deputy Wisecarver observed Mr. Kirkbride “crouched down, sitting on his knees, with his hands tucked up underneath of him.” Both deputies testified that entering a confined space to pursue an offender is dangerous, as they do not know if the offender is armed, or if the offender is going to fight them. As a result, they generally do not enter into such confined spaces in order to apprehend an offender.
Failure to Comply
Deputy Wisecarver testified that upon seeing Mr. Kirkbride through the open sliding door crouched inside the van, he told Mr. Kirkbride: “I can see you … sheriff’s office K-9, come out, you’re going to be bitten;” Dep. Wisecarver testified further that he repeated these statements “over and over again.” Mr. Kirkbride, however, refused to come out of the van. Deputy Wisecarver testified that while he could not remember the exact number of times he repeated his command, he continued with his command to Mr. Kirkbride to exit the van for approximately five minutes. When Mr. Kirkbride continued to refuse to comply, Deputy Wisecarver deployed K-9 Panzer to apprehend him.
Mr. Kirkbride “[P]unched Panzer in the snout, grabbed ahold of Panzer’s gums and tried to pry Panzer off.”
Deputy Wisecarver testified that he ultimately decided to send Panzer in after Mr. Kirkbride because Mr. Kirkbride “was inside the van. He wasn’t complying. He wasn’t listening. It was a small area that – – not somewhere that I would go into to get him. The way he was positioned in the van, he was out of reach so there was no reaching in to grab him. It was – – there was – – the safest option was to get the dog to bring him out.” Deputy Wisecarver testified further that deploying Panzer “saved [Wisecarver] from going inside the van and potentially creating a deadly force scenario.” Mr. Kirkbride punched Panzer in the snout, grabbed ahold of Panzer’s gums and tried to pry Panzer off. Deputy Wisecarver testified that when he and Deputy Kallgren arrested Mr. Kirkbride they found knives and/or box cutters on his person.
Mr. Kirkbride Delayed the Service of Other Warrants
Deputies Kallgren testified that he and Deputy Wisecarver had a number of warrants to execute on that day, and the time they had to spend apprehending Mr. Kirkbride impeded their ability to attend to the service of said warrants. Counsel for Mr. Kirkbride objected to the question as irrelevant and stipulated that the deputies had official duties that Mr. Kirkbride’s conduct impeded:
Q. [BY MR. HOWARD] Okay. Did you have other tasks that you needed to complete that day?
A. [DEPUTY KALLGREN] Yes.
Q. Okay. What are some of the other things that he kept you from doing?
A. Responding to calls for service, traffic enforcement. There were several other warrants that were signed and issued by judges to serve.
MOORE: Objection; irrelevant. What else he had to do that day, how are we focused on this?
THE COURT: I mean, are you going to stipulate that he had official duties that this impeded?
MOORE: Absolutely.
Motion in Limine
Mr. Kirkbride had filed a Motion in Limine prior to trial in which he argued that he believed Deputy Wisecarver brought K-9 Panzer to the scene because Mr. Kirkbride “was listed as a caution because he had violent tendencies, and being known to abuse drugs, resist arrest, and commit domestic violence,” and moved the court for an order limiting the appellee from “any use of prior events to convictions for felonies and crimes of moral turpitude.” The issue was argued prior to opening arguments, and the trial court determined that the Deputy Wisecarver could explain why he brought the K-9, with the limitation that he could not go into Mr. Kirkbride’s prior criminal record unless some reason to allow it arose during trial.
Note: What is a Motion in Limine? Purpose of such motion is to avoid injection into trial of matters which are irrelevant, inadmissible and prejudicial. Blacks Law Dictionary, 1013, (6th Ed., 1990)
Witness Testimony
The appellee rested, after which Mr. Kirkbride presented the testimony of witness T.M., who owned the home where Mr. Kirkbride was apprehended; and, witness M.C., a neighbor who lived across the street and testified regarding his observations of the incident from his front porch.
Does a Suspect have a Right to Defend Himself During a Lawful Arrest?
Mr. Kirkbride requested a jury instruction on self-defense. The appellee opposed the request, arguing “[t]here is no right to deploy self-defense against law enforcement when they are engaged in their lawful duties, so that instruction won’t be appropriate.” The trial court thereafter denied Mr. Kirkbride’s request for a self-defense instruction.
Jury Determined Mr. Kirkbride was Guilty
The jury found Mr. Kirkbride guilty on both the obstruction of official business charge, and the assault of a police dog charge. Mr. Kirkbride filed a timely appeal, and sets forth the following five assignments of error:
Appeal I – Court failed to give a jury instruction on self-defense.
Mr. Kirkbride had No Legal Right to Defend Himself Against a Lawful Arrest
In this case, Deputy Wisecarver testified at trial that he observed Mr. Kirkbride inside the van, with the sliding door open, crouched down on his knees, with his hands tucked under his knees. Wisecarver was unable to ascertain whether Mr. Kirkbride had a weapon, and Mr. Kirkbride was crouched down in a confined space. Deputy Wisecarver alerted Mr. Kirkbride to Wisecarver’s presence, as well as the presence of K-9 Panzer, spending at least five minutes telling Mr. Kirkbride to come out or the K-9 would be sent in. Mr. Kirkbride refused to exit the van. Deputy Wisecarver specifically testified that he told Mr. Kirkbride “I can see you … sheriff’s office K-9, come out, you’re going to be bitten” “over and over again.” Mr. Kirkbride refused to come out of the van, thus “creating the situation that led to the affray.” The deputies also both testified regarding the risks associated with apprehension of an offender in such a small, enclosed space. After reviewing the evidence presented during trial, we see no evidence that Deputy Wisecarver, or K-9 Panzer, who was the alleged victim of Mr. Kirkbride’s alleged assault offense, employed excessive or unnecessary force against Mr. Kirkbride in the moments before Mr. Kirkbride punched Panzer. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err when it denied Mr. Kirkbride’s request for a jury instruction on self-defense, and Mr. Kirkbride’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Appeal II and III – Trial court erred when it did not grant his motion limine regarding the deputies’ reason for utilizing the canine unit and allowing the state to tell the jury that Mr. Kirkbride was dangerous.
Mr. Kirkbride Opposes Transparency on His Criminal History
Mr. Kirkbride submits that the trial court erred when it did not grant his motion in limine regarding statements as to why deputies utilized a K-9 unit when serving the outstanding warrant upon Mr. Kirkbride, and in allowing the appellee to reference Mr. Kirkbride as dangerous. Mr. Kirkbride argues that the mere mention of the Sheriff’s Office awareness that he was potentially dangerous improperly implies a criminal history, as well as prior bad acts.
Mr. Kirkbirde Opposed the Use of Canine Panzer
The trial court heard arguments on the issue, and determined that Deputy Wisecarver could explain why he brought and deployed K-9 Panzer, with the limitation that he could not go into Mr. Kirkbride’s prior criminal record. Specifically, the trial court stated that “. . . just for the record, I’m going to overrule [Mr. Kirkbride’s] motion in limine at this time. [Appellee is] going to be able to talk about it if they are explaining why they deployed the dog, but, also, you’re not going to get into his prior criminal history unless there’s some reason why you’d be allowed to, and at this time I don’t’ see that there’s a reason that you would get into his prior criminal history, so – – you are also not to mention his prior criminal history in opening. Is that clear?” Mr. Kirkbride challenged the deputies’ use of a K-9, necessitating a response on the part of the appellee. The trial court made a decision on the issue that balanced the interests of both parties, and allowed enough information to explain use of the K-9 without allowing evidence of Mr. Kirkbride’s prior criminal history and/or bad acts. We cannot say that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in doing so. As such, Mr. Kirkbride’s second and third assignments of error are without merit and are therefore overruled.
Appeal IV – Mr. Kirkbride argued that the trial court did not permit him to tell the jury what his outstanding warrant was issued for.
Obstructing Official Business – O.R.C. §2921.31
Mr. Kirkbride was tried on two charges: Obstructing Official Business and assaulting a police dog. O.R.C. §2921.31 defines obstructing official business as follows:
(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.
Assaulting a Police Dog – O.R.C. §2921.321
O.R.C. §2921.321 defines assault on a police dog, and states in pertinent part: (B) No person shall knowingly cause, or attempt to cause, physical harm to a police dog or horse in either of the following circumstances: (1) The police dog or horse is assisting a law enforcement officer in the performance of the officer’s official duties at the time the physical harm is caused or attempted.
Established Case Law – Obstructing Official Business
The elements of obstructing official business as applied herein are: (1) an act by Mr. Kirkbride; (2) done with the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay a public official; (3) that actually hampers or impedes a public official; (4) while the official is acting in the performance of a lawful duty; and, (5) Mr. Kirkbride does so act without a privilege to do so. State v. Acker, 2023-Ohio-2085, ¶ 38 (5th Dist.). In this case, Mr. Kirkbride, through counsel, stipulated to obstructing official business:
THE COURT: I mean, are you going to stipulate that he had official duties that this impeded?
MOORE: Absolutely.
Mr. Kirkbride punched Panzer in the snout and grabbed his gums. These actions were clearly done knowingly, causing or attempting to cause physical harm to Panzer while Panzer was assisting Deputy Wisecarver in the performance of his official duties.
The elements of assaulting a police dog are: (1) knowingly; (2) causing or attempting to cause; (3) physical harm to a police dog; (4) while the police dog is assisting a law enforcement officer in the performance of the officer’s official duties at the time the physical harm is caused or attempted. In this case, K-9 Panzer was assisting Deputy Wisecarver in the performance of his duties, the service of outstanding warrants in particular. Mr. Kirkbride refused to comply with Deputy Wisecarver’s command to exit the van. Deputy Wisecarver repeated the command over and over again, for approximately five minutes, telling Mr. Kirkbride that he had a police dog that he would deploy if Mr. Kirkbride continued with his refusal to exit the van. Mr. Kirkbride refused to exit the van, and K-9 Panzer was deployed. Mr. Kirkbride punched Panzer in the snout and grabbed his gums. These actions were clearly done knowingly, causing or attempting to cause physical harm to Panzer while Panzer was assisting Deputy Wisecarver in the performance of his official duties. The basis for the outstanding warrant the deputies were serving upon Mr. Kirkbride – that is, whether it was for a felony offense or a misdemeanor offense – has no bearing on whether the elements of the criminal offense of assaulting a police dog were satisfied.
Conclusion and Holding
Upon review of the record, we cannot say that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably when it determined that the focus of the trial would be on the presentation of evidence regarding the elements of the offenses with which Mr. Kirkbride had been charged. Accordingly, Mr. Kirkbride’s fourth assignment of error is without merit and is therefore overruled.
Note: There was a fifth appeal where Mr. Kirkbride argued that the there was prejudicial statement made during closing arguments. That appeal was also overruled but is not evaluated in this article.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Kirkbride, 2026 – Ohio – 2059.
State v. Kirkbride, 2026 – Ohio – 2059 was issued by the Fifth District Appellate Court on June 1, 2026 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas.
Lessons Learned
Assaulting a Police Dog – O.R.C. §2921.321 The elements of assaulting a police dog are: (1) knowingly; (2) causing or attempting to cause; (3) physical harm to a police dog; (4) while the police dog is assisting a law enforcement officer in the performance of the officer’s official duties at the time the physical harm is caused or attempted. Applying Mr. Kirkbride’s actions toward Canine Panzer, the court opined “Mr. Kirkbride punched Panzer in the snout, grabbed ahold of Panzer’s gums and tried to pry Panzer off.”. Consequently, Mr. Kirkbride’s actions were violative of O.R.C. §2921.321. To oppose his conviction the court summarized Mr. Kirkbride’s defense “Mr. Kirkbride challenged the deputies’ use of a K-9, necessitating a response on the part of the appellee.”. A suspects subjective belief on what or how law enforcement applies force is not the legal standard. The legal standard was established on Police Memorial Day, May 15, 1989 in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) “As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one; the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.”. Hence, the law enforcement use of force legal standard is Objective Reasonableness, not Mr. Kirkbride’s subjective belief how law enforcement should law enforcement.
Must Canine Handlers Always Issue a Verbal Warning? On July 22, 2022 the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court held “We therefore hold that the Constitution does not require a canine handler always to shout a warning to a fleeing suspect.” Jarvela v. Washtenaw County, No. 21 – 2820 (6th Cir., 2022). In this case Mr. Kirkbride was not fleeing, but he was also not complyinjg. Canine Handler Deputy Michael Wisecarver gave Mr. Kirkbride REPEATED loud, verbal, lawful commands to comply and REPEATEDLY Mr. Kirkbride refused to comply. Only then was Canine Panzer deployed that resulted in Mr. Kirkbride assaulting the canine. Canine handlers and officers who provide clear warnings and opportunities to comply place themselves in a much stronger position when later defending a use-of-force decision. This is based on the third prong of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); was the suspect trying to flee or resist. The Sixth Circuit Appellate Court addressed a use of canine after repeated warnings on September 20, 1994 when it held “The record is clear that Officer Watkins not only warned Mr. Matthews several times before releasing Roscoe to apprehend him, but when he found Mr. Matthews lying in the weeds, his hand concealed beneath his body, [Officer] Watkins explicitly ordered him not to move, advising that if Mr. Matthews remained still, Roscoe would be recalled. Mr. Matthews chose to move, and Roscoe enforced the order. Therefore we hold that the facts as Mr. Matthews alleges them to be, do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983.” Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir., 1994)
Pre-Sent Arms! Muskingum County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Matthew Kallgren, Deputy Michael Wisecarver, Canine Panzer and the Muskingum County Prosecutors Office should be highly commended for the investigation, arrest, conviction and successful appeal defense of Mr. Kirkbride. Well done!
Does your agency train on Canine Legal Updates?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!