The first article discusses job-related actions for which an officer may be liable under Federal or State statute. Such actions may include deprivation of rights, conspiracy, causing harm or injury, or engaging in prohibited acts. Using specific U.S. Supreme Court and State court decisions as examples, one article explains the constitutionality of dog searches. Decisions discussed include United States v. Place, United States v. Beale, and Doe v. Renfrow Dog searches in open the reduction of shooting. been held not to be a when constitutional search, and those involving trespass or the violation of justifiable privacy expectations are also excluded. Examples of valid dog searches are those in a school and the use of trained dogs to establish probable cause. In this latter situation, a search warrant is still needed. The article concludes with the observation that insufficient attention has been given to the issue of negligence in the supervision and/or the handling of police dogs. Another article reviews police use of deadly force and finds it justifiable when there is probable cause to believe a suspect poses a threat of physical harm or it is needed to prevent an escape. Although most uses of deadly force have been ruled justifiable, this article suggests that the jeopardy of liability to the officers, their department, and the municipality is a source of great strain. In examining the control of deadly force, the last article notes that the need to balance the conflicting rights of the officer with those of the individual has been complicated by executive policy, community group pressures, and differing legal opinions and judicial rulings. The review of deadly force control presents 15 techniques for shooting reduction. Specific officer training and a review and evaluation of departmental policies and procedures are among the recommendations.