Roddy's decision to deploy the K-9 was discretionary, and was due "to Mr. Olesen's physical resistance to being arrested ..."
That's what they all say. If the story did not have two sides, it might not have been news:
[...] according to Olesen's attorney, Fridley police officer Tom Roddy released his K-9, Jax, despite Olesen having complied with commands from police.
"He basically was under control and the dog is released on him and inflicts these awful injuries," attorney Kathryn Bennett said of the resulting "gaping wounds" on her client's right leg. She added that while Olesen has since admitted to burglarizing a home, he didn't deserve to be attacked by a dog.
There is the story of the first lawyer reaching a frontier town, going penniless and almost starving, until another lawyer arrived.
____________UPDATE_____________
AP picks up story, e.g., this site. There is video surveillance of the scene. There apparently was no resistance from the handcuffed perp yet the dog was released, the handler/cop then could not promptly disengage the dog, the training/discipline was deficient, and days later the handler gets his leg bitten. The usual expectation, there is a unique attack code word, and a unique disengagement word. Something happened, or several things, which should not have been.
It seems Jax is a problematic weapon.