On February 28, 2022, Adam Bennett stole a ride on a BNSF railcar in Kootenai County. BNSF Special Agent Daniel Mattson intercepted him and was informed by police dispatch—erroneously—that he had a warrant for his arrest in Washington but not Idaho. Based on this information, and COVID procedures governing misdemeanor arrests, Agent Mattson released Bennett with a citation for trespass and stealing a ride.
Roughly two hours later, Bennett murdered Dennis Rogers after setting fire to his barn. Plaintiff John Hazell, who was driving by, saw the fire and rushed to provide aid. Bennett shot Hazell and seriously injured him. Bennett is now serving a life sentence.
Hazell and his minor daughter, C.H., brought this lawsuit against BNSF Railway Company based on the failure to initially arrest Bennett. They asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se, loss of consortium, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
BNSF provided a a declaration and report from Jonathan Brandel, a former Kootenai County Sheriff Sergeant, about Agent Mattson’s legal duties and authority as a railway police officer. Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike that testimony, arguing that it constituted improper legal opinion and unfounded speculation.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Jonathan Brandel has 28 years of law enforcement experience, including marine law enforcement, patrol, narcotics, undercover investigations, as well as field training and supervision, and certified instructor in numerous law enforcement disciplines.
Discussion by the Court
Sergeant Brandel’s Opinions on the Authority and Duties of Railway Police Officers in Idaho
Sergeant Brandel opined on the authority and duties of railway police officers in Idaho. This, as BNSF itself points out, is a question of law concerning the intersection between state and federal statutes. Interpreting those statutes is the province of the Court and clearly not a proper subject for an expert declaration.
BNSF suggested that it is “axiomatic that the most appropriate person to speak on the topics of law enforcement is a law enforcement officer.” This is a gross oversimplification of the rules on expert testimony. The Court could not allow a police officer to testify on the legal contours of the Fourth Amendment, even though the officer must know and implement those principles. Likewise, although the Court appreciates Sergeant Brandel’s experience, it is not appropriate for him to testify about the meaning of the statutes governing railway police officers.
Accordingly, the Court struck the portions of Sergeant Brandel’s declaration and report that involved legal conclusions about Agent Mattson’s duties and authority.
Sergeant Brandel’s Analysis of the Interaction between Agent Mattson and Bennett
The remaining sections primarily concern Sergeant Brandel’s analysis of the interaction between Agent Mattson and Bennett. Here, the expert testimony performs its designed function: elucidating and explaining facts. For example, paragraph E of the report explains the practical significance of a law enforcement note that Bennett had violent tendencies, and paragraph F discusses COVID-era arrest practices. These opinions are properly based on Sergeant Brandel’s professional experience and his study of the record of this case. Accordingly, the remaining portions of the report are admissible.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Sergeant Brandel’s declaration should be excluded as untimely. Though BNSF timely disclosed Sergeant Brandel’s identity and expert report, Plaintiffs say that the declaration contains testimony beyond the matters addressed in the report. To the extent that this argument might have had merit, the Court held that those concerns are addressed by striking the portions of the declaration and report described above.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and exclude the Defendants’ expert, Jonathan Brandel
Key Takeaway:
Sergeant Brandel was not allowed to testify about the meaning of the statutes governing railway police officers. The Court could not allow a police officer to testify on the legal contours of the Fourth Amendment, even though the officer must know and implement those principles.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Hazell V. BNSF Railway Company |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv474 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Idaho |
| Order Date: | February 14, 2025 |
Leave a Reply