Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Police Officer

  • Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on False Arrest Excluded

    Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on False Arrest Excluded

    Plaintiff Omar O’Hara brought this civil rights action against Defendants Terrence Lott and Marlissa Butler-Cherry, who are police officers with the University City Police Department (“UCPD”), in their individual capacities. He alleged that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they wrongfully arrested him during the early morning hours on March 15, 2023. 

    Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the opinions, testimony, and report of Defendants’ police-practices expert, Steven Ijames.

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Stephen Bradford Ijames has been a police officer since 1979 and retired as an assistant chief with the Springfield, Missouri Police Department. Since then he has served as chief of police in Republic and Ozark, Missouri.

    Ijames has a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice, a master’s degree in Public Administration, and is a graduate of the 186th FBI National Academy.
    Ijames has served in, supervised, and commanded a variety of assignments including uniformed patrol, criminal investigations, undercover narcotics, and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT). 

    Get the full story on challenges to Stephen Bradford Ijames’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Opinion I

    Plaintiff argued that Ijames’ opinions that Plaintiff’s arrest “was not an unreasonable seizure,” was supported by “reasonably trustworthy information” and “adequate probable cause,” “was not a ‘false arrest/imprisonment,’” and “was justified, appropriate, and consistent with generally and commonly accepted police training, policy, and practice” are impermissible legal conclusions. Moreover, Plaintiff contended that Ijames’s opinions as to what the video evidence portrayed are irrelevant and unhelpful to the jury.

    As Defendants conceded, much of Opinion I consisted of impermissible legal conclusions about the reasonableness of Defendant Lott’s conduct in light of constitutional standards.

    As a result, the Court held that Opinion I is so couched in legal conclusions and impermissible credibility determinations that it would provide the jury with no information other than what Ijames believes the verdict should be. 

    Opinion II

    Ijames’ opinion that “[i]n assessing whether the overall force used and referenced above was consistent with generally and commonly accepted police training and practice, the totality of circumstances presented should be viewed in the context of the key factors referenced under Graham v. Connor” was held to be inadmissible for the same reasons as Opinion I.

    According to the Court, Opinion II invaded the province of the jury by drawing inferences from Defendants’ unsworn characterizations of the incident, reaching conclusions about what the video evidence shows, and “mirroring [Defendants’ hearsay] version of events” “in the guise of a professional opinion.”

    Held

    The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Steven Ijames.

    Key Takeaway:

    Expert testimony may be excluded if it is so couched in legal conclusions that it supplies the fact finder with no information other than what the witness believes the verdict should be.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: O’Hara v. Lott
    Docket Number: 4:23cv442 
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division
    Order Date: September 4, 2025
  • Law Enforcement Expert Witness Cannot Opine on the Duties of Railway Police Officers in Idaho

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness Cannot Opine on the Duties of Railway Police Officers in Idaho

    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.

    Want to know more about the challenges Jonathan Brandel has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    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