Law Enforcement Expert Partly Allowed to Opine on Police Training

Plaintiffs, Estate of Matthew Planer and Deborah Williams, personal representative and heir of Mr. Planer, filed suit against the City of Pocatello, Roger Schei, Chief of the Pocatello Police Department, Sergeant Rich Sampson, and Officer Breyvon Johnson, alleging wrongful death and various theories of negligence pursuant to Idaho state law, as well as constitutional violations.

On January 27, 2023, Defendants Sergeant Sampson and Officer Johnson of the Pocatello Police Department were dispatched to an apartment building located at 729 W. Center Street, Pocatello, Idaho, in response to a disturbance call. Upon arrival, the officers were met by a resident of the building, who informed them that Planer had confronted her and briefly took her phone. Sergeant Sampson knocked on the door of Unit 302 and contacted Planer.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that despite Planer's repeat refusal to speak with the police, Sergeant Sampson unlawfully entered Planer's apartment and seized him. The officers decided to cite Planer. Plaintiffs further alleged that Sergeant Sampson began to yell at Planer and positioned himself in Planer's doorway.

All within the span of approximately two seconds, Planer grabbed a knife out of his sink, causing Sergeant Sampson to step back and draw his service weapon. Sergeant Sampson fired a single shot, hitting Planer in the chest and fatally wounding him.

Plaintiffs sought to strike portions of the report drafted by Matthew Bloodgood. Plaintiffs specifically identified pages 35-38, 67-68, and 81-101 as containing legal opinions and conclusions that Sergeant Sampson's use of force was reasonable.

Law Enforcement Expert Witness

Matthew R. Bloodgood is a veteran law enforcement officer, supervisor, and criminal justice professional with over 38 years of combined full-time and part-time experience.

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

Discussion by the Court

A. Pages 35-38

In this section, Bloodgood stated that Pocatello police officers are:

"trained and guided by standards as determined by clearly established law in [United States Supreme Court] decisions, such as Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989), Federal law, Federal Appeals Court rulings, and relevant state or local laws.

PPD Policy addresses several of the issues agencies address through training and policy from the Graham v. Connor ruling, which is the controlling case for an officer's use of force."

The report then compares language from Graham concerning objective reasonableness, the necessity of making split-second judgments and decisions, the "test of reasonableness," and additional physical or situational factors considered by other circuit courts. For each of these topics, Bloodgood provides a comparison to the language of materials used in the Idaho POST Use of Force training course.

The Court will not strike the portions of the report that compare the language of Graham to the POST materials. These comparisons do not provide a legal conclusion; they merely demonstrate how Idaho police training is designed to comport with Graham. Bloodgood's comparison of law enforcement training materials written to reflect court precedents does not address the reasonableness of Sampson's conduct. Rather, they only serve as a foundation for opinion "as to standard law enforcement practices and whether [Sampson's] conduct is in accord with those practices."

However, to the extent that Bloodgood's report opines that an officer who acts in accordance with the training materials discussed in this portion of the report acted reasonably, that is stricken.

B. Pages 67 and 68

These pages contain a list, much of it comprised of quotations taken by Bloodgood of a publication by Michael Brave entitled Recordings and Reasonableness in the Moment, not 20/20 Hindsight (July 28, 2024).

Number 3 on the list cites Cal. Penal Code §835. This statute dictates how the use of force by an officer is to be evaluated in California. California law is simply irrelevant here. Numbers 9, 10, 11, and 12 provide examples of various courts noting precepts of the objective reasonableness test detailed in Graham. The portions of his report that explain the issues, considerations, and shortcomings of body-worn cameras are acceptable, but citing judicial opinions in order to caution how video footage should be used in light of Graham is an attempt to instruct the factfinder on the law, or how to apply the law to the facts. The Court will strike numbers 3, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the list.

C. Pages 81-101

Bloodgood stated that the officers "developed arguable probable cause that PLANER committed several felony and misdemeanor offenses, which were the basis for SAMPSON to contact PLANER." Expert witnesses are barred from testifying as to whether probable cause did or did not exist. The discussion of probable cause in the first two paragraphs under the "Severity of the offenses" heading is stricken.

Bloodgood then opined that Planer may have committed some criminal offenses during his encounters with the resident and with the officers. Bloodgood provided the text from the Idaho Code establishing the elements of those offenses. These are legal conclusions and prohibited under Fed. R. Evid. 704(a).

On pages 84, 85, 86, 95, Bloodgood cites to caselaw that he argued supported the training materials used by the Pocatello Police Department. While Bloodgood can point out that training materials are crafted to reflect key legal precepts and standards provided by caselaw, he cannot opine that the training comports with, or is supported by, judicial opinions. Such statements are backdoor legal conclusions that the training is therefore reasonable.

Similar to the list of cases cited on pages 67-68, on pages 96 and 97, Bloodgood cited to caselaw to illustrate the nebulous meaning of terms such as "risk" or "threat." He then tied that variability directly to the objective reasonableness test in Graham. Again, this is an attempt to instruct the factfinder on the law, or how to apply the law to the facts.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the report drafted by Defendants' expert witness Matthew Bloodgood.

Key Takeaway

A jury, not an expert, must decide whether a police officer deployed reasonable force under the totality of the circumstances.

Case Details: