Law Enforcement Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Standard Practices Involving Police Canines

In this excessive force case involving a police canine, Plaintiff Herman Evans (“Evans”) filed a motion to exclude the opinion of The City of Lynchburg’s (“City”) expert witness—Jeffrey T. Barrett (“Barrett”).

Barrett offered four opinions (although the confines of those opinions are not as clearly defined as they should be). First, he reviewed the training records for Officer Reed and the canine Knox—the police officer and canine accused of using excessive force against Evans—and will opine that they received sufficient training. Second, he generally opined on acceptable use of force procedures involving police canines, including the Lynchburg Police Department’s use of force directives. Third, he opined on Evans’ behavior, concluding that he “agrees with the assessments made by Officer Reed about Evans being under the influence of drugs and alcohol.” And fourth, he opined that based on the facts of this case Reed’s decision to employ the canine Knox against Evans was a reasonable use of force.

Law Enforcement Expert Witness

Jeffrey Todd Barrett is a retired police officer, having served 31 years as a canine handler. For the last 22 years of his law enforcement career, Barrett trained other law enforcement officers on handling police canines. Barrett has 1,920 hours of canine training, having attended at least sixteen advanced courses on handling police canines. Barrett also served as an instructor for canine handlers, providing trainings for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Secret Service; Customs and Border Patrol; and the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. He has served as an expert witness in at least three other cases and co-authored the book, Canines in the Courtroom.

Discover more cases with Jeffrey Barrett as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

Discussion by the Court

Evans sought to exclude Barrett’s opinions, arguing they: (1) are outside the scope of Barrett’s expertise, (2) are legal conclusions; and (3) are not derived from reliable principles or methods.

Generally, these arguments collide with Barrett’s experience and education—including decades as a law enforcement officer and canine handler and numerous, specialized trainings in handling police canines. Barrett has also trained other law enforcement officers—including FBI agents–on handling police canines and has written a book on police canines.

Analysis

The Court held that Barrett’s testimony about the standards and procedures for training and using police canines appeared to be both reliable and relevant—the two hallmarks of any Daubert inquiry.

Barrett is also free to apply his expertise—i.e., knowledge about how canines should be trained, handled, and employed in the field—to the facts of this case and is free to opine on whether Officer Reed deviated from standard police practices.

However, Barrett will not be allowed to opine on whether Officer Reed used excessive force in violation of the Constitution as that crosses the line from offering an opinion on the ultimate issue to offering an impermissible legal conclusion.

Barrett will also be precluded from offering expert testimony on Evans’ behavior. Barrett purported to “agree with the assessments made by Officer Reed about Evans being under the influence of drugs and alcohol.” However, Barrett provided no basis for reaching that opinion. He does not purport to be an expert in toxicology or in any behavioral science. He also was not present on the date of the incident to personally observe Evans’ behavior. Rather, Barrett appeared to be parroting Officer Reed’s view of the facts. The jury can compare Officer Reed’s and Evans’ testimony, review any additional evidence (including if there is shoulder camera footage), and make a factual determination about Evans’ behavior without any assistance from Barrett.

Barrett’s attempt to pile on when he was not a firsthand witness to Evans’ behavior crossed the Daubert line and will not assist the jury in any meaningful way. Accordingly, the Court excluded that proffered testimony.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part Evans’ motion to exclude the opinion of The City of Lynchburg’s expert witness—Jeffrey T. Barrett.

Key Takeaway

An expert can testify to the ultimate issue so long as there is an adequate foundation. The line between a permissible opinion on an ultimate issue and an impermissible legal conclusion is not always easy to discern. In this case, however, Barrett will not be allowed to opine on whether Officer Reed used excessive force in violation of the Constitution as that crosses the line from offering an opinion on the ultimate issue to offering an impermissible legal conclusion. 

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Evans V. The City Of Lynchburg
Docket Number:	6:24cv19
Court Name:	United States District Court, Virginia Western
Order Date:	December 19, 2025