Law Enforcement Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on the Existence of Probable Cause
Posted on July 24, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This matter arises from Plaintiff Gina Kuhlman’s arrest by Officers David Grasha and Samantha Haggerty of the Cleveland Division of Police, for operating a motor vehicle under the influence (“OVI”) and for refusing to submit to a drug and alcohol test.
To support her case, Kuhlman offered the expert reports of Rajeve Saini and Timothy A. Dimoff. Defendants filed a motion to disqualify the Plaintiff’s experts, Dimoff and Saini.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Timothy A. Dimoff has over 40 years of experience in law enforcement procedures, high-risk security issues and private security procedures.
Dimoff graduated from Denison University with a B.A. in Sociology with an emphasis in Criminology. After finishing the police academy, Dimoff served as a patrol officer with the Akron Police Department (“APD”) for approximately two years. During that training period, he obtained “on-the-job training” from a “field training officer” in investigating suspects for driving under the influence.
Following his two (2) years on patrol, Dimoff was “handpicked from the entire department” to be an officer in APD’s “Special Crimes Unit” investigating “higher level types of crimes,” which also required him to be a S.W.A.T. response officer.
Phlebotomy Expert Witness
Rajeve Saini is the owner of Advanced Medical Services, the company who performed a drug and alcohol screen for Plaintiff at her request on the day after her arrest. He was trained as a phlebotomist and ultimately became certified as a Paramedical Examiner.
He and his company are certified and recognized by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as Department of Transportation compliant in drug and alcohol collections and training.
Discussion by the Court
Timothy Dimoff
Defendants argued that (1) Dimoff lacked specialized knowledge regarding traffic stops or OVI arrests that would help the trier of fact because his only experience with traffic stops and OVI arrests was from “over thirty years ago” and (2) Dimoff’s expert report is predicated upon a flawed methodology.
Analysis
The Court found that Kuhlman has failed to satisfy her burden to show that Dimoff’s testimony is admissible.
First, Kuhlman has not shown what “specialized knowledge” Dimoff possessed that would “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” because the determination of whether the Officers had probable cause to arrest Kuhlman is a legal, not a factual issue.
Not only did Dimoff’s testimony demonstrate that he is opining on the ultimate issue or legal conclusion as to whether there was probable cause, but Kuhlman insisted four (4) times in her briefing that the purpose of Dimoff’s expert testimony is to show probable cause.
Therefore, on this basis alone, because Kuhlman exclusively relied on Dimoff’s testimony to establish that probable cause did not exist for the Officers’ arrest of Kuhlman, and because using expert testimony for that purpose is improper, the Court will not consider Dimoff’s testimony.
Second, the Court also agreed with Defendants’ contention that Dimoff’s methodology was insufficient because he failed to consult the Officers’ depositions, Kuhlman’s deposition, Cleveland’s policies and procedures related to the transport of arrestees, or, critically, the bodycam footage of Kuhlman at Chipotle.
Rajeve Saini
Kuhlman claimed that “Saini’s testimony show that on the day after the incident, Plaintiff went into an independent testing lab and gave a urine sample, which provided negative for alcohol and many commonly-ingested drugs.”
Defendants disagreed, arguing that “Saini’s limited testimony as to the test results taken the day after Plaintiff’s arrest is not outside the scope of the knowledge of a juror and is unnecessary for purpose of Rule 702.”
The parties agreed that the test that Saini’s company administered, and the Fairview test results, were negative as to the specific substances tested for. So, that fact is not “in issue.”
And neither is whether Kuhlman actually consumed alcohol or drugs on December 30, 2018, or on December 31, 2018, because the probable cause inquiry turns on what the Officers perceived on the day of the arrest.
It is the Court that must determine the ultimate legal issue of whether the undisputed material evidence demonstrates that the officers had probable cause to arrest Kuhlman. Since Saini’s expert report and deposition testimony offer no assistance in making this determination, the Court concluded that Saini’s expert report and deposition testimony cannot help the trier of fact determine a “fact in issue.”
Held
The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to disqualify the Plaintiff’s experts, Timothy Dimoff and Rajeve Saini.
Key Takeaway:
Dimoff was disqualified as an expert in this case because Kuhlman introduced Dimoff’s testimony for the improper purpose of opining on the existence of probable cause, and because Dimoff did not consult the bodycam footage or depositions in rendering his opinions.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Kuhlman V. City Of Cleveland, Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv536 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Ohio Northern |
| Order Date: | July 21, 2025 |
