Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Dog Handling Practices Admitted
Posted on October 15, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
The claims in this case can be traced back to an unfortunate chain of events, as a routine three-officer search degenerated in the blink of an eye to chaos in a cramped apartment, the arrests of four family members, and a police dog attack that caused severe injuries to Plaintiff.
On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff Kim Saddlers was arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer, a felony charge that the Polk County Sheriff’s Office later nolle prossed. During her arrest, which occurred in her home, Saddlers was bitten by a police dog, causing a wound that required 30 sutures to repair. She alleges that 1) there was neither actual nor arguable probable cause to arrest her for any offense, and 2) that the force inflicted during her false arrest was excessive, and thus both unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and constituting a battery under Florida common law.
As a result, Saddlers brought this civil rights action against the Defendants, Benjamin Blommel and Chad Landry, police officers employed by the City of Lakeland.
Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert Kenneth Wallentine.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Kenneth R. Wallentine worked as a law enforcement officer in Utah, formerly serving as the Chief of Law Enforcement for the Utah Attorney General, and serving as Bureau Chief of the Utah Department of Public Safety, Peace Officer Standards and Training Division, among a number of other positions across the fields of law enforcement, police use-of-force and accountability research, teaching, legal practice, and expert legal services.
Discussion by the Court
Defense Expert Ken Wallentine’s Testimony
Plaintiff asked the Court to exclude three opinions under Daubert and Rule 702. The first is Wallentine’s statement that “Officer Landry’s decision to deploy [police dog] Nox to search for and track the unidentified suspect from the stolen car and his actions in tracking with Nox were reasonable and were consistent with accepted policies, practices, and training for police service dog teams.” The second opinion is that “[t]he unintentional bite to Plaintiff occurred as the officers were acting consistently with the actions of reasonable and well-trained officers attempting to defend themselves and to make lawful arrests of their assailants.” Finally, Plaintiff moved for exclusion of Wallentine’s opinion that “[c]iting Plaintiff for the offenses for which she was arrested was consistent with the actions of a reasonable and well-trained officer.”
Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
The Court declined to exclude the first opinion and its underlying analysis because it provided background as to why it was that Plaintiff and Defendants crossed paths in the first place and why a police dog was used. Moreover, the Court agreed with Defendants that the leadup to the events could not only inform the jury, generally, but also have a direct bearing on Defendants’ culpability as to the claim for negligence, and specifically on whether either officer breached his duty to use reasonable care in conducting their investigation and during the subsequent altercations.
Plaintiff argued that this second opinion improperly purports to “divine Landry’s state of mind in employing his police dog to arrest Saddlers, and thus addresses the excessive force issue in the case.”
Defendants responded that the opinion did not speculate about Landry’s state of mind and instead draws upon Wallentine’s experience and the facts of this case to conclude that the canine was not instructed to apprehend Plaintiff and instead acted in accordance with his instinctual drive and trained behavior to protect his handler, Landry. The Court agreed with Defendants as to this second opinion and will not exclude it.
Plaintiff challenged a third opinion in Wallentine’s report. Considering the facts in light of his knowledge and experience in the areas of police training and the prosecutorial process, Wallentine opined that the Lakeland Police Department followed processes consistent with common practice throughout the United States and consistent with the actions of a reasonable well-trained officer.
Instead of explaining why Wallentine’s opinions are similarly defective, Plaintiff presented the broad argument that his “proffered testimony in this case suffers from the same deficiencies identified in an out-of-circuit district court opinion which is not binding on this Court.”
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defense expert Kenneth Wallentine.
Key Takeaway:
Plaintiff failed to establish that the expert testimony would not be helpful to the trier of fact. Instead, the Court found that Ken Wallentine’s opinions would likely be helpful to the jury based on his qualifications, experience, analysis of the records, evidence, deposition testimony, and based on his expertise as a law enforcement officer, professor, police dog trainer, and investigations supervisor.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Saddlers V. City Of Lakeland, A Florida Municipality Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 8:22cv2127 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Florida Middle |
| Order Date: | September 29, 2025 |
