Trevino v. City of Rock Island Police Dept., 98-4092.

• Decision Date: 15 February 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-4092.,98-4092.
• Citation: 91 F.Supp.2d 1204
• Parties: Carlos TREVINO, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF ROCK ISLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois

91 F.Supp.2d 1204

Carlos TREVINO, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF ROCK ISLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

No. 98-4092.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois.

February 15, 2000.

Dorothy A. O'Brien, Brad A. Reynolds, Brooke & O'Brien, Davenport, IA, for plaintiff.

Arthur W. Eggers, James S. Zmuda, Califf & Harper, P.C., Moline, IL, for defendant.

ORDER

MIHM, District Judge.

This matter is now before the Court on Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bar Plaintiffs Expert Witness, which was taken under advisement following oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion in Limine [# 54] is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

The Court's role in determining the admissibility of expert testimony is that of a gatekeeper. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512, 517, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). In performing this role, the Court must determine whether the expert testimony in question meets two essential requirements: (1) it must be based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge and (2) it must assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786; Fed.R.Evid. 702.

In the Americans With Disabilities Act litigation currently pending before the Court, Plaintiff offers Mr. Royce Doane ("Doane") as an expert witness on the issue of whether monocular individuals can generally perform the essential functions of the job of police officer. He would then go on to render the opinion that Plaintiff could in fact perform the job of police officer despite his monocular status. Doane's testimony is based on his 12 years of experience as a monocular visioned police officer with the City of Omaha Police Department.¹ Thus, his testimony is not scientific, but rather based on his own experience with the same physical impairment and in the same profession as those involved in this case.

In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), the Supreme Court specifically addressed the application of the analysis set forth in Daubert to experience-based, non-scientific expert testimony. The Supreme Court held that while a court's gatekeeping function under Daubert applies to all expert testimony, in the case of a non-scientific expert, "the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or experience." Kumho, 119 S.Ct. at 1175. The inquiry is "a flexible one," and the factors articulated in Daubert "do not constitute a `definitive checklist or test.'" Id. (emphasis in original). Rather, the inquiry "must be `tied to the facts' of a particular `case.'" Id. In other words, "[t]he factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony." Id. In fact, the Supreme Court went on to recognize that not all of the Daubert factors necessarily apply even in a case where the reliability of scientific testimony is challenged. Id. The point is to ensure that an expert, "whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." Id. at 1176.

Here, Doane's background is not seriously in question; he has monocular vision and has performed the position of police officer with the City of Omaha Police Department for 12 years. His opinion stems largely from his years of experience on the job and is supported by the fact that he has apparently been able to perform his job successfully despite his monocular condition. That being said, Doane's personal experience as a monocular police officer does not necessarily mean that he "possesses genuine expertise" on the subject of monocularity in police work. After a careful review of the pleadings and argument submitted in connection with this motion, the Court finds that Defendant has presented a valid question as to whether Doane is qualified to make the conclusions set forth in his expert report, as well as whether the proposed testimony would be helpful to assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.

While it is not uncommon for experienced police officers to appear and give expert testimony based on specialized knowledge gained through their years on the job, such testimony is generally derived from the frame of reference that these officers develop as a result of their repeated involvement in the situations forming the basis for their testimony. For example, courts routinely entertain expert testimony from police officers involved in the investigation of drug trafficking on the issue of whether narcotics are accompanied by the indicia of possession for distribution as opposed to personal use. By virtue of the officers' participation in and observations made during the course of numerous drug investigations over time, courts have recognized that these officers are uniquely qualified to describe the various indicators that routinely accompany drugs intended for distribution, such as multiple packages containing small quantities of narcotics, the lack of paraphernalia for personal use, and the presence of a weapon, a paging device, or a large sum of cash. See United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d 576, 584 (7th Cir.1999) (acknowledging that expert testimony from experienced law enforcement investigators has proven to be useful to juries in drug trafficking cases.)

Unlike these police experts, who draw from the experience gained through repeated observations in many investigations to arrive at an opinion that a certain situation is sufficiently similar to be analogous, Doane is attempting to do precisely the opposite; instead of using many examples to arrive at a singular conclusion, he is attempting to rely solely on his own personal experience as a monocular visioned person and generalize it to predict results for other monocular individuals. For instance, a sampling of the opinions set forth in his expert report are as follows:

1. monocular visioned police officers do not suffer from compromised ability and peripheral awareness;

2. monocular visioned police officers do not suffer from compromised orientation mobility;

3. monocular visioned police officers do not suffer from compromised ability to perform pursuit driving;

4. monocular visioned police officers do not suffer from compromised color discrimination and viewing with one eye;

5. monocular visioned police officers do not necessarily suffer from compromised depth perception; and

6. a monocular visioned officer or candidate is not a danger to himself, fellow officers or the public.

The analysis supporting these opinions begins with an explanation of his duties as a police officer and explains that his condition has had no quantifiable impact on his ability to perform the job of police officer. From there, Doane proceeds directly to the conclusion that properly trained...