HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV3112 - Sean Slatton V. Fort Collins Police Department, Todd Hopkins, Brandon Barnes And John Hutto - 137B - Exhibit B - Defendant's Expert Disclosures And ExhibitsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-03112-RBJ-STV
SEAN SLATTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, A MUNICIPALITY
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26
Defendant CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Municipality, by and through its attorneys, Hall
& Evans, L.L.C., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), respectfully submit the following as its
Expert Disclosures, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
All opinions expressed by Defendant’s experts as disclosed herein are to a reasonable
degree of certainty in each experts respective field, unless otherwise noted. Defendant reserves
the right to elicit expert opinion testimony from retained and non-retained expert witnesses deemed
to be reliable and relevant to the issues pertinent to this matter including but not limited to
causation, damages; and/or deemed to be helpful to the jury’s understanding of the issues and
evidence in the case.
Defendant reserves the right to ask any retained expert to review and, if indicated, to revise,
expand, modify or amend their opinions based upon the deposition and/or trial testimony of any
other party’s experts or treating health care providers, or any newly disclosed facts, information,
records, medical literature or materials. If additional materials are disclosed or facts discovered,
Defendant reserves the right to supplement these Expert Witness Disclosures. Defendant further
reserves the right to utilize its expert witnesses to answer, rebut or respond to the testimony or
opinions of Plaintiff’s experts and anything relied upon by Plaintiff’s experts as the bases for their
opinions deemed by the District Court to be relevant and admissible.
Defendant, by serving these Expert Witness Disclosures, does not waive and specifically
reserves the right to interpose all appropriate and indicated objections or motions to limit or strike
the deposition or trial testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses, or portions thereof, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence and applicable precedent.
Defendant specifically incorporates all opinions provided by these experts in their
respective depositions, if their depositions are taken.
SPECIALLY RETAINED EXPERTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)
1. Robert T. Johnson
7813 Arquilla Drive
Palos Heights, Illinois 60463
Mr. Johnson is a retired Lt. Colonel with the Illinois State Police, who currently provides
consultation and expert witness testimony regarding litigation relating to police practices and
conduct. Mr. Johnson’s education and experience is set forth in his attached CV. Generally,
however, Mr. Johnson’s training, education and experience stems from involvement in law
enforcement for over forty-five years, including thirty-two years of active service. As a retired
Lieutenant Colonel from the Illinois State Police, Mr. Johnson frequently testifies with respect to
the validity of law enforcement policies and practices regarding the use of force. Mr. Johnson has
been retained as an expert in approximately two-hundred cases. He has been qualified and testified
at several civil trials in both state and federal courts.
Mr. Johnson has been certified and served as an assessor for the Commission for the
Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) and has conducted approximately thirty-
five assessments of law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. His experience
includes review of agency use of force incidents, reporting and a three-year analysis of agencies’
use of force incidents as well as their policies, practices and training, including the review of use
of force lesson plans, use of force continuums/models and interviews, including use of force
instructors. He has also reviewed the training transcripts of numerous officers in those
departments.
As a supervisor, command officer and law enforcement consultant, Mr. Johnson has
reviewed, investigated and evaluated hundreds of use of force incidents/investigations, including
numerous officer-involved-shootings. He has conducted and/or overseen numerous use of force
investigations and/or reviews. In his capacity as a command officer/law enforcement consultant
he has written/assisted in the writing and review of use of force policies. Mr. Johnson’s opinions
are based on his knowledge, training and experience including but not limited to: police policies,
practices and standards regarding patrol, investigations, use of force, internal/complaint
investigations and law enforcement in general. This knowledge and experience has been acquired
from thirty-two years of active service in a variety of field, supervisory, policy making and
command positions as well as serving as an independent consultant regarding law enforcement
policies, practices and operations for approximately twenty years.
Mr. Johnson’s testimony will be consistent with his Report of June 17, 2021, attached
hereto as Exhibit A, regarding his review of various records, documents and videos in this
litigation and his opinion regarding the use of excessive force. Mr. Johnson may testify concerning
the arrest that is the subject of this litigation; and the actions and compliance procedure with the
Fort Collins Police Department. Mr. Johnson reserves the right to supplement his opinions should
additional information or records become available. Mr. Johnson may provide rebuttal testimony
if necessary. Copies of Mr. Johnson’s curriculum vitae, and fee schedule are attached hereto as
Exhibit B. Mr. Johnson’s Testimony History is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
NON-RETAINED EXPERTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(C)
1. Todd Hopkins
c/o Nicholas Poppe and Marni Nathan Kloster
NATHAN DUMM & MAYER P.C.
7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80237-2776
(303) 691-3737
Mr. Hopkins is being listed as a non-retained expert witness, to the extent he may offer
testimony with respect to the reasonableness of his actions as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint
and the discovery provided in this matter, which may include but is not necessarily limited to, his
interactions with the Plaintiff.
2. Brandon Barnes
c/o Mark S. Ratner
Hall & Evans, LLC
1001 17th St., Suite 200
Denver, CO. 80202
(303) 628-3300
Officer Barnes is being listed as a non-retained expert witness, to the extent he may offer
testimony with respect to the reasonableness of his actions as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint
and the discovery provided in this matter, which may include but is not necessarily limited to, his
interactions with the Plaintiff.
3. Officer Al Brown
Fort Collins Police Services, Senior Lead Defensive Tactics Instructor
2221 S. Timberline Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Mr. Brown is a Training Unit Officer and Defensive Tactics Instructor at the Fort Collins
Police Department. Officer Brown may provide testimony with respect to the policies,
procedures, and practices of the Fort Collins Police Department in place at the time of the incident
as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mr. Brown may also offer testimony regarding the pertinent
training provided to Mr. Hopkins and Officer Barnes, which was applicable to the incident as set
forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the interaction of any such training with applicable policies,
procedures, and practices of the Fort Collins Police Department.
4. Fort Collins Police Department, 30(b)(6) designee(s).
The City may call a designee(s) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) who will offer
testimony with respect to the policies, procedures, and practices of the Fort Collins Police
Department in place at the time of the incident as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Any such
designee(s) may also offer testimony regarding the pertinent training provided to Mr. Hopkins and
Officer Barnes, which was applicable to the incident as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the
interaction of any such training with applicable policies, procedures, and practices of the Fort
Collins Police Department.
5. Lieutenant Adam McCambridge, Fort Collins Police Department
c/o Mark S. Ratner, Hall & Evans, LLC
Lieutenant McCambridge is a Lieutenant in the Fort Collins Police Department,
Professional Standards Unit. Lieutenant McCambridge may provide testimony with respect to
the policies, procedures, and practices of the Fort Collins Police Department in place at the time
of the incident as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Lieutenant McCambridge may also offer
testimony regarding the pertinent training provided to Mr. Hopkins and Officer Barnes, which
was applicable to the incident as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the interaction of any such
training with applicable policies, procedures, and practices of the Fort Collins Police Department.
Furthermore, Lieutenant McCambridge may also offer testimony to explain the CALEA
certification process, procedure, and generally outline CALEA standards as applicable to the Fort
Collins Police Department.
6. Greg Yeager, Deputy Chief, Fort Collins Police Department
c/o Mark S. Ratner, Hall & Evans, LLC.
Deputy Chief Yeager is a Deputy Chief for the Fort Collins Police Department. Chief
Yeager may be called to testify about the general makeup, overview and function of the Fort
Collins Police Department. Chief Yeager may also offer testimony with respect to the policies
and procedures, and practices of the Fort Collins Police Department in place at the time of the
incident as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint. He may also offer testimony regarding the pertinent
training provided to Mr. Hopkins, Officer Barnes, and police officers in general, as applicable to
the allegations as set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
7. Any treating physician, medical or healthcare professional. As treating physicians,
medical providers, or health care providers such disclosed experts are not specially retained for
purposes of testimony and no report is necessary. Such experts are expected to testify regarding
Plaintiff’s physical condition and the treatment and care she received based on the Plaintiff’s
medical records maintained by the treating physician, medical, or healthcare provider concerning
the Plaintiff.
8. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), Defendants incorporate herein by reference any
non-retained experts endorsed by the Plaintiff in this matter.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2021.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Mark S. Ratner
Mark S. Ratner, Esq.
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300,
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-628-3300
Fax: 303-628-3368
ratnerm@hallevans.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of June, 2021.1, I electronically served the
foregoing DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26
via e-mail service upon the following:
David Lane, Esq.
Tyrone Glover, Esq.
Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP
1543 Champa St, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
303-571-1000 Phone
303-571-1001 Fax
dlane@kln-law.com
tglover@kln-law.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
s/Sarah M. Stefanick, Legal Assistant to
Mark S. Ratner, Esq. of
Hall & Evans, LLC
Exhibit A
Lt. Col. Robert T. Johnson (Ret.) Tel: (708) 217-8872
7813 Arquilla
Palos Heights, IL 60463 e-mail: rtj2128@sbcglobal.net
L a w E nfo rce m e n t P o lic y & Pra c t i c es C onsul t a n t
RETIRED
Mr. Mark S. Ratner June 21, 2021
C/O Hall & Evans, LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO. 80202
Sean Slatton v. City of Fort Collins
U.S. District Court - District of Colorado - Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-03112-RBJ-STV
Dear Mr. Ratner:
A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is enclosed regarding my qualifications, education and
experience in the law enforcement field. I have not authored any publications in the past ten
years. I have also provided a list of my expert witness testimony for the past four (4) years and
my Fee Schedule.
Based on my experience, knowledge and training of over forty-five years in law enforcement,
with thirty-two (32) years in active service in a variety of positions/ranks, I have developed
specialized knowledge that will aid the trier of fact to understand certain police practices,
standards and training for which most jurors lack the base of knowledge to fully understand
without some explanation. Those areas of knowledge and expertise include but are not limited to:
Police Policies, Practices and Standards regarding Patrol, Investigations, Use of Force,
Internal/Complaint Investigations and law enforcement in general.
I have reviewed the following documents provided by you regarding the captioned matter.
1. Fort Collins Policies 2016
a. 208 - Training Policy
b. 300 - Response to Resistance
c. 301 - Response to Resistance Reporting and Review
d. 306 - Restraint Devices
e. 308 - Control Devices and Techniques
f. 312 - Firearms
g. 322 - Search and Seizure
h. 1021 - Early Intervention System
i. 1060 - Citizen Review Board
2. Body Worn Cameras (All Start with 16-21128 FC)
a. 165-1
b. 165-2
c. 197-1
Page 2 of 21
d. 276-1
e. 280-1
f. 280-2
g. 280-3
h. 280-4
i. 283-1
j. 283-2
k. 283-3
l. 283-4
m. 283-5
3. Fort Collins Policies - CALEA
a. 208 - Training Policy
b. 300 - Response to Resistance
c. 301 - Response to Resistance Reporting and Review
d. 306 - Restraint Devices
e. 308 - Control Devices and Techniques
f. 322 - Search and Seizure
4. 2020-01-15 Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant City of Fort Collins’ First Set of Discovery to
Plaintiff
5. [094] Fourth Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
6. [114] Order RE Motion to Dismiss
7. a. 16-20128
8. b. 16-20128 Sire
9. Fort Collins Police Services Training Summary Report for Ofc. Hopkins (FCPS 0436-0440)
10. 2012-2016 OC and Baton Training for new officers, in-service and remedial (FCPS 0441-
0442)
11. Officer Hopkins’ Training Certificates (FCPS 0148-0224)
12. Slatton Poudre Valley Hospital Records (Slatton 000686-000695)
13. Photos IMG_4661- 4666
14. Officer Hopkins Training Summary
15. Officer Hopkins Training EXCEL Spread Sheet
16. Officer Barnes Training Summary
17. [FCPS 0443-0448] UOF2016-301 (7413983v1) Response to Resistance Report
In addition to the materials you provided, I have reviewed the following documents which may
be cited in my report:
1. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Model Policy and Concepts and
Issues Paper on Use of Force
2. USDOJ-NIJ - Research in Brief - Police Use of Tasers & Other Less-Lethal Weapons
3. Monadnock Baton Chart
4. Colorado Revised Statutes (2016)
§ 16-3-103. - Stopping of suspect.
§ 16-3-101. - Arrest - when and how made.
§ 18-1-707. - Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape
§ 18-4-504. - Third Degree Trespassing
§ 18-8-104. - obstructing a peace officer…
§ 18-8-103. - Resisting arrest
Page 3 of 21
5. CALEA Application for Certification for Safe Policing for Communities RE: Eligibility for
Federal Grants
6. Illinois Law Enforcment Training and Standards Board Guidelines for Use of Force Training
and related Table
7. Fort Collins’ Website https://www.fcgov.com/police/transparency
8. January 07, 2000 Memorandum Reference Citizen Review Board
9. Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcment
10. Response to Resistance Tables and Statistics
11. Americans for Effective Law Enforcment (AELE) Monthly Law Journal (July 2012) –
Teaching 4th Amendment-Based Use-of-Force
12. Force Continuums A Liability to Law Enforcement – FBI Law Bulletin (June 2002)
13. Colorado POST Basic Academic Training Program - 2000
STATUTES:
CO Rev Stat § 18-8-103. Resisting arrest
(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace
officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or
another, by:
(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or
(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace
officer or another.
(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to
make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority,
and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force
giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts “under color of his official
authority” when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does -
should be made by him.
(3) The term “peace officer” as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer
in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as
such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.
(4) Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.
18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (2.5) of this section, a peace officer is justified in
using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that
he reasonably believes it necessary:
(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he
knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or
(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while
preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.
Page 4 of 21
INCIDENT OVERVIEW
In support of my opinions, I provide the following overview of the incident. This overview and
the testimony cited is not exhaustive of everything I reviewed, but is offered to provide insight
regarding the incident. The opinions expressed in this report are based on the listed items
reviewed and may be revised if further information is received. In order to avoid redundancy, I
did not summarize all materials I reviewed.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Extracted from the Fort Collins Police Services Report of Officer Todd Hopkins
On December 3rd, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Officer Barnes and I began working an off-duty job
assignment at the Lincoln Center at 417 W. Magnolia. This was a sorority holiday formal for
Kappa Delta. Both Officer Barnes, and I were in full police uniform. At approximately 9:30
P.M., Jackie Davison, who is the concessionaire for the Lincoln Center, yelled to me across the
foyer and waved me over to her location. Davison was engaged in some sort of conflict with
suspect Sean Slatton. I observed some sort of verbal altercation between Davison and Slatton,
and there was clear concern and urgency to Davison waving me to her. It was obvious she
needed me to intervene in this conflict. Slatton was a tall male, with a thin beard, and wearing a
dark colored suit. Davison told me he "got in my face." Davison then yelled at Slatton, and
pointed Slatton towards the door stating, "I'm done." This indicated to me, Slatton was being
ejected from the event. Officer Barnes, and I approached Slatton. I stood in front of him and I
told him he needed to leave the building, and the property. At first, he was resistant to my
instruction and just stood there. He said something, but I could not understand exactly what it
was. I repeated my instructions to Slatton, and told him he needed to leave immediately or he
would face criminal charges. Slatton walked toward the doors, then exited the building. He
remained right outside the double doors. Officer Barnes and I re-contacted Slatton outside the
doors of the Lincoln Center.
I asked Slatton if I was unclear about the instructions, I gave him to leave the building, and the
property. Slatton already had a confrontation with staff, and was reluctant to comply with my
instructions. I was concerned if Slatton lingered on the property after he had been trespassed
there was a high likelihood Slatton could cause another incident or disturbance. Again, I asked
him if I was unclear about my instructions for him to leave the property, then reinforced he
needed to leave. He continued to argue with me and Officer Barnes. I then asked Slatton for his
identification. Slatton refused, turned, and began to walk away from me. I asked him again for
his identification and told Slatton to stop several times. Slatton refused.
Due to his lack of compliance, I told Slatton he was under arrest. Slatton continued to walk away
from me, and replied, "No I'm not." He continued walking, and his hands were concealed. In
response to his resistance; I struck Slatton in the lower right leg with my straight baton one time.
He reacted by spinning back around in an aggressive stance and I immediately applied oleoresin
capsicum to his face at an estimated distance of eight feet. He yelled something to the effect of
"mother-fucker," spun around and sprinted away eastbound on Magnolia, crossing Meldrum then
on into a nearby parking lot, then behind some businesses. Officer Barnes and I made
announcements over the radio that we were in a foot pursuit and gave the last known direction of
travel of the Slatton. Area officers later caught the Slatton in the 400 block of S. Mason.
Page 5 of 21
Officer Klamser picked me up in his patrol car nearby, and drove me to the scene where Slatton
was taken into custody. Slatton was being medically treated there for exposure to oleoresin
capsicum, and a baton strike. I positively identified him as the suspect from the sorority formal,
and reported my contact, and use-of-force to Sergeant Heather Moore. I returned to the Lincoln
Center, and authored a written narrative containing the details of the contact with Slatton. Officer
Michael Harres remained with Slatton as he was transported to the hospital for medical
clearance. I provided the narrative to Officer Harres for the booking process.
______________________________________________________________________
Review of Video 16-20128 _ FC 165-1- Not Verbatim/Not All Inclusive
The initial part of the encounter between the officers and Slatton inside the Lincoln Center
was not captured on the video. Once the body-worn-video camera was turned on, Slatton
does not come into view until approximately 00:22 seconds and no voice until 00:30
seconds. At that point, Slatton is outside the doors to the Lincoln Center and Officer
Hopkins makes reference to trespassing and requested I.D. Slatton says he was leaving and
failed to produce identification after being requested to do so twice.
At approximately 00:45 seconds, after Slatton ignored Officer Hopkins orders to stop (4
times) and is told that he was under arrest, and responds, “No, I’m not,” Officer Hopkins
delivers a single baton strike to Slatton’s right leg and Slatton quickly turns back in Officer
Hopkins’ direction and says what are you doing and is pepper sprayed and almost
immediately takes off running at a very fast pace without further contact with Officer
Hopkins or Officer Barnes in the immediate vicinity of the Lincoln Center.
_____________________________________________________________________
Review of Slatton Poudre Valley Hospital Records – Not Verbatim/Not All Inclusive
The patient is a 21-year-old male who presents for evaluation of eye and facial burning. The
patient was brought in by ambulance. He was involved in an altercation with the police
department. He was allegedly struck once along the outside of his right lower leg with a baton.
He was also oh cc (SIC) sprayed. He presents here complaining of burning to both eyes. He also
complains of burning to his face. He does acknowledge a little bit of alcohol consumption
tonight. He denies any drug abuse. He denies any chest or abdominal injury. His eyes are
currently his primary complaint. He complains of pain that is severe in quality. He does wear
contacts. They have previously been removed. There are no other modifying factors or
associated symptoms.
The patient was thoroughly irrigated. His face and eyes were irrigated using normal saline.
Initially he was complaining of considerable pain. However, on reevaluation the symptoms
improved considerably.
The hospital records indicate that Slatton was 21 years old, 6’3” and weighed 210 pounds.
Slatton was treated and released into police custody the same day (12/03/2016).
_____________________________________________________________________________
Synopsis of Qualifications of Robert Johnson
The formation of my opinions is based on a review of the materials listed in my report and my
training, education and experience of being involved in law enforcement for over forty-five
Page 6 of 21
years, thirty-two (32) years in active service. As a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Illinois
State Police, I continue to serve as a private consultant and expert witness regarding Law
Enforcement Policies and Practices, most frequently regarding Use of Force. I have also testified
regarding other police policy and practices issues. I have consulted and testified for numerous
police agencies as well as plaintiffs in litigation. I have been retained as an expert in
approximately two-hundred (200) cases and have been qualified and testified at several civil
trials in state and federal courts. I have conducted sensitive internal investigations as an
independent investigator for local governmental entities regarding allegations of Police
Misconduct, including allegations of excessive force.
I have been trained in the proper use of force and the response and investigation of use of force
incidents throughout my career. I have applied my training in the arrest of numerous offenders. I
have been involved in numerous arrests that necessitated my using force. I have been trained by
and certified by the Force Science Institute to recognize and articulate important human factors
that can influence human behavior and memory in force encounters and other highly stressful
circumstances. I have also been designated as a Certified Litigation Specialist from the
Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE).
I have throughout the last few decades regularly received and reviewed a large number of law
enforcement journals where use of force topics are addressed. I regularly attend training sessions
regarding use of force. I have been certified and serve as an assessor for the Commission for the
Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) and have conducted approximately
thirty-five (35) assessments of law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The
reviews, include reviewing agency use of force incidents, reporting and a three-year analysis of
agencies’ use of force incidents as well as their policies, practices and training, including the
review of use of force lesson plans, use of force continuums/models and interviews, including
use of force instructors. I have also reviewed the training transcripts of numerous officers in
those departments.
As a supervisor, command officer and law enforcement consultant I have reviewed, investigated
and evaluated hundreds of uses of force incidents/investigations, including numerous officer-
involved-shootings. I have conducted and/or overseen numerous use of force investigations
and/or reviews. In my capacity as a command officer/law enforcement consultant I have
written/assisted in the writing and review of use of force policies. I formed the Public Integrity
Task Force (Cook County, IL - the nation’s second largest county) to investigate allegations of
criminal misconduct, including excessive force by police officers and to investigate uses of
deadly force and in-custody deaths. This task force has investigated virtually all police officer
involved shootings in suburban Cook County (excluding Chicago) since its inception in 1996.
As the Inspector/Director of Police (Western Region) for the National Passenger Railroad
Corporation (Amtrak), I served on the Amtrak Police Department’s (APD) Use of Force Review
Committee, reviewing all APD uses of force nationwide. I also chaired the APD Training
Committee with oversight for the defensive tactics and firearms training subcommittees. I served
on a committee with the department’s legal advisor and Internal Affairs Commander to re-write
the department’s Use of Force policy.
Page 7 of 21
OPINIONS/BASES FOR OPINIONS
My opinions are based on my knowledge, training and experience including but not limited to:
Police Policies, Practices and Standards regarding Patrol, Investigations, Use of Force,
Internal/Complaint Investigations and law enforcement in general. This knowledge and
experience has been acquired in thirty-two years of active service in a variety of field,
supervisory, policy making and command positions as well as serving as an independent
consultant regarding law enforcement policies, practices and operations for approximately
twenty years. Reference is made to the Synopsis of my Qualifications and my Curriculum Vitae.
It is not my intent to discount the accounts of any of the participants in the subject incident. I
have reviewed the materials listed in my report and understand there are differences in the
accounts and perception of the actions taken by the officers and those of Mr. Slatton. This is not
unusual, based on my experience. My opinions are based on the totality of the information and
the materials listed in my report. It is the responsibility of the court or the jury to make the
determination of the contested facts. The opinions expressed herein are in accord with accepted
law enforcement policies, practices, standards and training widely accepted in law enforcement
and are to a reasonable degree of professional certainty in the field of law enforcement.
NOTES:
While I have listed my opinions separately and listed bases supporting each opinion, there is
overlapping information in each that provides support for the other opinion.
Both the Plaintiff’s expert and I refer to the Fort Collins Police Services’ Response to Resistance
policy as a Use of Force policy as well as using the term Use of Force policy in relation to other
departments’ policies.
Opinion # 1. Officer Hopkins’ use of force in effecting the arrest of Sean Slatton complied
with generally accepted law enforcment practices, standards and training and the Fort Collins
Police Services’ Response to Resistance policy.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision, Graham V. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
stated, “Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an
arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical
coercion or threat thereof to effect it.”
The Colorado Statute §18-1-707. Arrest – Use of Physical force in making an arrest states;
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (2.5) of this section, a peace officer is justified in
using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that
he reasonably believes it necessary:
(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he
knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or
Page 8 of 21
(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while
preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.
The U.S. Supreme Court also set forth the standard of “objectively reasonable” that courts use to
examine whether a use of force is constitutional in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution a police officer may only use such
force as is objectively reasonable. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged
from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of
hindsight. The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make
split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.
The reasonableness inquiry in reviewing use of force is an objective one: the question is whether
the officer’s actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting
them. The officer’s perception may be a consideration, but other objective factors will determine
the reasonableness of force. The factors include but are not limited to:
1. The severity of the crime
2. Whether the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer(s) or others
3. Whether the subject is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Model Policy on Use of Force states:
Police Officers are authorized to use department approved non-deadly force techniques and
issued equipment for resolution of incidents as follows:
a. To protect themselves or another from physical harm.
b. To restrain or subdue a resistant individual.
c. To bring an unlawful situation safely and effectively under control.
Law Enforcement officers are trained that they have a right to use reasonable force to control
subjects who fail to comply with lawful police orders. Law enforcement officers are taught that
their responses are based on the actions of the person being restrained/arrested and the level of
force used by the officer is predicated on the level of the subject’s actions.
In Use of Force training, Use of Force training materials, Use of Force policies, and Use of Force
continuums, subject actions or levels of resistance are commonly classified in such or similar
terms and levels of progression as follow:
Cooperative Person - Is a person who is, or can be developed into, a cooperative individual.
Passive Resistor - Is a person who exhibits no resistive movement in response to verbal and
other direction. (A Passive Resister may merit an Active Resister response when presenting a
credible threat to the officer or resister through: an agitated demeanor, verbal threats or words
signifying an intent or ability to use violence or resistance).
Page 9 of 21
Active Resistor - Is a person who exhibits resistive movement to avoid physical control or
presents a credible threat to the officer through: an agitated demeanor, verbal threats or words
signifying an intent or ability to use violence or resistance.
Aggressive/Assailant - Is a person that performs physical actions, without weapons, that are
aggressive and he or she demonstrates behavior that is likely to cause physical injury.
Deadly Force Assailant - Is a person whose actions will probably cause death or great bodily
harm.
A suspect’s actions may begin at any of the five levels and escalate/de-escalate during the
encounter. An officer’s initial response to the first two levels (Cooperative/Passive Resistance) is
not use of force, but merely Officer Presence and/or Verbal Direction. If verbal direction fails
with a passive resister, then the officer has force options/tactics that can be utilized. All control
tactics and responses other than officer presence and verbal direction and subject actions other
than a “Cooperative Person” have potential risk of injury for both the officer and the subject who
the officer is attempting to gain control of.
In most encounters, an officer’s or officers’ mere presence and verbal direction are sufficient to
gain compliance and/or take the person into custody. Most people will stop their problematic
behavior at the mere presence of a police officer and those that don’t will upon verbal direction
from an officer. However, there is a small percentage of people that will ignore an officer’s
presence and verbal direction necessitating that an officer, in response to the offender’s actions,
escalate his/her response. Officers have a right to use reasonable force under such circumstances.
The level of response by the officer(s) needs to be greater (but reasonable) than the resistance of
the offender. Officers are not required to use the least intrusive or minimum amount of force that
might resolve the situation, only that force which is reasonable, under the totality of the
circumstances facing the officer. In fact, use of the least intrusive or minimum amount of force
that might resolve the situation, rather than reasonable force that is more likely gain control, can
make the situation worse. It is not a sound idea to require an officer involved at the moment in a
tense evolving situation under stress and potentially with serious consequences to experiment,
basically trial and error, with various tactics, techniques and tools that might not meet the force
necessary to accomplish the task and gaining control more quickly. Doing so would place the
officer and offender at added risk by giving the offender the opportunity to escalate their level of
force and thereby resulting in the officer having to escalate to greater force than would have been
necessary, had the officer used sufficient reasonable force to begin with. The primary objective
of force is to gain control of the offender, not a stalemate. The quicker the incident can be
reasonably resolved the better and safer for the officer and also frequently the offender.
Officers are trained and know from experience that when an offender ignores an officer’s order
to comply, it is indicative that the suspect poses a likelihood to flee and/or physically resist
and/or attack the officer.
The question to be answered at the point in the interaction between the officers and Slatton
where force was used is whether the force used was objectively reasonable based on the
information known to the officers at the time force was used.
Page 10 of 21
Officers Hopkins and Barnes had reason to arrest Slatton as Slatton did not initially leave the
property of the Lincoln Center when told to do so, failed to produce identification and/or identify
himself, walked away and continued to walk away after being told he was under arrest. Not only
did Slatton walk away but in response to being told he was under arrest responded, “No, I’m not”
and continued walking away. At that point Slatton was not free to leave, had no right to resist
arrest and Officer Hopkins acted consistent with accepted law enforcement practices, standards
and training to use necessary and reasonable force to make the arrest. The officers in essence had
two choices, use some level of force to arrest Slatton or let him flout the law and leave without
any consequences for his illegal actions. As he had not been identified and failed to comply with
orders to produce identification, there was a need to make a relatively quick decision before he
left the area. It is important that citizens obey an officer’s orders. Letting people ignore lawful
commands without consequences undermines the rule of law. As Slatton had not been identified
at that point in time, letting him leave and seeking a warrant was not a reasonable option.
Officers are trained to make threat assessments in the decision to use force and the amount
of force to be used. When an officer makes a threat assessment, they need to consider
several factors which including but certainly not limited to words and body language. The
Fort Collins Police Services’ Response to Resistance policy in effect in 2016 - Policy 300 -
Response to Resistance 300.3.2, list Factors Used to Determine the Reasonableness of
Force list numerous factors (a-q). No policy can list all the factors that may arise in an
incident where force may be necessary.
In the subject case, Mr. Slatton after being told to stop, that he was under arrest and saying “No,
I’m not” and walking away, refusing to stop is considered active resistance in police use of force
training and law enforcement Use of Force Continuums. Not only did Slatton’s movement to
avoid control classify him as an Active Resister but a reasonable police officer would assume
that an offender who after being told they’re under arrest says “No, I’m not” and continues
walking away could pose a credible and potentially violent threat, once hands are placed on him.
I’ve had suspects, as well as having reviewed numerous arrest reports, where suspects when told
they were under arrest, said words to the effect that they were not. Many of those suspects
subsequently resisted arrest, necessitating use of force, frequently ending up in injuries to the
suspect and/or officer(s). In addition to the words that Slatton used, other factors in a threat
assessment would include but not necessarily limited to Slatton’s body language, age, size,
physical appearance, demeanor and the suspicion he had been drinking.
In evaluating the force used in an incident, the Quantum of Force is used as a tool for evaluating
the reasonableness of the force. The Quantum of Force is the foreseeable effects and injuries of a
chosen force option under the totality of circumstances of the force option(s) used. In this case,
Officer Hopkins initially used a single baton strike/stunning technique to Slatton’s leg followed
by a dose of O.C. (pepper spray) after Slatton failed to comply with his orders to produce
identification, was told to stop, that he was under arrest, stated he wasn’t under arrest and
continued to ignore commands and continued walking away from Officer Hopkins who
administered a single baton strike to Slatton’s right leg. Slatton, whose back was turned, turned
quickly towards Officer Hopkins and said, what are you doing and was pepper sprayed.
A baton is classified as an impact weapon and is the principal police impact weapon carried by
police. When using a baton an officer needs to choose an appropriate target area. The target area
is dependent on the level of resistance being encountered. The area to be targeted should be
based on the potential risk of trauma to the body of the offender. The lowest injury risk target
Page 11 of 21
areas include large muscle groups such as the thigh, buttocks, calf and bicep. In the subject case,
the baton strike/stunning technique was delivered to large muscle mass, the calf (See IMG_4661
& _4662). The likely injury of a baton strike to the thigh or calf is classified on the Monadnock
Baton Chart as “Minimal level of resultant trauma. Injury tends to be temporary.” In
essence, some bruising or a contusion may occur which would be dependent on the level of force
of the strike. Obviously, a baton strike can be at varying levels of force. In this incident I have
noted that the medical records reflect a contusion, aka a bruise, to Slatton’s leg. In reviewing the
video, Slatton’s reaction to the baton strike is to continue videoing and he states, “Right now,
what are you doing.” Slatton’s actions and response are contrary to what I would expect if the
baton strike was delivered with a high level of force, as he makes no sounds or verbalizes pain.
The second force option employed by Officer Hopkins was O.C. (pepper spray). Pepper spray
intended to be used as a disabling agent for law enforcement officers to use to attempt to
overcome resistance, and to subdue persons with minimal injuries to officers, arrestees and
others. Pepper spray does not generally cause injury, only temporary discomfort and pain. In
training officers are frequently pepper sprayed as part of training regarding the use of pepper
spray.
A National Institute of Justice Study – Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less Lethal
Weapons (2011) reported;
“The study’s most significant finding is that, while results were not uniform across all
agencies, the use of pepper spray and CED’s can significantly reduce injuries to suspects…”
(pg. ii).
“A few researchers have looked at how various approaches to force affect officer injury rates.
Overall, the empirical evidence shows that getting close to suspects to use hands-on tactics
increases the likelihood of officer injuries” (pg. 3).
“Several studies found that when agencies adopted the use of pepper spray, they subsequently
had large declines in assaults on officers and declines in officer and suspect injury rates, and
associated injuries were usually minor. Pepper spray provides a way to reduce injuries” (pg.
3).
placement of pepper spray and CeDs on the linear use-of-force continuum (pg.14)
“People rarely die after being pepper sprayed or shocked with a Taser. However, if injury
reduction is the primary goal, agencies that allow use of these less lethal weapons are clearly
at an advantage. Both weapons prevent or minimize the physical struggles that are likely to
injure officers and suspects alike. Although both cause pain, they reduce injuries, and
according to current medical research, death or serious harm associated with their use is rare.
In that sense, both are safe and similarly effective in reducing injuries. Both should be
allowed as possible responses to defensive or higher levels of suspect resistance. This
recommendation is supported by the findings and is now followed by most agencies that
responded to the national survey” (pgs. 14-15).
Page 12 of 21
The report concludes, “Although results were not uniform across the agencies, the analysis
shows that the use of pepper spray and CEDs can have a significant and positive injury
reduction effect (pg.8). The study also found that the use of unarmed tactics by officers
increase the odds of an officer injury very significantly. In Richland County Sheriff’s Office
found that pepper spray use decreased the odds of suspect injury by almost 70%” (pg. 7).
The alternatives to using a pepper spray against an Active Resistor and Aggressive/Assailant
includes but are not limited to: hands on (including holds, takedowns, punches, knee strikes,
kicks, etc.,), batons/impact weapons, Tasers, etc. all of which create a greater risk of injury to the
suspect/offender as well as the officer(s) involved.
The use of a baton with a strike to a large muscle mass like a thigh or calf as well as the use of
pepper spray would be consistent with accepted law enforcment practices, standards and training
to gain control of an Active Resistor – Aggressive/Assailant. These tools would more likely
result in a lower risk of injury to the resisting offender and the officer than going hands on.
______________________________________________________________________________
I have reviewed the report of Mr. David Kleiber, the Plaintiff’s expert. I take exception with
much of his report.
Mr. Kleiber cites 2020 changes in the Colorado statute that governs use of force by a peace
officer in his report. Mr. Kleiber using changes in Colorado law that took effect in 2020 are
inappropriate in judging actions or policies for an incident that took place in 2016.
Mr. Kleiber lists and refers to five separate police department policies that he obviously had the
ability to handpick and states there is a commonality amongst those policies in regard to
emphasizing de-escalation and the use of the lowest levels of force to resolve the situation. I am
not challenging those departments’ policies; but Officer Hopkins was not bound by other
agencies’ policies, he was only bound by his own agency’s policies and the legal standard to use
objectively reasonable force. In fact, while I would never advise it, but even if a department
failed to have a Use of Force policy, that would not make force used by an officer of that
department unconstitutional or objectively unreasonable. The force would need to be judged
without consideration of the lack of policy; but based on the legal standard.
Mr. Kleiber states that he reviewed the Fort Collins’ Use of Force policy and, “Conspicuously
absent from the policy is the mention of de-escalation techniques prior to using physical force…”
While the mention of de-escalation can be found frequently in Use of Force policies today, that
was not the case back in 2016. Neither the IACP Model Policy nor their more in-depth Concepts
and Issues Paper published in 2015 mention de-escalation. Further my personal experience is that
de-escalation was rarely if ever mentioned in various use of force policies I reviewed that predate
2017. CALEA standards in 2016 did not address de-escalation and the term or use of de-
escalation does not appear in Standard Commentary until April 2017 and in the CALEA
Standard Statement, where it becomes binding until July 2020.
The concept of using verbal and non-verbal tactics that comprise de-escalation, to slow down
and stabilize potential use of force encounters has been around for decades, but the term de-
escalation has become a popular term in more recent years after a number of highly publicized
national use of force incidents and the use of the term in the 2017 National Consensus Policy and
Page 13 of 21
Discussion Paper on Use of Force. I might point out that Sir Robert Peele who established the
Metropolitan London Police Department in 1829 wrote his "Instructions to Police Officers" also
known as Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcment. Principle number 6 states;
The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to
restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be
insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of
physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
Police officers have used de-escalation tactics long before the term de-escalation became a
popular term. Most police officers use de-escalation tactics almost daily in a number of situations
such as domestic calls, dealing with volatile/irate people on the street, calls for service settings,
traffic stops, etc.
Officer Hopkins training certificates reflect that he successfully completed 40 hours of Crisis
Intervention Team Training in February 2008 (FCPS 0205). It has been a standard practice in
crisis intervention training to instruct officers regarding de-escalation tactics.
De-escalation requires that the suspect to be de-escalated is willing and capable of listening. In
this case, Slatton did not show a willingness to listen as he continued to walk away ignoring the
officers’ commands
Mr. Kleiber on pages 9-10 of his report lists factors contained in the Fort Collins Police Services’
Use of Force policy for officers to consider in determining the reasonableness of force, (a) thru
(q). On a number of the factors, Mr. Kleiber states that Mr. Slatton was compliant. Yet on page 7
of his report, Mr. Kleber states that after being asked for his ID, Slatton asked for what reason?”
And upon being told by Officer Hopkins, “I’m arresting you for trespass. Let me see your ID,”
Slatton stated “I am leaving right now. I’m waiting for an Uber.” Mr. Kleber also states that after
Officer Hopkins followed Slatton and stated, “Stop you are under arrest,” and after that Slatton
turned away and slowly and calmly walked away from Officer Hopkins while stating, “No, I’m
not.” Walking away from an officer after being told to stop and then continuing to walk away
after being told you are under arrest, and stating, “No I’m not,” is not compliant nor is it
cooperative.
Kleiber states on page 9 (m) that if for some unknown reason, Slatton needed to be taken into
custody and had escaped, the police could have easily identified him from others at the event
center and sought a warrant at a later date. I disagree, Slatton had not been identified and the
officers had no way of knowing at the time of the encounter, whether they would be able to
identify him or not, if he left the scene.
Mr. Kleiber states on page 9 (f) proximity of weapons or dangerous improvised device. (There
was no reason to suspect Slatton had access to any weapons). While the officers did not observe
Slatton with any weapons, he had not been searched for weapons and officers are trained that
there are always weapons, including a firearm in an incident, that being their own firearm or
weapons, that can become accessible to an offender if successful in disarming an officer. Further,
a suspect’s personal weapons (hands, fists, knees, feet, etc.) are capable of injuring an officer.
Page 14 of 21
Mr. Kleiber states on page 9 (k) potential for injury to officers, suspects, and others. (Little to no
potential for injury to officers or others. Great degree of potential of injury to Slatton). I agree
that there was little potential for injuries to others once outside the building. There was a
potential of injuries to the officers if pre-emptive action was not taken and one or both officers
went hands on. The use of the baton in the manner it was used and the use of pepper spray
created a lower-level of the severity of injury than going hands-on and for instance, transitioning
to a takedown, a common tactic for an active resister.
Mr. Kleiber states on page 9 (l) Whether the conduct of the individual being confronted no
longer reasonably appears to pose an imminent threat to the officers or others. (At no time did
Slatton appear or act aggressively towards anyone). Mr. Kleiber’s commentary that “At no time
did Slatton appear or act aggressively toward anyone” is contradicted by Officer Hopkins’ report
in which he reported that Jackie Davison who was the concessionaire for the Lincoln Center
yelled to him from across the foyer and waved him over to her location having been engaged in
some sort of conflict with Slatton. He reported that he observed some sort of verbal altercation
between Davison and Slatton and there was a clear concern and urgency to Davison’s waving to
him and it was obvious that she wanted Officer Hopkins to intervene in the conflict. Officer
Hopkins reported the Davison told him that Slatton “got in my face.” I also point out that
Slatton’s non-compliance and statement that he was not under arrest in itself is a potential
indicator of an assault, particularly if the officers tried to go hands-on.
Mr. Kleiber states in his report, “It is extremely unlikely that any ‘objectively reasonable’ law
enforcement officer would interpret Sean Slatton’s actions as anything other than initially
‘compliant’ and then later, at most ‘obstructive’ or ‘passively resistant.’ As the police video
camera shows, at no point did Slatton become or show a propensity to become ‘argumentative’,
‘aggressive’, ‘combative’, or assaultive’.’’ (pg.10). I strongly disagree. I believe that almost all
objectively reasonable objective law enforcment officers would interpret Slatton’s actions as
non-compliant and actively resistant. The definitions that Mr. Kleiber provides in his report for
Passive Resistor and Active Resister (pgs. 4-5) reflect that Slatton while initially compliant in
leaving the Lincoln Center, later became a Passive Resister by refusing to follow commands but
then moved to an Active Resister by not only following commands but then resisted attempts by
the officer (Hopkins) to take positive physical control over him when he ignored multiple orders
to stop, that he was under arrest and refused to stop, said he was not under arrest and continued
to try to avoid physical control by the officers by walking away from them and subsequently
running away on foot.
Mr. Kleiber spends a portion of his report discussing Use of Force Continuums as well as
providing two graphic color-coded continuums from the Las Vegas, NV. Police Department and
Denver, CO. Police Departments. While I agree that many law enforcement agencies still use
Use of Force Continuums, there has also been a shift from using Use of Force Continuums. Use
of Force Continuums are being discarded by law enforcement agencies. The Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) discontinued use of a Use of Force Continuum in 2005.
The FBI has also discontinued use of a Use of Force Continuum, as have other law enforcment
agencies, moving to training focusing on the Fourth Amendment standard, coupled with threat
assessment analysis in determining the amount of force to be used. The below footnote is from
the IACP Concepts and Issues Paper RE: Use of Force (2015):
Page 15 of 21
1 Note that the IACP Law Enforcement Policy Center does not promote the concept of a use-
of-force “continuum.” The term continuum is often interpreted to mean that an officer must start
at one end of a range of use-of-force options and systematically work his or her way through
each of the following, exhausting the usefulness of each before moving to the next. However, in
reality, in an effort to maintain the safety of both the officer and the subject, an officer may need
to move from one point of the continuum to another, without considering the options in a linear
order.
Mr. Kleiber included two use of force continuums in his report as well as making comments and
listing six different levels of response. My experience in terms of the levels of response found in
continuums and use of force policies vary somewhat from what Mr. Kleiber states. As an
example, I have provided the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board’s
(ILETSB) - Guidelines for Use of Force Training as well as a continuum developed from that
publication. For instance, the ILETSB utilizes five separate levels of suspect activity and officer
responses. Further, such tools as Tasers and pepper spray are on the same level with each other
as well as with other tactics such as takedowns, stunning techniques with and without control
instruments, as tools and/or tactics for an Active Resister.
My opinions do not rely on the subject publication or extracted table (Addendum I). I only
include it to demonstrate that use of force continuums may differ with respect to the appropriate
tools and tactics to use based on the level of the suspect’s resistance. The standard for evaluating
force is still that of objective reasonableness.
The fact that a certain tactic or tool is or is not listed on a Use of Force Continuum does not in
and by itself make the use of that tactic or tool a constitutional or unconstitutional use of force.
The courts judge an officer’s use of force based on the objective reasonableness test set by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the Graham v. Connor (1989) case, not based on an agency’s selection of
a Use of Force Continuum. There is no constitutional requirement that a police officer has to use
de-escalation tactics, or that police officers have to consider less intrusive alternatives of force,
only that the force be objectively reasonable. In fact, the language used by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist speaks to the difficulty of trying to precisely define the options, tools or tactics to
apply in terms of categorizing offenders’ actions as is done on Use of Force Continuums stating;
"The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a
reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of
reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to
make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving
-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of
reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."
While Use of Force Continuums are still used by many agencies and I believe they have some
value, use of force training needs to address and incorporate threat assessment training, as
continuums are limited in providing the precise tactics or tools to be used in every situation.
A problem with use of force continuums is that they tend to provide a cookie cutter or one-size-
fit-all approach and cannot address the totality of information known to an officer in a given use
of force situation. There are numerous factors that can make the force tactic or tool listed on the
Page 16 of 21
continuum either excessive or that would call for using more force or a tool that is listed at a
higher level of resistance. Some examples follow:
• There is a significant difference between an officer on a traffic stop on a major
interstate highway trying to control an offender actively resisting with traffic
travelling at 70 mph within feet of the officer, versus trying to control an offender
in an open field. The amount of force is different, as the one poses a definite life-
threatening situation to the officer and offender where the other one has much less
risk.
• While a person who is standing and has not offered any physical resistance but
ignoring an officer’s commands to place his hands on the trunk of a police car can
be considered a passive resister, such cues as a bladed fighting stance and clenched
fist might call for a greater level of force than listed on a continuum for a passive
resister. Add in that the male suspect has a known history for fighting police
officers and is much larger and physically fit than the officer. Such information
could result in a threat assessment suggesting use of a Taser or pepper spray, rather
than the officer using a pressure point(s) or tactics found in a policy or continuum
for a Passive Resister.
• Any number of variables can be present in a use of force situation that alters the
tools and tactics to be used, i.e., gender, size, age, physical condition, threatening
language used by an offender, known history of resistance by an offender. As stated
earlier in this report, the Fort Collins Police Services’ policy in effect in 2016 -
Policy 300 - Response to Resistance 300.3.2 Factors Used to Determine the
Reasonableness of Force list numerous factors (a-q).
There is no nationally accepted Use of Force Continuum.
Sergeant Heather Moore’s Supplement (FC018-019) reflects that she responded to the scene of
the arrest, ensured that Slatton was examined and treated for injuries, spoke to and recorded her
interview of Slatton, took photographs of his injuries (calf and OC exposure) and placed them
into evidence, reviewed video from Officer Hopkins’ point-of-view camera. Sergeant Moore
fulfilled her supervisory responsibilities as required by FCPS Response to Resistance policy.
Sergeant Moore reported that she found Officer Hopkins’ use of force to be within law, policy,
and ethics.
In addition to Sergeant Moore’s investigation of the use of force, Officer Hopkins completed a
Response to Resistance Report (FC0443-0446) as required by policy for the Early Intervention
System detailing the use of force. The report was reviewed by Lieutenants Yonce and Robinson.
Opinion # 2. There is no evidence to support that Chief Hutto or the City of Fort Collins
policies, customs, practices and training failed to meet accepted law enforcment practices,
customs, standards and training and/or there was a failure to adequately train and supervise
FCPS officers.
Page 17 of 21
I have noted in reading Judge R. Brooke Jackson’s ruling on Officer Hopkin’s Motion to
Dismiss, that Judge Jackson granted Officer Hopkins’ motion based on the fact that the
Plaintiff’s proffered cases did not show that the conduct (force) used was a clearly established
constitutional violation (pg.17). Given that it is my opinion that Fort Collins’ Response to
Resistance Policy is consistent with accepted law enforcment practices and standards, I fail to
understand why the City should have any greater reason than Officer Hopkins to conclude that
there was a constitutional violation if the conduct was not a clearly established violation.
______________________________________________________________________________
The Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST) has the legislated
responsibility to document and manage the certification and training of all active peace officers
and reserve peace officers working for Colorado law enforcement agencies.
To be eligible for appointment as a peace officer, an applicant must first be certified by the Peace
Officer Standards and Training Board. Basic certification requires successful completion of
a POST- approved Basic academy, successful completion of the POST certification
examination, and a background check. Officer Todd Hopkins was awarded his certification on
April 29, 2002. In order to maintain a peace officer certificate, an officer must meet the in-
service training requirements set by the Colorado POST.
In addition to use of force training that Officer Hopkins would have received in the Basic
Academy and POST In-Service requirements, Officer Hopkins’ Training Summary reflects that
he received ongoing use of force training.
Officer Hopkins training certificates reflect that he successfully completed 40 hours of Crisis
Intervention Team Training in February 2008 (FCPS 0205). It has been a standard practice in
crisis intervention training to instruct officers regarding de-escalation tactics. In addition, Officer
Hopkins received additional specialized training well above the state mandated training.
______________________________________________________________________________
The person responsible for formulating department policy, generally the Chief or his/her
designee, has the discretion to set department standards higher than those mandated by law,
thereby making lawful activities a violation of policy. A policy violation does not necessarily
constitute a constitutional violation. Furthermore, a policy cannot account for or address every
situation an officer may encounter. It is up to the chief executive of the law enforcement agency
or his/her designee to determine if a specific action or actions constitutes a policy violation and if
so, whether the violation is acceptable, given the totality of the circumstances.
I have reviewed the following Fort Collins Police Services’ policies in effect in 2016:
208 - Training Policy
300 - Response to Resistance
301 - Response to Resistance Reporting and Review
306 - Restraint Devices
308 - Control Devices and Techniques
312 - Firearms
322 - Search and Seizure
1021 - Early Intervention System
Page 18 of 21
1060 - Citizen Review Board
These FCPS Policies were in effect in 2016 and were policies created by Lexipol, an industry
leader in providing law enforcment policies for law enforcment. I have on several occasions as a
CALEA Assessor/Team Leader and litigation consultant reviewed various policies for numerous
law enforcment agencies created by Lexipol. Lexipol policies link CALEA Accreditation
standards to the specific and appropriate policy issue. I have also found that Lexipol policies
follow accepted law enforcment practices and standards.
I found nothing in any of the listed FCPS policies that would provide guidance, suggest or
require an employee to perform an action that would be contrary to accepted law enforcment
practices, customs, standards and training. The FCPS policies incorporate CALEA standards in
effect at that time. CALEA standards are recognized as containing law enforcment best
practices. In fact, Pursuant to the Presidential Executive Order on Safe Policing for Safe
Communities, dated June 16, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice’s discretionary grant
funding is only available to state, local, and university or college law enforcement
agencies that have obtained (or are in the process of seeking) credentials certifying that
they meet certain standards on use of force. The Executive Order on Safe Policing
empowers the U.S. Attorney General to designate independent credentialing bodies.
CALEA was selected as a credentialing body to certify that a law enforcement agency
meets the conditions of eligibility for federal grants.
The Response to Resistance policy quotes language from Graham v. Connor, setting an
objectively reasonable standard and follows the principles of Tennessee v. Garner in the use of
deadly force.
The Response to Resistance policy also meets CALEA Standards and sets requirements that are
over and above any required by law and are considered best practices to include but not limited
to:
• The policy also requires that any officer who witnesses another peace officer use physical
force that exceeds state law or the Response to Resistance Policy to report in writing to
their supervisor within 24 hours.
• The policy requires; notification to a supervisor as soon as practical and a prompt written
report by an employee using force to include, additional forms as specified in the
agency’s Early Intervention System policy.
• The policy requires a supervisor respond to the scene of a reportable force.
• The photographing of any areas involving visible injury or complaint of pain.
• The policy requires an officer render medical aid and that the responding supervisor
ensures medical aid is provided.
Page 19 of 21
• The policy states that officers rather than shooting at moving vehicles, move out of the
path of the moving vehicle and only shoot when the officer reasonably believes deadly
force is directed at the officer or other and there is no alternative to stop the threat.
• Officers receive periodic training on the policy and demonstrate their knowledge and
understanding.
The Response to Resistance policy in effect at the time of the incident set forth a proactive and
thorough list of Supervisory Responsibilities not often found in Use of Force policies that aid in
the review/investigation of use of force and to ensure prompt medical aid when necessary.
300.7 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY
A supervisor will respond to an incident in which there has been a reportable use of force. The
supervisor is expected to accomplish (a.) through (h.) below:
(a) Obtain the basic facts from the involved officers. Absent an allegation of misconduct or
excessive force, this will be considered a routine contact in the normal course of duties.
(b) Ensure that any injured parties are examined and treated.
(c) Ensure that photographs have been taken of any areas involving visible injury or complaint
of pain, as well as overall photographs of uninjured areas. These photographs should be
retained until all potential for civil litigation has expired.
(d) Identify any witnesses not already included in related reports.
(e) Review and approve all related reports.
(f) Complete a police report detailing the actions taken by the supervisor.
(g) In the event that the supervisor believes the incident may give rise to potential civil litigation, a
confidential TDR (Tour of Duty Report) should be completed and routed to appropriate
personnel.
(h) The supervisor shall initiate a separate administrative investigation if it is reasonable to
believe that an application of force by an officer was not reasonable or within Policy.
When a supervisor does not respond to the scene of an incident involving a reportable use of
force, the supervisor is still expected to ensure completion of as many of the above items as
circumstances permit.
______________________________________________________________________________
There are a number of steps that Fort Collin has implemented that reflect that they seek to hold
their officers accountable and that they make a concerted effort to operate in an open and
transparent manner. Some examples follow:
Page 20 of 21
Citizen Review Board - The City’s establishment or a Citizen’s Review Board in 1999, while
not unheard of, was much more and exception than a common practice at the time it was
established and remains an exception rather than a common practice today. The City’s webpage
lists the responsibilities of the Board as:
Reviews internal investigations where a peace officer is alleged to have used force, discharged a
firearm, committed a crime, when a person sustained severe injury, death, or alleged their civil
rights were violated by a peace officer, or other investigations requested by the City Manager or
Police Chief.
Early Intervention System - The Fort Collins Police Services Early Intervention System (EIS)
is a proactive non-disciplinary strategy to support employee performance by seeking to identify
and mitigate against factors that may lead to negative performance issues, employee discipline
and employee or department liability. It also allows the identification of training opportunities,
training deficiencies, and ensures the use of proper and effective tactics and equipment.
EIS has set Performance Indicators that are monitored that when viewed on a case-by-case basis
may not be indicative of a problem. However, when viewed collectively, performance may be
indicative of a pattern of problematic outcomes that is otherwise more difficult to identify. When
an officer meets set agency established thresholds, the system will generate an alert. The Internal
Affairs Sergeant will notify the employee’s immediate supervisor and manager of the alert
through Blue Team. The employee’s immediate supervisor will conduct an EIS review.
The EIS review is a proactive tool to assist supervisory personnel in early identification of
employee stress, training needs, or other adverse job-related problems. The review is meant to
support employees through mentoring and coaching to help align the employee with the
Agency’s expectations if needed.
Body Worn Cameras - The use of body-worn cameras is indicative of Fort Collins seeking to
hold officers accountable.
Fort Collins Police Services publicly available webpage – The webpage lists a wealth of
information available to the public to include but certainly not limited to Internal/External
Complaints RE: Officers, Arrest and Traffic Citation by Race and the FCPS’s Response to
Resistance policy and Response to Resistance tables/statistics.
Fort Collins’ webpage provides Response to Resistance tables with statistics reflecting a ratio of
use of force to actual arrests made. The table also list the Total Incidents that Fort Collins
officers responded to or initiated. A separate table provides the Response to Resistance
Applications (tools, tactics & weapons used). I have included those tables as an attachment to
this report. The table also provides Response to Resistance data by race.
The tables include the following years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 & 2019. During the five-year
period, the statistics reflect that FCPS used force ranging between 2.0 - 2.7 times for every 100
arrests. During that time Total Police Incidents (Calls for Service + police-initiated calls ranged
from approximately 104,000 & 113,000. Each police incident has the potential for confrontation
not just arrests. Of course, force is only generally used when an incident generally involves a
crime but a call that may not be based on a crime becomes a crime when a subject the police
Page 21 of 21
come into contact with takes some type of action that constitutes a crime. The low percentage of
use of force to arrests (2.0 - 2.7) and ratio to use of force to police incidents (1:624 -1:823) are
indicative that FCPS officers do not quickly resort to force with a frequency that would suggest
that they engage in a pattern of excessive force as alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint.
It is my understanding that a request has been made to Plaintiff’s Counsel to produce the five
Use of Force policies as well as more readable copies of the two color-coded Use of Force
Continuums cited in Mr. Kleiber’ report. As I have not received those documents, I reserve the
right to supplement my opinions and or expand on those opinions, if the above documents are
received, as well as any other additional material or information that is received.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Johnson
Attachments
Addendum I
Exhibit B
ROBERT T. JOHNSON
7813 ARQUILLA Drive
PALOS HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS 60463
708-217-8872
e-mail: rtj2128@sbcglobal.net
(REVISED 01/01/2020)
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
Law Enforcement Policy and Practices Consultant (Self Employed)
01/99 - Present Private Consultant
Consult with law enforcement agencies concerning policy issues. Provide
consultation and expert witness testimony regarding litigation relating to
police practices and conduct. Retained in approximately 200 cases in
numerous states and Federal Districts. Has been qualified as an expert
witness in state and federal courts. Has conducted several independent
internal inquiries for municipalities regarding allegations of police
misconduct. Serves as an assessor (Team Leader) for the Commission on
the Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) and has
reviewed the operations of approximately thirty-five (35) law enforcement
agencies seeking Accreditation. Has conducted Operational, Organization
and/or Policy reviews for numerous law enforcement agencies
independent of CALEA assessments. Served as Interim Public Safety
Director and Chief of Police Forest View (IL) and assisted in search for
the Director’s position.
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) – Amtrak Police Department*
* CALEA Accredited since 1992
01/02 – 05/05 Inspector/Director of Police – Western Region
Responsible for oversight of Amtrak Police Personnel, Operations and
Budgets for the Western Region (30 States) including the Chicago,
Indianapolis (Beech Grove), New Orleans, Los Angeles and San Francisco
field offices and several detective posts located throughout region. This
oversight included supervision and review of Patrol, Investigative and
Administrative functions, which are directed to protect the Corporation; its
customers, employees and assets as well as the public in general.
Conducted Internal Inquiries and reviewed all complaint investigations
within Region. Chaired Training Committee with oversight for Defensive
Tactics and Firearms Sub-Committees and served as member of the Use of
Force Committee – reviewed all use of force incidents nationwide.
Illinois Department of Law Enforcement/Illinois State Police:
5/98 - 12/98 Interim Police Superintendent, Cicero Police Department
Appointed by State Police Director and Cicero Town President, with the
approval of Governor Edgar's Office, to oversee daily operations of the
Cicero Police Department. Responsible for spearheading the effort to
restore an embattled police department to operating condition which had
been devastated by the loss of the superintendent, top command staff and
over one third of the police force. Awards were received from the Illinois
State Police and the Town of Cicero for accomplishing this mission.
10/96 - 5/98 Lt. Colonel, Region I Commander
Commanded over 600 employees with oversight for Operations (Patrol
and Investigations) and Administration of District Chicago, District 15,
Region I Tactical Response team (SWAT), Helicopter Unit, USART
(underwater search and rescue team), Tactical Operations Group (gang
and narcotic enforcement) and various Task Force Personnel.
2/95 - 10/96 Major, District Chicago Commander
Implemented the merger of two Illinois State Police districts 3 & 4 into a
combined District Chicago, the largest state police district in Illinois.
Directed 330 employees; responsible for overseeing patrol and
investigative functions and specialized units, such as the Public Integrity
Task Force (PITF), South Suburban Auto Theft Task Force (SSATIN) and
the Cook County Metropolitan Enforcement Group (CCMEG).
Developed, implemented and provided oversight of the Public Integrity
Task Force, Formulated and oversaw the operational plan for State Police
duties during the 1996 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
1984 - 1995 Captain
Area I Commander - Commanded Districts 3, 4 and 15 and other specialty
functions. Oversaw the state police operations for the 1994 World Cup
Soccer Championship in Chicago, the largest detail ever undertaken by the
Illinois State Police at the time. Developed and implemented the concept
of a helicopter unit.
District 4 Commander - Restructured the District operations by merging
both patrol and investigative functions under a single command. The
effectiveness of this District Pilot Project led to statewide implementation.
Zone 3 Commander - Responsible for operations and administration of
three squads of investigators whose assignments included violent crime
and general criminal investigations, child exploitation, narcotics
investigations, etc.
Intelligence Commander (Northern) - Led the strategic and intelligence
operations in specialized areas of organized crime, terrorism and extremist
groups. Reorganized and significantly enlarged the unit to include tactical
operations; instrumental in the creation of the first gang crimes unit in the
state police.
Fraud Unit Commander (Area I) - Responsible for the operation and
administration of four squads whose investigative responsibilities were
Medicaid Fraud, Public Aid Fraud, Drug Diversion Investigations and
White Collar Crime.
1978 - 1984 Lieutenant, Master Sergeant and Sergeant
Served as Squad Supervisor and Area Supervisor of the Cook County
Metropolitan Enforcement Group, a multi-agency drug enforcement unit.
1972 - 1978 Investigator
Served in General Criminal (Property and Violent Crimes), Narcotic and
Racetrack investigative areas.
Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, DC:
3/71-11/72 Patrolman, Third District. Graduated first in academy class. Served as an
officer in one of the District of Columbia's highest crime areas.
ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
St. Joseph's College, (Rensselaer, Indiana), B.S. Political Science, 1970
American University, (Washington DC), 1971-1972
Graduate studies in Criminal Justice
University of Illinois at Springfield, (Springfield, Illinois), 1973
Graduate studies in Criminal Justice
Extensive law enforcement, management and operational training courses. Cumulative hours in
excess of 3,000.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (Past and Current)
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police
South Suburban (Cook County) Chiefs of Police - Executive Board Member
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) – Assessor
International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA)
Illinois State Police Command Officer's Association
Crimestoppers of Cook County – Executive Board Member
Lake County (IL) Major Crimes Task Force (Original Formation Committee)
Metropolitan Enforcement Group - Policy Board Member
Public Integrity Task Force - Executive Board Member
Illinois State Police Forensic Services Advisory Board
Law Enforcement Executive Development Association
International Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association
Illinois Police Accreditation Coalition
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) – Executive Board Member (Chicago HIDTA)
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE AWARDS
− Cicero Detail
− Democratic National Convention Detail
− District Chicago Consolidation
− Helicopter Unit (Concept Development and Implementation)
− World Cup Soccer Detail
− Project Mortar (Area I Fraud Unit)
− Awards also received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration, HIDTA (Chicago), U.S. Secret Service, U.S.
Customs Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Chicago Police
Department, Cook County State’s Attorney and Cook County Crimestoppers
− Numerous letters of commendation
AMTRAK POLICE AWARDS
- Certificate of Appreciation RE: Performance & Contributions
- Letter RE: Contributions to the Department (including Training & Use of Force)
ADDITIONAL RECOGNITION
- Numerous letters of Thanks and appreciation for efforts as a Consultant and
Special Investigator
ADDITIONAL ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING (Not All Inclusive)
Metropolitan Police Academy, (Washington, DC), 1971
Basic Police Training - Illinois Bureau of Investigation, 1972
Weapons Training, Annual Training, (MPDC, ISP & APD)
Control and Arrest Tactics, Annual Training, (MPDC, ISP & APD)
Illinois Bureau of Investigation Financial Crime School, 1974
INEOA Special Narcotic Enforcement Training Conference, 1975
Basic Supervisor Training, 1979
Laws of Arrest, Search and Seizure (update), 1979
Prosecution/Investigation of Drug Cases, 1979
Interview and Interrogation (John Reid Course), 1981
Command Officer Management Development (by Michigan State University), 1981
Basic Photography for Law Enforcement Officers, 1982
Leadership through People Skills (DMT II), 1983
Narcotic Conspiracy Class, 1983
Financial Investigative Techniques - I.R.S., 1984
International Terrorism Conference, 1986
Sting Operations, 1987
Dynamics of Negotiations, 1987
Assessment Center (Assessor) Training, 1988
Organized Crime Management, 1988
Arrest, Search & Seizure (update), 1989
Asset Seizure & Forfeiture, 1990
Intelligence Management, 1990
Crash Report Training, 1993
Strategic Leadership Training, 1993
International Terrorism Conference, 1993
Diversity Training, 1995
Tactical Incident Management for Command Officers, 1995
Work Place Crime 2000, 1995
Executive Management Program (Northwestern University Traffic Institute), 1996
Ethics in the Workplace, 1996
Stop Stick Training, 1997
Pursuit and Emergency Response - Instructor Training, 1997
High-Tech Crime Seminar, 1997
FBI - Law Enforcement Executive Development, 1997
Domestic Violence Training, 1998
Civil Liability and Risk Management, 1999
CALEA Assessor Training, 1999
Managing Generation X Employees, 2000
National Symposium on Racial Profiling and Traffic Stops, 2000
Investigation and Management of Officer Involved Shootings, 2001
CALEA On-Site (Revised) Training, 2002
Internal Inspections and Investigations (by the Community Policing Consortium), 2002
Physical and Psychological Aspects of Police Shootings, 2002
ADDITIONAL ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING (CONTINUED)
Sudden In – Death Custody: Beyond Positional Asphyxia: Systems Based Approach, 2002
Assessment (Assessor) Center Training Course (by IL.ACP & Stanard & Associates), 2003
Workplace Violence (Amtrak), 2003
Harassment (Amtrak), 2003
CALEA Team Leader Training, 2003
CALEA Assessor Refresher Training, 2003
Use of Force Conference, 2003
Cultural Diversity Training (Amtrak), 2003 & 2006
Bias Based Profiling Training (Amtrak PD), 2003
Internal Affairs Policy (IACP Conference), 2003
Effective Leadership Training (IACP Conference), 2003
LTATP (Anti-Terrorism (TSA/FLETC), 2003
Mental Preparation for Armed Confrontation (LECC), 2004
Recent Developments in the 4Th Amendment Arena (IACP Conference), 2004
New Department of Justice Use of Force Policy (IACP Conference), 2004
Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Violence (IL Chief’s Conference – 2005)
Nuts & Bolts Internal Affairs Legal Update (IL Chief’s Conference – 2005)
Police Misconduct (Lorman Education Services – IACET - 2005)
CALEA Assessor Team Leader Refresher Training, 2006
Police Liability in Illinois (Lorman Education Services- IACET – 2006)
Why Law Enforcement Managers Fail to Make an Impact (Illinois Chiefs Conference – 2007)
What Every Chief Needs to Know About a SWAT Callout (Illinois Chiefs Conference – 2007)
Legal Update - Liability Explosion in Wrongful Conviction and Employment Retaliation
Litigation (Illinois Chiefs Conference – 2007)
Investigation of Officer Involved Shootings (ILEETA Conference – 2007)
Analyzing Human Factors & Contextual Cues in Use of lethal Force (ILEETA Conference 2007)
CALEA Team Leader & Report Writing Refresher Training (Atlanta 2008)
CALEA Assessor (Refresher) Training (Atlanta 2008)
Force Science Research Center - Focus of Attention (ILLEETA 2008)
Psychological Issues in officer Involved Shootings (ILEETA 2008)
The Deadly Mix Recognizing Threats (ILEETA 2008)
Force Science Research Center – Human Factors – Certification Course (2009)
Police Pursuit Policy Workshop – (Illinois Chief’s Winter Training Conference - 2010)
Reducing Lawsuit Exposure – (South Suburban Chief’s Association Training – 2010)
Officer Involved Shootings and Traumatic Reactions: What Command Staff Should
Know/International Association of Chiefs’ of Police Psychological Section’s Officer Involved
Guidelines – (South Suburban Chief’s Association Training – 2011)
CALEA Assessor (Refresher) Training (Bethesda 2011)
Creating Defensible Personnel Practices (CALEA Conference – Bethesda 2011)
Smart Use of Force: In the Jail on the Street (ILEETA 2011)
Understanding Reaction Time & Response (ILEETA 2011)
Rapid Threat Recognition (ILEETA 2011)
Understanding Force Standards of Accountability (ILEETA 2011)
Excited Delirium Response Protocol (ILEETA 2011)
Contemporary Issues in Use of Force (IACP Conference 2011)
ADDITIONAL ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING (CONTINUED)
Revisiting Use of Force in American Law Enforcement: The Chief’s Role in Addressing Current
Trends and Issues (IACP Conference 2011)
Interaction between Police and People with Mental Illness and the Mental Health Care System –
Canadian Perspective (IACP Conference 2011)
Surviving the Threat: The Psychology of Survival in Life Threatening Encounters (IACP
Conference 2011)
Police Pursuits Policy and Practice – Risk Versus Reward (IACP Conference 2011)
Organizational Accountability/Force Management (IACP Conference 2011)
Eyewitness Evidence Reform (IACP Conference 2011)
Chief I’ve been Involved in a Shooting: What Happens Next (IACP Conference 2011)
TASER – Use of Force, Risk Management and Legal Strategies (Gwinnett County, GA - 2011)
Post-Conviction Investigations –Avoiding Wrongful Convictions (ILEETA 2012)
Pursuit Policy Workshop (ILEETA 2012)
Search Warrants and Working with Informants Seminar (CCSA Office – 6th District 2013)
Management, Oversight and Monitoring of Use of Force (AELE 2013)
Lethal and Less Lethal Use of Force (AELE 2013)
Use of Force Liability (ILEETA 2014)
Application of Force Science Principles (ILEETA 2014)
Best Practices for Dangerous Dog Encounters (ILEETA 2014)
Excited Delirium Syndrome-What it is/What to do about it (ILEETA 2014)
Taser Training Update (ILEETA 2014)
The Right to Photograph & Record in Public (ILEETA 2014)
Non-Custodial Interrogation and False Confessions (ILEETA 2014)
Criminal Interview & Interrogation (ILEETA 2014)
Improving the Practice of Interrogation (ILEETA 2014)
CALEA Assessor (Refresher) Training (Orange County, CA 2014)
Discipline and Internal Investigations (AELE 2014)
Use of Force Investigations – Policy, Practices and Oversight (IACP 2015)
Body Worn Body Cameras – Legal Issues and Implications (IACP 2015)
The Psychology of Deadly Force Encounters (IACP 2015)
Taser Webinar: Risk Management – Success Stories and CEW field data (2016)
Body Cameras & Other Recordings in Law Enforcement: Critical Force Science® Issues
Impacting Investigations, Policy, and Incident Analysis (Force Science Institute -2016)
Organizational Accountability – Use of Force Management (ILACP – 2016)
CALEA Assessor (Refresher) Training (2017)
Realistic De-Escalation (Force Science Institute (2017)
Association of Force Science Conference (2018)
Officer Involved Shootings/Deaths Investigations Best Practices (ILACP - 2019)
De-escalation and other use of force concepts (IACP Conference - 2019)
QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE
USE OF FORCE/POLICE OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS
Personally investigated police officer involved shootings and use of force incidents.
Supervised/Reviewed/Oversight for investigations regarding use of force incidents, officer
involved shootings and accidental firearm discharges of Unit, District and Region personnel as
well as shootings/ use of force by members of other departments investigated by the State Police.
Responsibility for supervisory oversight/approval of ISP Tactical Response Team operations
Created the Public Integrity Task Force, a joint task force of Illinois State Police personnel, Cook
County Sheriff’s and Cook County State’s Attorney (Investigations Bureau) personnel to
investigate allegations of wrongdoing to include unlawful use of force as well as all officer
(suburban) involved shootings in Cook County (Nation’s second largest county)
Reviewed all suburban (Cook County) officer involved shootings investigated by the Public
Integrity Task Force for the period of March, 1996 through May, 1998
Developed and implemented Use of Force Policy for the Cicero Police Department.
Implemented Control and Arrest Tactics (C.A.T.) training for the Cicero Police Department
based on the Illinois State Police model. Reviewed all use of Force reports while serving as
Interim Superintendent of Cicero Police Department. Recommended dismissal of officer
involved in a shooting
Received basic and repeated in service training regarding firearms, use of force and control and
arrest tactics training while a member of the Metropolitan Police Department (Washington,
D.C.), Illinois State Police and Amtrak Police Department. Have attended and continue to attend
numerous conferences and seminars on use of force subjects.
Certifications - Force Science Analysis from Force Science Research Institute
Served on the Amtrak Police Department’s Use of Force Review Committee. Reviewed all use
of force incidents by APD Officers nationwide. Assisted in rewrite of Amtrak Use of Force
Policy. Chaired Amtrak Police Department’s Training Committee with oversight for the
Firearms and Defensive Tactics subcommittees
Serve as an Assessor for the Commission for the Accreditation of Law Enforcement agencies
(CALEA) and have conducted assessments of approximately 35 law enforcement agencies
throughout the U.S. Reviews, include reviewing agency uses of force, reporting and analysis of
agencies’ force as well as their policies, practices and training, including the review of Use of
Force lesson plans and a three-year analysis of agency Uses of Force
Retained, consulted, qualified as an expert and provided deposition and trial testimony on Use of
Force/Officer Involved Shootings cases in State and Federal court
Regularly review Law Enforcement Journals and articles related to Use of Force topics
QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE
EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATION/PURSUITS
Reviewed pursuits by Region I and District personnel (ISP), Cicero Police, Amtrak Western
Region and Forest View Police personnel while serving in Command/Agency Head positions
Reviewed squad car accidents as a Region, District and Unit Commander, Interim
Superintendent (Cicero, IL PD), Amtrak Police Inspector/Director and Chief of Police (Forest
View, IL PD)
Served on Accident Review Board (ISP). Served as a senior level advisor for Illinois State Police
Pursuit Policy/Oversight for Instructors training revised ISP policy
Oversight/Approved guidelines for use of ISP helicopter in pursuits
Developed and implemented Pursuit Policy for Cicero Police Department
Developed and implemented Patrol Procedures - Emergency Vehicles and Call Response for
Cicero Police Department
Created and implemented Accident Review Board for Cicero Police Department
Personally participated in numerous pursuits
Personally participated in hundreds of emergency calls
Served as a policy consultant to local departments regarding Emergency Vehicle
Operations/Pursuit Policies
Reviewed the policies, annual analyses and training materials RE: Pursuits for over thirty (30)
law enforcement agencies throughout the United States as a CALEA Assessor
Certifications - Force Science Analysis from Force Science Research Institute & Certified
Litigation Specialist from Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE)
Retained, consulted and provided deposition and trial testimony on Pursuit/Emergency Vehicle
operation
Regularly review several Law Enforcement Journals that include articles related to the subject
matter and have attended numerous seminars regarding pursuit practices
Serve as an Assessor for the Commission for the Accreditation of Law Enforcement agencies
(CALEA) and have conducted assessments of approximately 35 law enforcement agencies
throughout the U.S. Reviews, include reviewing agency pursuits, reporting and analysis of
agencies’ pursuits as well as their policies, practices and training, including the review of Pursuit
lesson plans and a three-year analysis of agency pursuits.
Lt. Col. Robert T. Johnson (Ret.) Tel: (708) 217-8872
7813 Arquilla
Palos Heights, IL 60463 e-mail: rtj2128@sbcglobal.net
Law Enforcement Policy & Practices Consultant
RETIRED
FEE SCHEDULE (01/01/2020)
Initial Consultation – No fee
$225.00 per Hour
- Document review
- Writing of Opinion Report
- Preparation for and deposition/trial testimony
- Teleconference/Meeting W/Attorney(s)
- Research
- Other case related work
TRAVEL PROVISIONS/RATES
Travel within Chicago Metro Area/Illinois or within 300-mile radius of
Chicago
Will be billed at 2.0 hours (Per day of travel) or actual time if less than two hours
plus any hours worked on case regarding preparation, meetings, testifying, etc.
- Lodging (Mid-level hotel) paid for when lodging is necessitated by case.
Travel outside Illinois or specified 300-mile radius
Will be billed at $500.00 per day, plus any hours worked on case regarding
preparation, meetings, testifying, etc.
- Air fare (coach rate) or mileage at IRS rate if driving (cheaper of the two).
- Lodging (Mid-level hotel) paid for when lodging is necessitated by case.
Exhibit C
Expert Trial and Deposition Testimony of Robert T. Johnson
For the Past Four (4) Years as of May 01, 2021
Marta Serna v. Officer Dennis Sears
U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois
Case No. 13CV03359
Deposition Testimony (2015)
Trial Testimony (2018)
Hakimah Qualls v. City of Gary, et al.
U.S. District Court/ Northern District of Indiana
Case No. 2:14 - CV – 476
Deposition Testimony (2017)
Frances Reitz v. City of Naperville et al. Marianne Romito V. City of Chicago
U.S.D.C Northern District of Illinois Case No. 13 1 000796
Case No.: 2015-cv-1854 Circuit Court of Cook County – Law Division
Deposition Testimony (2017) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Rosa Espinoza V. Officer Richard Burdett, et al BLANK SPACE
Case No. 13CV03359 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Trial Testimony (2017) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Gary Cooper v. City of Chicago, et al. Michno/Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff, et al.
Case No.16 CV 3519 Case No. 13 CV7949 & 7163
U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois U.S.D.C. Norther District of Illinois
Trial Testimony (2018) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Estate of Donte Johnson v. Dolton, et al. Estate of Jonathan Gossman V. City of Cedar Rapids
Case No. 17 CV 2888 Case No. 1:17 cv-00144-LTS
U.S.D.C Northern District of Illinois U.S.D.C. Northern District of IA
Deposition Testimony (2018) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Mojziszek v. Village of Franklin Park, et al. Kamp, v. Stephenson County, et al.
Case No. 10L13564 Case No. 2013 L 29
Circuit Court of Cook County Circuit Court of Stephenson County, IL
Deposition Testimony (2018) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Jill L Otis v. Kayla J. Demarasse Percy Taylor V Sheriff Dart et al.
Case No.: 16-C-285 Case No.: 13 C 1856, 13 cv 6512 & 5919
U.S.D.C. Eastern District of WI. Green Bay Division U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois
Deposition Testimony (2019) Deposition Testimony (2019)
Damhoff v. Whiteside County, IL et al. People v. LaRoyce Tankson
Case No. 2017 L 12 Case No. 17 CR 5002
Circuit Court of Whiteside County Circuit Court of Cook County
Deposition Testimony (2020) Trial Testimony (2020)
Luther Hill as Administrator for the Estate Brendan Kelly v. Village of Lemont, et al.
of N.H. and Next Friend V United City of U.S. District Court - Northern District of Illinois
Yorkville, et.al. Case No: 2015-cv-1854
Circuit Court of Kendall County Deposition Testimony (2020)
Case No: 17L000032
Deposition Testimony (2020)
Karen Bellamy Administrator for Estate of Margaret Agwomoh V. City of Dolton, Admin-
Olivia Gross V. City of Chicago et al. strator of the Estate of Solomon Agwomoh v.
Circuit Court of Cook County Village of Dolton. et al.
Case No. 18 L 8726 Circuit Court of Cook County-Law Division
Deposition Testimony (2020) Case No.: 2018 L 002677
Deposition Testimony (2020)
Jerime Eron Mitchell & Bracken Ann Mitchell
v. City of Cedar Rapids, et.al
Iowa District Court In and For Linn County
Case No. LACV087209
Deposition Testimony (2021)
Exhibit D
Lt. Col. Robert T. Johnson (Ret.) Tel: (708) 217-8872
7813 Arquilla
Palos Heights, IL 60463 e-mail: rtj2128@sbcglobal.net
L a w E nfo rce m e n t P o lic y & Pra c t i c es C onsul t a n t
RETIRED
July 30, 2021
Mr. Mark S. Ratner
C/O Hall & Evans, LLC
1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO. 80202
Supplement to Report dated June 21, 2021
Sean Slatton v. City of Fort Collins
U.S. District Court - District of Colorado - Civil Action No, 1:18-cv-03112-RBJ-STV
Dear Mr. Ratner:
A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is enclosed regarding my qualifications, education and
experience in the law enforcement field was previously provided. I have not authored any
publications in the past ten (10) years. I also previously provided a list of my expert witness
testimony for the past four (4) years and my Fee Schedule. My four (4) years of expert witness
testimony has been updated and is enclosed.
I have reviewed the following documents provided by you since the completion of my initial
report regarding the captioned matter:
1. Phoenix Police Department Operations Order Manual – Use of Force Policy (01/21)
2. Steamboat Springs Police Services – Use of Force Policy (02/22/19)
3. West Valley Police Department City Police Department – Use of Force Policy (11/1/20)
4. Las Vegas Police Department – Use of Force Policy (2020)
5. Las Vegas Police Department – Use of Force Continuum (2015)
6. Denver Police Department – Use of Force Continuum (Undated)
The Plaintiff’s Police Expert, Mr. David Kleiber listed a number of Use of Force policies from
selected agencies in his report but copies of those policies were not provided by the Plaintiff
before the due date of my report. After the submission of my report and at the request of Defense
Counsel, the Plaintiff provided four Use of Force policies cited in Mr. Kleiber’s Report. Those
policies effective dates range between 2019-2021.The use of force incident that is involved in the
subject of the subject litigation occurred in 2016 and therefore the policies provided by the
Plaintiff are not applicable to this litigation based on their date.
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Kleiber also included two use of force continuums in his report that were color coded but
difficult to read. More legible copies have since been received from Plaintiff’s counsel. The
Denver Police Department’s Continuum is not dated while the Las Vegas Police Department’s
Continuum is from 2015. I do not find fault with either continuum but will point out that the
available tools and tactics vary and are not consistent from one continuum to the other.
As stated in the below highlighted excerpts from my initial report:
There is no nationally accepted Use of Force Continuum.
While Use of Force Continuums are still used by many agencies and I believe they have some
value, use of force training needs to address and incorporate threat assessment training, as
continuums are limited in providing the precise tactics or tools to be used in every situation.
The fact that a certain tactic or tool is or is not listed on a Use of Force Continuum does not in
and by itself make the use of that tactic or tool a constitutional or unconstitutional use of force.
The courts judge an officer’s use of force based on the objective reasonableness test set by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the Graham v. Connor (1989) case, not based on an agency’s selection of
a Use of Force Continuum. There is no constitutional requirement that a police officer has to use
de-escalation tactics, or that police officers have to consider less intrusive alternatives of force,
only that the force be objectively reasonable. In fact, the language used by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist speaks to the difficulty of trying to precisely define the options, tools or tactics to
apply in terms of categorizing offenders’ actions as is done on Use of Force Continuums stating;
"The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a
reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of
reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to
make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving
-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of
reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application."
The Las Vegas And Denver Continuums are not only inconsistent with each other but also
inconsistent with the DOJ Findings and recommendations regarding the use of pepper spray
and/or Tasers as found in the below highlighted excerpts from my initial report:
A National Institute of Justice Study – Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less Lethal
Weapons (2011) reported;
“People rarely die after being pepper sprayed or shocked with a Taser. However, if injury
reduction is the primary goal, agencies that allow use of these less lethal weapons are clearly
at an advantage. Both weapons prevent or minimize the physical struggles that are likely to
injure officers and suspects alike. Although both cause pain, they reduce injuries, and
according to current medical research, death or serious harm associated with their use is rare.
In that sense, both are safe and similarly effective in reducing injuries. Both should be
allowed as possible responses to defensive or higher levels of suspect resistance. This
recommendation is supported by the findings and is now followed by most agencies that
responded to the national survey” (pgs. 14-15).
Page 3 of 3
The review of the above listed documents does not alter of change my opinions as listed in my
initial report.
I reserve the right to supplement my opinions if additional material or information is received.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Johnson
Exhibit E
Expert Trial and Deposition Testimony of Robert T. Johnson
For the Past Four (4) Years as of August 01, 2021
Marta Serna v. Officer Dennis Sears
U.S. District Court/Northern District of Illinois
Case No. 13CV03359
Deposition Testimony (2015)
Trial Testimony (2018)
Hakimah Qualls v. City of Gary, et al.
U.S. District Court/ Northern District of Indiana
Case No. 2:14 - CV – 476
Deposition Testimony (2017)
Frances Reitz v. City of Naperville et al. Marianne Romito V. City of Chicago
U.S.D.C Northern District of Illinois Case No. 13 1 000796
Case No.: 2015-cv-1854 Circuit Court of Cook County – Law Division
Deposition Testimony (2017) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Rosa Espinoza V. Officer Richard Burdett, et al BLANK SPACE
Case No. 13CV03359 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Trial Testimony (2017) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Gary Cooper v. City of Chicago, et al. Michno/Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff, et al.
Case No.16 CV 3519 Case No. 13 CV7949 & 7163
U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois U.S.D.C. Norther District of Illinois
Trial Testimony (2018) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Estate of Donte Johnson v. Dolton, et al. Estate of Jonathan Gossman V. City of Cedar Rapids
Case No. 17 CV 2888 Case No. 1:17 cv-00144-LTS
U.S.D.C Northern District of Illinois U.S.D.C. Northern District of IA
Deposition Testimony (2018) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Mojziszek v. Village of Franklin Park, et al. Kamp, v. Stephenson County, et al.
Case No. 10L13564 Case No. 2013 L 29
Circuit Court of Cook County Circuit Court of Stephenson County, IL
Deposition Testimony (2018) Deposition Testimony (2018)
Jill L Otis v. Kayla J. Demarasse Percy Taylor V Sheriff Dart et al.
Case No.: 16-C-285 Case No.: 13 C 1856, 13 cv 6512 & 5919
U.S.D.C. Eastern District of WI. Green Bay Division U.S.D.C. Northern District of Illinois
Deposition Testimony (2019) Deposition Testimony (2019)
Damhoff v. Whiteside County, IL et al. People v. LaRoyce Tankson
Case No. 2017 L 12 Case No. 17 CR 5002
Circuit Court of Whiteside County Circuit Court of Cook County
Deposition Testimony (2020) Trial Testimony (2020)
Luther Hill as Administrator for the Estate Brendan Kelly v. Village of Lemont, et al.
of N.H. and Next Friend V United City of U.S. District Court - Northern District of Illinois
Yorkville, et.al. Case No: 2015-cv-1854
Circuit Court of Kendall County Deposition Testimony (2020)
Case No: 17L000032
Deposition Testimony (2020)
Karen Bellamy Administrator for Estate of Margaret Agwomoh V. City of Dolton, Admin-
Olivia Gross V. City of Chicago et al. strator of the Estate of Solomon Agwomoh v.
Circuit Court of Cook County Village of Dolton. et al.
Case No. 18 L 8726 Circuit Court of Cook County-Law Division
Deposition Testimony (2020) Case No.: 2018 L 002677
Deposition Testimony (2020)
Jerime Eron Mitchell & Bracken Ann Mitchell Montiel-Carrera, v. Village of So. Chicago Hts., et al
v. City of Cedar Rapids, et.al Circuit Court of Cook County
Iowa District Court In and For Linn County Case No.: 19 L 001493
Case No. LACV087209 Deposition Testimony (2021)
Deposition Testimony (2021)