Expert Witness

 Law Enforcement Expert Witness

Tad Leach has been retained as an Expert Witness by law firms/attorneys in Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming.

Areas of Expert Witness experience in Idaho State and Federal Court Cases:

Use of force (appropriate to use force, was force utilized excessive, use of Taser and use of pepper spray) – Federal and Idaho State Court recognized.

Policy and procedural issues (did a law enforcement officer/s follow department and/or commonly accepted law enforcement policy and procedures).

Police practices issues (did a law enforcement officer/s follow commonly accepted law enforcement practices).

Probable cause for arrest.

Pursuits.

Termination of law enforcement officers.

Synopsis Of Sample Cases

Case No.: 3:08-CV-552-EJL

Mays v. Nez Perce County, et al.
United States District Court – District of Idaho

Statute: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Title 42 USC Section 1983.

Plaintiff’s Allegations:

  1. Deputy utilized unreasonable and excessive force by Tasering the subject in “drive stun” mode.
  2. Other Deputies failed to prevent the use of excessive force.

Leach Expert Witness Report and testimony for Defendants:

  1. Deputy utilized reasonable force in attempting to subdue the subject who was failing to comply with an officer’s order to put hands behind his back.
  2. Under the totality of the circumstances the Deputy’s force was not excessive.

Case Disposition: Defendants Acquitted.

______________________________________________________________

Case No.: 04-2584-RDR

Reindl v. City of Leavenworth, et al.
United States District Court – District of Kansas

Statute: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Title 42 USC Section 1983.

Plaintiff’s Allegations:

  1. Officer utilized excessive force in attempting to handcuff the subject.
  2. Other officers failed to prevent the use of excessive force.

Leach Expert Witness Report and deposition for Plaintiffs:

  1. Officer utilized unreasonable (therefore excessive) force in attempting to get the subject to comply with his order to put his hands behind his back.
  2. Other officers failed to prevent the use of unreasonable force.

Case Disposition: Settled.

______________________________________________________________

Case No.: CIV-99-244-N-EJL

Beier v. City of Lewiston (ID) and Nez Perce County (ID), et al.
United States District Court – District of Idaho

Statute: First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Idaho Constitution and Title 42 USC Section 1983.

Plaintiff’s Allegations:

  1. Officers lacked probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff (NOTE: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held there was no probable cause for the arrest).
  2. Officers employed unreasonable, excessive and unwarranted force to unlawfully seize the Plaintiff, including the use of pepper spray.

Leach Expert Witness Report and court testimony for Defendants:

  1. A reasonable officer would have believed he had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff.
  2. Officers utilized only the force which was reasonable and necessary to overcome resistance by the Plaintiff.

Case Disposition: Plaintiff awarded one dollar ($1.00) for the unlawful arrest. All other charges dismissed.

______________________________________________________________

Case No.: CV-02-00072

Athay vs. Bear Lake County (ID) and Rich County (UT), et al.
Sixth Judicial District of the State of Idaho

Statute: Idaho Constitution: Article 1, Sections 1,3,17 & 21.

Plaintiff’s Allegations:

  1. The defendant law enforcement officers pursued a suspected DUI suspect in such a manner as to “shock the conscience”.
  2. The defendants failed to terminate the pursuit, thus precipitating an accident which caused a severe injury to an innocent driver.

Leach Expert Witness Report conclusions for Defendants:

  1. The defendants were justified in starting and continuing the pursuit, due to the ongoing danger to the public created by the offender’s dangerous driving prior to the pursuit.
  2. The defendants would have been negligent in their duty had they failed to attempt to remove the dangerous driver from the road.

Case Disposition:  Dismissed.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Case No.: CV02-00341

Castleberry vs. Clearwater Deputy Joe Newman and Officer Jerald Hiner of the Orofino City Police Department
Second Judicial District of the State of Idaho – Clearwater County

Statute: Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 & 1988 and the Idaho Tort Claims Act.

Plaintiff’s Allegations:

  1. The defendant law enforcement officers made an unreasonable physical seizure of the Plaintiff.
  2. The Defendants used excessive force against the Plaintiff.

Leach Expert Witness Report and court testimony for Defendants:

  1. The Defendants were making a lawful arrest and would have been derelict in their duty had they failed to protect the victim from further assault by the Plaintiff.
  2. The Defendants utilized force that was reasonable and necessary to effect the arrest.

Case Disposition: Defendants Acquitted.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Case No.: CIV00-497-N-EJL
Liiv vs. City of Coeur d’Alene, et al.
United States District Court – District of Idaho

Statute: Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1332 & 1343 and
Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Plaintiff’s Allegations:

  1. A municipal ordinance making it a misdemeanor to “cross a police-line during a parade”, is functionless, purposeless and unenforceable, except against opponents of the Aryan Nations.
  2. The Plaintiff was falsely arrested by law enforcement officers (Defendants) for crossing a police-line during a parade.
  3. Defendants utilized excessive force in making the arrest.

Leach Expert Witness Report conclusions for Defendants and court affidavit:

  1. The ordinance in question has numerous valid law enforcement purposes/functions; including, but not limited to: isolation of crime scenes/investigations, accidents, hazardous situations, dangerous areas/situations and crowd control.
  2. Defendants had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff for crossing a police-line during a parade.
  3. Defendants used minimal force (compliance techniques) to arrest the Plaintiff, who was uncooperative during the arrest. These tactics were appropriate and necessary under the circumstances.

Case disposition: Summary Judgment for Defendants.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Other case issues:

Failure to investigate and take action resulting in a wrongful death. State of Wyoming – Fifth Judicial District; retained by decedent’s estate.

Unreasonable and warrant less seizure; illegal search; and negligent hiring, supervision, training and retention. United States District Court – District of Idaho; retained by law enforcement Defendants.

Failure to properly and adequately investigate before searching Plaintiff’s residence; failure to enter Plaintiff’s residence in a reasonable and/or lawful fashion and use of excessive or unnecessary force in restraining Plaintiffs and in conducting the search. United States District Court – District of Idaho; retained by law enforcement Defendants.

Wrongful termination. United States District Court – District of Idaho; retained by county and law enforcement Defendants.

Citizen use of force to defend property. First Judicial District of Idaho – Kootenai County; retained by citizen Defendant.

CLIENTS/REFERENCES

“In my dealings with Mr. Leach, he has always been open and frank, pointing out both the strengths and weaknesses of the case at hand. I have appreciated his ready availability and his promptness in performing all tasks. Mr. Leach brings to the table common-sense, experience and a wealth of knowledge. The result is a thorough, accurate and fair assessment of the case at hand.”

Randall R. Adams, Attorney at Law
Carey-Perkins, L.L.P.
Coeur d’Alene, ID

“Tad is extremely knowledgeable on law enforcement issues. He has the technical background in law enforcement issues, but brings with it a large dose of common sense. Tad also is very organized and eloquent. As a result, he can present himself well in front of an audience, including a jury.”

James A . Davis
Attorney at Law
Boise, ID

“Tad Leach is a thorough researcher and excellent strategist. He brings an added dimension and depth to every trial team. Tad is what every defense trial team needs to forge victory in the most difficult cases!”

David Lefkow, Attorney at Law
Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C.
Chicago, IL