D.N.M.: PD SOPs aren’t admissible in criminal excessive force cases

Police department SOPs aren’t admissible in a criminal excessive force case under settled Tenth Circuit case law and several cases in this court. United States v. Rodella, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164786 (D.N.M. November 20, 2014):

In the most recent cases in which the Court has addressed this issue, the Court has ruled that evidence regarding a violation of police procedures is not admissible in excessive force cases. See Montoya v. Sheldon, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161972, 2012 WL 5476882, at *9-10 (excluding evidence that defendants violated SOPs, where plaintiffs sought to introduce the evidence for the “jury to put into context and fully understand the significance of the Defendants’ actions in detaining, arresting, charging and prosecuting Plaintiffs”); Mata v. City of Farmington, 798 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1219 (D.N.M. 2011)(Browning, J.) (excluding, under rule 402 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “evidence that the Defendant Officers did not follow SOPs and police training, because this evidence is not relevant”); Jonas v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 699 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1299 (Browning, J.) (“The clearly established law also does not permit a plaintiff to establish a constitutional violation with evidence that the officers violated SOPs and their training.”); Vondrak v. City of Las Cruces, No. CIV 05-0172 JB/LAM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94618, 2009 WL 3241555, at *14 (D.N.M. Aug. 25, 2009) (Browning, J.) (concluding that “expert testimony that refers to SOPs or other established law-enforcement standards” was inadmissible under Tenth Circuit precedent); Chamberlin v. City of Albuquerque, No. CIV 02-0603 JB/ACT, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21910, 2005 WL 2313527, at *4 (D.N.M. July 31, 2005) (Browning, J.) (“[U]nder United States v. Marquez and Tanberg v. Sholtis, evidence of the SOPs is irrelevant to whether [the defendant officer] acted objectively reasonably.”).

In Chamberlin v. City of Albuquerque, the primary issue was whether the Court should have allowed the plaintiff to introduce evidence of the Albuquerque Police Department’s SOPs. See 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21910, 2005 WL 2313527, at *1. Because of Tanberg v. Sholtis and Marquez v. City of Albuquerque, the Court granted the defendant police officer’s motion in limine to exclude all evidence and testimony concerning the SOPs. See 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21910, 2005 WL 2313527, at *4. The Court acknowledged that, although both Tanberg v. Sholtis and Marquez v. City of Albuquerque were distinguishable, because the SOPs which the plaintiff sought to introduce were different, and because there was no suggestion that the plaintiff also sought to introduce testimony about whether the police department disciplined the defendant police officer for violating any SOP, the language of Tanberg v. Sholtis was sufficiently broad and sweeping to encompass the SOPs at issue. See Chamberlin v. City of Albuquerque, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21910, 2005 WL 2313527, at *4. The Court concluded that, under Marquez v. City of Albuquerque and Tanberg v. Sholtis, evidence of the SOPs was irrelevant to whether the defendant police officer acted objectively reasonably. See 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21910, 2005 WL 2313527, at *2-3.