Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01912/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01912-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Thomas Lovejoy and Carolyn Lovejoy, 

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, 

husband and wife, 

Defendants.

No. CV-09-01912-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Sheriff Arpaio’s “Motion In Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs’ 

Expert D.P. Van Blaricom From Providing Testimony or Other Evidence” (Doc. 86). For 

the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. 

The alleged facts have been summarized elsewhere (see Doc. 23) and will not be 

repeated here. For purposes of this motion, it suffices to note that Sgt. Lovejoy brought 

this suit against Sheriff Arpaio alleging various forms of malicious prosecution and abuse 

of process. These allegations arose from the criminal prosecution brought against Sgt. 

Lovejoy for accidentally leaving his K-9 partner, Bandit, in a hot vehicle, causing 

Bandit’s death. 

Sgt. Lovejoy has hired a police practices expert, D.P. Van Blaricom, to offer 

opinions about the propriety of Sheriff Arpaio’s alleged actions. Mr. Van Blaricom spent 

29 years as a police officer in Bellevue, Washington, including 11 years as chief of 

police. During that time, Mr. Van Blaricom established a K-9 unit in his police 

Case 2:09-cv-01912-NVW Document 91 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

department. Since his retirement from active duty, Mr. Van Blaricom has been a police 

practices consultant, having been retained as an expert in over 1,500 lawsuits over the 

course of 25 years. Sheriff Arpaio has now challenged the admissibility of the opinions 

expressed in Mr. Van Blaricom’s expert report. 

Mr. Van Blaricom may testify about his background, experience, and credentials, 

which are not in dispute. Mr. Van Blaricom may also offer testimony consistent with 

paragraphs 8a–8c and 8e of his expert report (Doc. 86-1). These paragraphs provide 

background on how K-9 units are viewed within police departments, something about 

which average jurors may not be aware. 

Fed. R. Evid. 403 prevents Mr. Van Blaricom from testifying based on paragraph 

8d. It is not relevant that Mr. Van Blaricom has not heard of incidents of handlers 

intentionally mistreating police dogs. Even if Sheriff Arpaio himself had never before 

heard of such incidents, the evidence may ultimately support an inference that he 

reasonably believed this was the first. 

Fed. R. Evid. 702 prevents Mr. Van Blaricom from testifying based on paragraph 

8f. Mr. Van Blaricom’s generalization — “absolutely preclude any intentional neglect 

or mistreatment” — is not proper expert testimony. It is not the product of “facts or data” 

nor of “reliable principles and methods.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, it will be 

excluded. 

The remainder of Mr. Van Blaricom’s opinions will be excluded because they will 

not “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Id. 

Van Blaricom summarizes documents and deposition testimony and draws no more than 

basic inferences about human motives and conduct. Jurors understand the emotions and 

tendencies at issue just as well. Accordingly, the Rules of Evidence do not permit Mr. 

Van Blaricom’s testimony on those issues. See United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080, 

1086 (9th Cir. 2002) (expert testimony must “address[] an issue beyond the common 

knowledge of the average layperson” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Some of Mr. 

Case 2:09-cv-01912-NVW Document 91 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Van Blaricom’s opinions are also plain legal conclusions, and therefore improper expert 

testimony on that basis as well. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Sheriff Arpaio’s “Motion In Limine to 

Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert D.P. Van Blaricom From Providing Testimony or Other 

Evidence” (Doc. 86) is DENIED with respect to paragraphs 8a–8c and 8e of Mr. Van 

Blaricom’s expert report and GRANTED in all other respects. 

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2011. 

Case 2:09-cv-01912-NVW Document 91 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 3