Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Krekelberg v. Anoka County

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 24, 2019

Amy E. Krekelberg, Plaintiff,
v.
Anoka County, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DONOVAN W. FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter came before the Court for a pretrial hearing on May 22, 2019. At the pretrial hearing, the Court heard, among other things, the parties’ respective motions in limine. Based upon the memoranda, pleadings, and arguments of counsel, and for the reasons explained during the hearing, the Court hereby enters the following:

         ORDER

         1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert Michael Quinn (Doc. No. [579]) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Michael Quinn intends to give legal conclusions and render opinions regarding whether access of the DVS records of Amy Elizabeth Krekelberg by the City of Minneapolis as listed in the Amended Complaint, acting in their individual capacity as employees of law enforcement agencies, was consistent with law enforcement purposes. Such testimony is presumptively inadmissible.
b. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Michael Quinn intends to give an opinion as to “why would officers break the law regarding the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994.” Such testimony is presumptively inadmissible.
c. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Michael Quinn intends to give opinions as to what particular damages, including reputational damage and stigma, typically occur due to an accusation of misconduct by one police officer against another or multiple other police officers; a suit against other officers, with the lodging of false claims by other officers against the one making an accusation of misconduct; and how does the reputational damage and/or stigma affect the ability of the officer making the accusation of misconduct to work as a law enforcement officer. Such testimony is presumptively inadmissible.
d. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Michael Quinn intends to give opinions as to what impact the gender of an officer making the accusation has on the reputational damage, stigma, or ability to work in law enforcement in the future. Such testimony is presumptively inadmissible.
e. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Michael Quinn intends to give testimony offering opinions on the credibility of the officers. Such testimony is presumptively inadmissible.
f. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Michael Quinn intends to give opinions regarding the ethics of law enforcement officers.
g. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Michael Quinn (Doc. No. [579]) is DENIED as follows:
i. On the record before the Court, and assuming proper foundation is laid, subject to objections during the trial, the testimony of Michael Quinn as to when law enforcement officers of the Minneapolis Police Department reasonably knew that accessing the DVS database for non-law enforcement purposes violated federal law shall be presumptively admissible.
ii. On the record before the Court, and assuming proper foundation is laid, subject to objections during the trial, the testimony of Michael Quinn on the impact on the police culture of the so-called Code of Silence and the organizational structure and practices of law enforcement agencies, including the Minneapolis Police Department, shall be presumptively admissible.

         This decision of the Court is made pursuant to Articles 4 and 7 of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.