People v. Delmarter
Mich: Court of Appeals, 2019
People v Walker, 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 (1965) Detective Ford testified that
he is not a drug recognition expert but, based on his training and experience, defendant
did not appear to be under the influence of drugs during the interview at the jail …
he is not a drug recognition expert but, based on his training and experience, defendant
did not appear to be under the influence of drugs during the interview at the jail …
Harris v. CHELAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Dist. Court, ED Washington, 2019
Harris, a drug recognition expert and instructor since approximately 1998 or
1999, was forced to resign and placed on a Brady list by local prosecutors. Officer's case dismissed, with the Court holding:
1999, was forced to resign and placed on a Brady list by local prosecutors. Officer's case dismissed, with the Court holding:
The significance of a Brady designation is acknowledged by the Court. See e.g. Neri v. Country of Stanislaus Dist. Atty's Office, 2010 WL 3582575 at *1, n.1 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (Because the veracity of an officer becomes a question, "being Brady-listed has a significant negative effect upon a law-enforcement officer's career." (quoting Walters v. County of Maricopa, 2006 WL 2456173 at *4 (D. Ariz. 2006)). Defendant does not dispute, ECF No. 60 at 7; ECF No 81 at 12, and the Court agrees, that the Ninth Circuit recognizes a liberty interest is triggered under the circumstances present in this case. Enquist, 478 F.3d at 997-998 (holding there is substantive due process protection against government employer actions that foreclose access to a profession).
Nevertheless, the Court holds that Plaintiffs' due process claims pertaining to the Brady list designation are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.