Dr. Matt Stiehm maintains familiarity with Minnesota's juvenile competency rules and the statutory requirements governing mental health professionals and examiners involved in juvenile proceedings. His knowledge includes Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Delinquency Procedure 20.01, Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 7, and Minnesota Statutes section 245I.04, subdivision 2.

Minnesota Rule of Juvenile Delinquency Procedure 20.01 addresses proceedings when a child is believed to be incompetent to proceed. The rule provides that a child is incompetent when the child lacks sufficient ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or to understand the proceedings or participate in the defense because of mental illness or cognitive impairment. 

When there is reason to doubt a child's competency, the prosecuting attorney, the child's counsel, or the court may bring a motion to determine competency. Upon such a motion, the court may suspend the proceedings and proceed with the competency process established by the rule

The examination provisions address the appointment of qualified examiners to evaluate the child's mental condition and report their findings to the court. The rule also addresses circumstances involving outpatient and inpatient examinations, as well as examination or observation by qualified professionals retained by the child's counsel or the prosecuting attorney.

The rule further addresses circumstances in which mental health professionals identify an imminent risk of serious harm to another person, imminent suicidality, or another circumstance requiring emergency intervention.

Dr. Stiehm is also familiar with the definition of an "examiner" under Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 7. The statute defines an examiner as a person who is knowledgeable, trained, and practicing in the diagnosis and assessment or treatment of the alleged impairment and who meets one of the statutory professional qualifications. These include a licensed physician, a mental health professional qualified under section 245I.04, subdivision 2, a licensed physician assistant, or an appropriately qualified advanced practice registered nurse practicing in a hospital emergency room under the conditions specified by statute. 

Minnesota Statutes section 245I.04, subdivision 2, identifies the professionals who may provide services as a mental health professional. The statute includes qualified psychiatric mental health nurses and nurse practitioners, licensed independent clinical social workers, psychologists licensed by the Minnesota Board of Psychology, qualifying psychiatrists, licensed marriage and family therapists, and licensed professional clinical counselors.

Dr. Stiehm's familiarity with these provisions supports his work involving the intersection of juvenile mental health, behavioral health, and the justice system. His background in clinical mental health, law enforcement, criminal justice, and juvenile services provides an interdisciplinary perspective when reviewing matters involving juvenile competency, mental health evaluations, treatment considerations, and related legal proceedings.

His consultation may include:

• Review of juvenile mental health and competency-related records.
   
• Review and analysis of psychological or mental health evaluations.
   
• Consultation regarding behavioral health information presented in juvenile proceedings.
   
• Consultation with attorneys and other professionals regarding mental health considerations.
   
• Review of treatment history and available collateral information.
   
• Assistance in understanding the clinical issues relevant to a juvenile case.
   

Dr. Stiehm's role is to provide clear, objective, and clinically grounded information within the scope of his professional qualifications and applicable Minnesota law. Any court-ordered competency examination or forensic determination remains subject to the requirements of the applicable statutes, court rules, court orders, and professional licensing standards.

Dr. Stiehm is familiar with Minnesota Statutes section 611.46, which addresses competency attainment programs and continuing supervision for defendants who have been found incompetent to stand trial.

Under subdivision 1, when a court determines that a defendant is incompetent and the charges have not been dismissed, the court is required to order participation in an appropriate competency attainment program. The statute provides for several potential settings, including community-based competency attainment programs, jail-based programs, or alternative programs. The court is required to consider the least-restrictive program appropriate to the defendant's needs and public safety, while consulting with the forensic navigator and considering recommendations from the court examiner.

Dr. Stiehm recognizes that participation in these statutorily defined competency attainment programs involves specific legal, clinical, and programmatic requirements. 

Dr. Stiehm does not represent that he meets the statutory requirements to serve as a provider of a competency attainment program under Minnesota Statutes section 611.46, subdivision 1.

His role in matters involving competency may instead include clinical consultation, record review, behavioral health consultation, and other services that fall within his professional training, licensure, and scope of practice. Any formal competency determination, court-ordered competency attainment program, or related statutory role would remain subject to the requirements established by Minnesota law and the authority of the court.

Dr. Stiehm maintains familiarity with Minnesota's civil commitment laws under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 253B, including provisions governing court-ordered mental examinations and the qualifications of professionals who may serve as examiners.

Under Minnesota's civil commitment statutes, when a court orders a mental examination of a defendant, the court must appoint at least one examiner who meets the statutory definition established under Chapter 253B, or a successor statute. The examiner is responsible for examining the individual and reporting to the court regarding the individual's mental condition.

When special circumstances or needs are demonstrated, the court may order the individual to be confined in a hospital or other appropriate facility for a specified period, including up to 60 days, to complete the examination. When a party has independently retained an examiner, the applicable statute provides for that examiner to observe the court-ordered examination and examine the individual.

Minnesota Statutes section 253B.02, subdivision 7, defines an examiner as a person who is knowledgeable, trained, and practicing in the diagnosis and assessment or treatment of the alleged impairment and who meets one of the professional qualifications identified by statute.

The statutory definition includes:

• A licensed physician.
   
• A mental health professional qualified under Minnesota Statutes section 245I.04, subdivision 2.
   
• A licensed physician assistant.
   
• An appropriately qualified advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) practicing in a hospital emergency room, provided the statutory hospital credentialing requirements are met.
   

Minnesota Statutes section 245I.04, subdivision 2, identifies the professionals who may provide services as a mental health professional. The statute includes appropriately qualified:

• Registered nurses and psychiatric mental health nurse specialists or nurse practitioners meeting the statutory requirements.
   
• Licensed independent clinical social workers.
   
• Psychologists licensed by the Minnesota Board of Psychology.
   
• Physicians who meet the statutory psychiatric qualification requirements.
   
• Licensed marriage and family therapists.
   
• Licensed professional clinical counselors.
   

Dr. Stiehm's familiarity with these provisions informs his work at the intersection of mental health, criminal justice, and civil commitment. His background in behavioral health, law enforcement, criminal justice, and corrections provides an interdisciplinary perspective when reviewing matters involving mental health evaluations and individuals involved in the justice system.

Depending on the circumstances and his applicable professional scope, Dr. Stiehm may provide clinical consultation, record review, behavioral health consultation, treatment services, and other professional services related to individuals involved in civil commitment or other legal proceedings.

Any court-ordered examination, formal civil commitment evaluation, or statutory examiner appointment remains subject to the requirements of Minnesota law, the applicable court order, and the professional qualifications and scope of practice required for the specific role.

Dr. Stiehm is familiar with the standards governing expert testimony under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702. The rule provides that a witness may testify as an expert when the witness is qualified through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and when the expert's specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact at issue.

Expert testimony may be provided in the form of an opinion or otherwise, provided that the opinion meets the applicable requirements for foundational reliability. When expert testimony involves a novel scientific theory, the applicable standard also requires consideration of whether the underlying scientific evidence is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

Dr. Stiehm's professional background includes experience in mental health, law enforcement, criminal justice, corrections, behavioral health, and forensic consultation. These areas of experience may provide a foundation for expert consultation and testimony in matters within his education, training, experience, and professional scope.

His consultation may include review and analysis of records, policies, investigative materials, mental health information, law enforcement practices, training standards, and other specialized information relevant to a legal matter.

Dr. Stiehm's role is to provide objective, professionally grounded analysis within the scope of his qualifications. Whether particular testimony or an expert opinion is admissible is ultimately determined under the applicable rules of evidence and by the court.

Dr. Stiehm is familiar with the federal discovery requirements established under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, including provisions governing initial disclosures, expert disclosures, discovery scope and limitations, trial preparation materials, expert discovery, protective orders, supplementation, and the parties' responsibilities during the discovery process.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) generally requires parties in applicable civil proceedings to make certain initial disclosures without awaiting a formal discovery request. Depending on the circumstances of the case, these disclosures may include:

• The identities and contact information of individuals likely to possess discoverable information.
   
• Documents, electronically stored information, and tangible materials that a party may use to support its claims or defenses.
   
• Computations of claimed damages and supporting documentation.
   
• Applicable insurance agreements.
   

The rule also identifies categories of proceedings that are exempt from the initial disclosure requirements.

Dr. Stiehm is familiar with the requirements governing disclosure of expert witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2). Parties generally must identify individuals who may provide expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, or 705.

When an expert is retained or specially employed to provide testimony, or when the expert's employment duties regularly involve providing expert testimony, Rule 26 generally requires a written and signed expert report. The report must address the expert's opinions and the basis for those opinions, information considered, supporting exhibits, qualifications, publications, compensation, and prior cases in which the expert has testified, subject to the requirements and limitations of the applicable rule and court orders.

The timing of expert disclosures is governed by the court's scheduling order or the parties' agreement. In the absence of different requirements, Rule 26 establishes default disclosure deadlines, including provisions addressing experts offered solely to rebut or contradict another expert's testimony.

Rule 26(b) establishes the general scope of federal discovery. Subject to privilege, court orders, and other limitations, parties may obtain discovery concerning nonprivileged matters relevant to a claim or defense. Discoverable information does not necessarily have to be admissible at trial if the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, subject to the proportionality and other limitations established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The rule also permits courts to limit discovery when it is cumulative or duplicative, can be obtained from a more convenient or less burdensome source, has already been sufficiently pursued, or when the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit.

Rule 26 also establishes protections and procedures concerning materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial. Certain trial-preparation materials may be protected from discovery unless the requesting party demonstrates substantial need and an inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship.

The rule contains additional provisions governing discovery involving experts. Depending on the expert's role, parties may be permitted to depose an expert or obtain information concerning the expert's opinions and factual knowledge. Different protections apply to experts who are expected to testify and those who have been retained in anticipation of litigation but are not expected to testify.

Rule 26(c) permits courts to issue protective orders when appropriate to protect a party or other person from undue burden, expense, embarrassment, or other forms of harm associated with discovery. Depending on the circumstances, a protective order may limit the scope, timing, location, or method of discovery or restrict the disclosure of confidential information.

Rule 26(e) establishes a continuing obligation to supplement or correct certain disclosures and discovery responses when a party learns that previously provided information is materially incomplete or incorrect, subject to the requirements of the rule and applicable court orders.

For expert witnesses, the supplementation requirement may extend to information contained in the expert's report and information provided during the expert's deposition.

Dr. Stiehm's familiarity with Rule 26 is relevant to his work involving forensic consultation, expert witness services, litigation support, and review of expert materials in federal civil litigation.

His services may include:

• Review of expert reports and supporting documentation.
   
• Consultation regarding the methodology, factual foundation, and conclusions of another expert.
   
• Preparation of reports addressing opinions within his professional qualifications.
   
• Assistance with deposition and trial preparation.
   
• Consultation regarding discovery involving expert witnesses.
   
• Review of materials produced during discovery.
   
• Identification of areas requiring clarification, additional investigation, or expert consideration.
   
• Expert consultation and testimony when appropriate and within the scope of his qualifications.
   

Dr. Stiehm's role is to provide objective, professionally grounded analysis based on the information reasonably available to him and within the scope of his education, training, experience, and professional licensure. The admissibility of expert testimony, the scope of discovery, and the application of Rule 26 ultimately remain subject to the applicable federal rules, court orders, and determinations of the court.

Federal Civil Rights UOF Allegations - Plaintiff Cases

Report Written – Camarca v. City of Covington (KY)

Report Written – Wright and Burkett v. City of Whitehall 5:20-cv-2664 

Report Written – Blot v. City of Colonie 14-CV-991

Report Written – Oluwatimi v. West Lafayette Police Department

Report Written – Brossart v. Janke – CN 3:14- CV-62 

Report Written – Smith v. Champlin – CV-02446 

Report Written- Walker v. Minneapolis -- CR-12-825 

Report Written- Johnson v. Schoenhard -- CR 12 -824

Report Written – Elex v. City of Brooklyn Park CV- 12-3206 ADM/JJK

Report Written – Theyson v. Kaneko – V-00186-ADM-SEP

Report Written- Nic J. Lantz and Traci Totzke, v. Town of Fremont and Officer Tony Tribble 

Report Written – Stacie Ann Miller v Officer Paul Fieldseth – 0:13-cv-02446

Report Written - Officer M. Goran’s Arbitration –CR- 12-3206

Memo Written – Troy Rokusek v. Cody Jansen – CIV16-4056 – Federal District Court of South Dakota 

Retained – Dooley v. Van Buren County, Iowa

Testified – Officer M. Goran’s Arbitration –CR- 12-3206 Deposed – Camarca v. City of Covington (KY)

Deposed - Camarca v. City of Covington (KY)

Deposed – Nic J. Lantz and Traci Totzke, v. Town of Fremont and Officer Tony Tribble – CV-002555-WCL-RBC 

Deposed - Brossart v. Janke – CN 3:14- CV-62

Deposed – Blot v. City of Colonie – Qualified as Expert

Memo ACLU – Charles Landeros -Lethal Force Review – ACLU – No Lethal Force 

Consulted – Plaintiff Attorney v. City of Ankeny – Iowa - No excessive force