1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3274

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Fidel Solorio-Tafolla, *

*

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2003

Filed: April 3, 2003

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, RILEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Fidel Solorio-Tafolla (Solorio-Tafolla) appeals his conviction for conspiracy

to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) and 846 (2000).

Solorio-Tafolla argues the district court1

 erred by admitting opinion testimony from

a police detective regarding drug trafficking, without satisfying the Daubert standard
-2-

for expert testimony. The district court did not err in finding the detective’s

testimony reliable and relevant. We affirm. 

During Solorio-Tafolla’s jury trial, Detective Sergeant Michael Garnett

(Detective Garnett), a twenty-eight year law enforcement veteran, testified for the

prosecution. Detective Garnett testified about various aspects of drug trafficking,

including (1) the price of drugs in drug trafficking; (2) drug quantities obtained for

personal use, as opposed to trafficking; (3) drug conspiracies and roles of drug

traffickers; (4) how to manufacture methamphetamine; (5) drug investigation and

wiretap operations; and (6) the lack of fingerprint evidence on packaging. Although

Solorio-Tafolla objected during the trial to portions of Detective Garnett’s testimony

based on relevance and foundation, Solorio-Tafolla failed to object in the district

court to the detective’s status as an expert witness under Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 595 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526

U.S. 137, 147, 149-51 (1999). Therefore, we review Solorio-Tafolla’s Daubert claim

for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United

States v. Kempis-Bonola, 287 F.3d 699, 701 (8th Cir. 2002).

“There is no requirement that the District Court always hold a Daubert hearing

prior to qualifying an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.” United

States v. Evans, 272 F.3d 1069, 1094 (8th Cir. 2001) (finding no abuse where officer

testified about the operation of prostitution rings based on his education, training, and

experience). “Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits a district court to allow the

testimony of a witness whose knowledge, skill, training, experience or education will

assist a trier of fact in understanding an area involving specialized subject matter.”

United States v. Molina, 172 F.3d 1048, 1056 (8th Cir. 1999). It is well within the

discretion of a district court “to allow law enforcement officials to testify as experts

concerning the modus operandi of drug dealers in areas concerning activities which

are not something with which most jurors are familiar.” Id. (citation omitted). Even

so, under Daubert and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the probative value
-3-

of the expert testimony must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595.

Detective Garnett had been employed by the Lincoln Police Department for 28

years and was assigned to the narcotics unit for the last 20 years. His assignment

included the supervision of plain-clothed investigators, and he assisted in

investigations, interviewing suspects and witnesses, conducting surveillance and

serving search warrants. Detective Garnett had received specialized training from the

Drug Enforcement Administration on multiple occasions, as well as from the National

District Attorneys Association. Detective Garnett had been involved in thousands of

investigations of controlled substances. He personally purchased drugs as a

undercover agent, supervised other officers purchasing drugs as undercover buys, and

supervised cooperating individuals making controlled delivery of illegal drugs.

Detective Garnett had previously testified as an expert witness eleven or twelve times

in federal court and five or six times in Nebraska state court.

Detective Garnett testified he was familiar with how controlled substances,

including methamphetamine, are distributed. Without objection from Solorio-Tafolla,

Detective Garnett described drug trafficking based on his training and experience.

Solorio-Tafolla objected to Detective Garnett’s testimony regarding investigation

procedures, particularly wiretaps, on the basis of relevancy, since a wiretap was not

involved in this case. However, the district court overruled the relevancy objection

when the government pointed out defense counsel was arguing the government

performed its drug investigation poorly. The district court also overruled a relevancy

objection to the detective explaining how methamphetamine is manufactured. On

cross-examination, Solorio-Tafolla’s counsel questioned Detective Garnett about

certain aspects of drug trafficking.

After reviewing Detective Garnett’s testimony, we conclude the district court

did not plainly err in admitting the expert testimony, because, on balance, the
-4-

probative value of the expert testimony was not substantially outweighed by any

possible unfair prejudice. Therefore, we affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.