Opinion ID: 740391
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Spurlock's Qualifications.

Text: 19 WMATA first objects to the magistrate judge's determination that Spurlock was qualified as an expert given that he had no prior work experience involving the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. While work experience is obviously one method by which an individual may acquire an expertise in a particular field, it is only one among the five different ways to demonstrate an expert is qualified. Exum, 819 F.2d at 1163. A witness may be qualified as an expert based on knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the relevant field. FED.R.EVID. 702 (emphasis added). 20 Spurlock testified that he was a police officer with the Metropolitan Police Department for over twenty-four years. During that time he served as an instructor in police training and procedures. Prior to that Spurlock spent five years as an officer with the U.S. Capitol Police where he wrote policy and served as a trainer. Spurlock further testified that he had taught police practice and procedures [his] entire career and evaluated training programs for numerous cities. Still further, Spurlock testified that he had reviewed the training requirements under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. While Spurlock conceded that he was not an expert on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, he asserted that he was an expert with respect ... to how the ADA [and] Rehabilitation Act impact on police practices, procedures, and training. The trial judge agreed and accepted Spurlock as an expert with respect to the issues of police procedures, practices, [324 U.S.App.D.C. 246] and training, as they concern the [ADA] and the Rehabilitation Act. 21 In light of the foregoing testimony, we cannot find that the judge abused her discretion in so ruling. Spurlock's lack of work experience with the ADA and Rehabilitation Act goes to the weight rather than admissibility of the evidence. Baerman v. Reisinger, 363 F.2d 309, 310 (D.C.Cir.1966). 22