Opinion ID: 691026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It was proper to allow the agents to testify as experts.

Text: 12 The district court allowed agents Operskalski and Brenner to testify as experts for the purpose of discussing observations of people, counter-surveillance and surveillance. ER at 20; see also ER at 23-24. This topic is a proper subject of expert testimony. 13 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows a witness to testify as an expert [i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Alonso argues that the issues of surveillance and counter-surveillance are not complex enough to require expert testimony. This court has on several occasions, however, approved the admission of expert testimony by law enforcement officers to explain how a defendant's conduct conforms to typical methods and techniques employed in an area of criminal activity. United States v. Espinosa, 827 F.2d 604, 612 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 968, 108 S.Ct. 1243, 99 L.Ed.2d 441 (1988); see also United States v. Bosch, 914 F.2d 1239, 1243 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Andersson, 813 F.2d 1450, 1458 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Maher, 645 F.2d 780, 784 (9th Cir.1981) (stating that testimony regarding surveillance and counter-surveillance could have come in as expert testimony). Surveillance and counter-surveillance surely constitute methods and techniques used in criminal activity and are therefore a proper subject of expert testimony. 14 Rule 702 also requires that the witness testifying as an expert be qualified to do so: [A] witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Alonso conceded in his brief and at oral argument that the agents were qualified to testify as experts. See, e.g., Appellant's Br. at 14 (Defense counsel while acknowledging the officer's expertise and qualifications to testify as to their limited area of expertise....)); id. at 16 (While acknowledging that Agent Operskalski and Agent Brenner[ ] may have possessed the necessary training, experience and qualifications to be qualified by the court as ... expert witness[es]....). 15 The agents were qualified to testify as experts regarding a topic that was properly the subject of expert testimony. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing agents Operskalski and Brenner to testify as experts regarding surveillance and counter-surveillance. 16