Opinion ID: 213844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: FBI Agents' Testimony Admissible

Text: Hicks contends that the testimony of Agent Jacox and other FBI agents concerning the alleged counter surveillance observed at the August 1 attempted meeting was tantamount to expert testimony. Because Hicks did not raise this objection at trial, we review for plain error. Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(b). Hicks's argument fails because law enforcement officers are entitled to render lay opinions concerning criminal or suspicious activity based on their personal observations. A deduction of possible criminality often is warranted when a law-enforcement officer witnesses suspicious behavior personally. Perhaps more often, however, first-hand observationparticularly of a crime like drug-trafficking, which usually is accomplished professionally and furtivelyis well-nigh impossible. ... United States v. Skinner, 972 F.2d 171, 176 n. 4 (7th Cir.1992). Here, the FBI agents did not testify that the persons observed at the restaurant and drugstore were in fact counter surveillance persons assigned by Hicks; rather, they testified as to their observations that Jacox was followed from the restaurant to the drugstore, that there appeared to be suspicious individuals watching Jacox, and that they believed it most prudent to call off the operation. Such personal observations do not rise to the level of expert opinion.