Opinion ID: 741827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drug-Courier Profile Evidence

Text: 25 Webb also argues that the expert testimony was similar to inadmissible drug courier profile testimony. A drug courier profile is: 26 a somewhat informal compilation of characteristics believed to be typical of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics.... These profiles are commonly used by agents as a basis for reasonable suspicion to stop and question a suspect or to form probable cause. 27 United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844, 847 (9th Cir.1991) (citations and internal quotations omitted). We have held that drug-courier profile evidence is inherently prejudicial and thus that it is admissible only in two circumstances: 1) to establish modus operandi, but only in exceptional, complex cases; or 2) to rebut specific attempts by the defense to suggest innocence based on the particular characteristics described in the profile. United States v. Lim, 984 F.2d 331, 335 (9th Cir.1993) (citation and internal quotation omitted). 28 More recently, however, we have rejected the argument that modus operandi expert testimony raises concerns similar to those raised by drug-profile testimony. Gil, 58 F.3d at 1422. In Gil, we rejected the drug profile evidence comparison because we have consistently held 'that government agents or similar persons may testify as to the general practices of criminals to establish the defendants' modus operandi.'  Id. (quoting Johnson, 735 F.2d at 1202) (emphasis added). 29 Further, in United States v. Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 534-535 (9th Cir.1993), we upheld admission of expert testimony regarding the use of guns in narcotics transactions because the fact that the defendant was carrying a gun was not innocuous. We distinguished Lim and Lui by noting that in those cases, the inadmissible drug courier profile evidence involved innocuous bits of evidence, such as engaging in domestic travel without carrying drugs. 997 F.2d at 535. Here, like in Taren-Palma, the fact that Webb had a gun concealed under the hood of his car was by no means innocuous. 30 In addition, unlike Lim and Lui, none of the expert testimony in this case was admitted to demonstrate that Webb was guilty because he fit the characteristics of a certain drug-courier profile. Instead, the expert testimony was properly admitted to assist the jury in understanding the reasons why a person would conceal a weapon in the engine compartment of a car.