a party may not “evade the expert witness disclosure requirements ... by simply calling an expert witness in the guise of a layperson.” Fed.R.Evid. 701 advisory committee’s note. The government did not attempt to qualify Mr. Smith as an expert. Nonetheless, Mr. Smith, in opining that CRTs become waste when they are removed from their housing and used to make another monitor, relied upon technical and specialized knowledge he garnered while monitoring the Department’s Universal Waste Program, ensuring compliance with hazardous waste regulations, and assisting the •Department’s oversight of electronic devices and components. This opinion was improper expert testimony offered in the guise of lay testimony. See United States v. Banks, 262 Fed.Appx. 900, 905-08 (10th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380, 399-404
holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity holding that a law enforcement agent may not testify about an opinion reached during his investigation if the agents reasoning process depended in whole or in part on his specialized training and experience recognizing that officers are entitled to rely on training and experience in forming belief that drug transaction has occurred recognizing officers qualification to offer nonscientific expert opinion of intoxication based on training and experience holding that a police officers opinion that a defendant was most definitely engaged in drug dealing was not proper lay testimony because it was based on the officers specialized training in narcotics and extensive experience in methamphetamine cases