for reasonable suspicion puts the cart before the horse. I am assessing whether the search leading to this discovery was lawful. 5 . This opinion testimony seems inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 because Cue was not certified as an expert witness under Rule 702, but Randle never objected. Rule 701 prohibits a lay witness from offering “opin process of reasoning familiar in everyday life” but instead requires special expertise on how the human body receives and metabolizes cocaine. Fed.R.Evid. 701 advisory committee’s note (internal quotation marks omitted). Cue also testified that his opinion was based on his special experience as a parole officer. (Hr'g Tr. 27-28.) His testimony thus seems inadmissible. See Hirst v. Inverness Hotel Corp., 544 F.3d 221, 227 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Grace United Methodist Church v. City of
holding that a lay witness could not offer opinion testimony that required technical or specialized knowledge of what security measures could or should have been taken to prevent a crime holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding flight attendant could testify as to observation that many people hit their heads on the overhead compartment but could not give an expert opinion as to the need for a warning because the witness had no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact the court never indicated that such specialized knowledge should be in the area of warnings holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge