quotation marks omitted.)). Against that backdrop, defendant’s argument is that, when an officer testifies that someone “passed” or “failed” the walk-and-turn test or the one-leg-stand test, the probative value of that testimony rests on a scientific proposition distinct from the commonly known signs of intoxication and from the officer’s practical expertise in identifying impairment. As explained above, both the officer and the jury can recognize signs of impairment that a test subject might exhibit during performance of an FST. Moreover, if the officer has training and extensive experience administering FSTs to suspected impaired drivers, the officer may have practical expertise in recognizing when a test subject’s performance indicates impairment. Rambo, 250 Or App at 194-95 (<HOLDING>). However, defendant argues, the conclusion
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert witness in the area of gang identity and investigation based on his training and experience recognizing that officers are entitled to rely on training and experience in forming belief that drug transaction has occurred 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 recognizing officers qualification to offer nonscientific expert opinion of intoxication based on training and experience holding officer could testify based on his training and experience that a defendants actions were consistent with selling cocaine