prosecution qualified the officers as experts during direct examination by questioning them and eliciting responses as to their experience and qualifications. 18 .The first officer, a 15-year veteran of the APD, was assigned to the repeat offender program and testified as to his "experience and training” in investigating drug-trafficking crimes. The second officer, a 12-year veteran, had served as a narcotics investigator for six and one-half years prior to his testimony. 19 . We also reject Bonner's argument that this testimony was impermissible "profile evidence.” In this case, the government did not seek to prove guilt by showing how a defendant fit a list of characteristics making up the “profile” of a drug courier. See United States v. Williams, 957 F.2d 1238, 1241 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Rather, in this case the government offered
holding that expert testimony linking a specific complainant to those general characteristics is impermissible vouching and ultimate issue testimony and therefore inadmissible holding testimony impermissible where officer described the profile itself and then proceeded to list the characteristics of the profile that the defendant displayed holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown holding admission of expert testimony not erroneous where expert described typical traits and characteristics of sexually abused children holding that the testimony of an expert witness is admissible when the witness outlines the general characteristics of sexually abused children and then states that the victims symptoms are consistent with those characteristics