## Facts

- Portland police investigated suspected cocaine trafficking in north and northeast Portland beginning in June 1987, focusing on Bradford L. Lockett and associates.
- Police conducted extended surveillance from October 1987 until Lockett’s arrest in February 1988 and observed behavior officers interpreted as counter-surveillance and drug-trafficking related travel.
- Officers surveilled a residence at 6237 North Montana Street and, through a window, observed an apparent controlled-substance packaging process; Lockett was present in the room for much of the time but was not seen physically packaging.
- Officers later executed a search warrant at the residence and found approximately 1,800 grams of cocaine, including cocaine packaged into smaller bags, and a setup described as resembling a packaging “assembly line.”
- In January 1988, Lockett and another person brought a briefcase with $50,000 in cash to a bank to purchase a cashier’s check; when told a currency transaction report was required, Lockett left and returned with another individual.
- Lockett was found in the residence during the warrant search and was charged and convicted in federal court of multiple cocaine-related offenses.
- At trial, the government called a police officer as an expert on drug-trafficking practices; over objection, the expert testified that only people “intimately involved” in a cocaine-packaging operation would typically be allowed at the house where packaging occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting expert testimony that only those “intimately involved” in a cocaine-packaging operation are typically present at the packaging site, allegedly amounting to an impermissible opinion on guilt.
2. Whether Lockett could challenge the officers’ method of entry under federal knock-and-announce requirements and the Fourth Amendment, and whether the entry was lawful.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and whether other evidentiary rulings required reversal.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Lockett’s convictions.
- The court held the challenged expert testimony was permissible modus operandi evidence about drug-trafficking practices and did not directly opine that Lockett was guilty.
- The court rejected the knock-and-announce and search-related challenges based on lack of a sufficient basis to raise certain objections and/or because the entry satisfied applicable standards.
- The court held the trial evidence, viewed as a whole, was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict and that any other claimed errors did not justify reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony may describe common practices of drug-trafficking operations to help the jury understand conduct and circumstances outside ordinary experience.
- Expert testimony is not inadmissible merely because it supports an inference relevant to an ultimate issue; it becomes improper when it states a direct conclusion of a defendant’s guilt or otherwise displaces the jury’s role.
- A defendant must show a sufficient connection to the premises or privacy interest to litigate certain search-and-entry objections, including challenges invoking knock-and-announce requirements.
- Sufficiency review considers whether the totality of evidence permits a rational jury to find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Lockett’s cocaine convictions, ruling that law-enforcement expert testimony about who is typically permitted at a cocaine-packaging site was admissible background evidence rather than an impermissible opinion on guilt, and concluding that the search-related challenges and remaining trial claims did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Lockett, 919 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1990)