This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D, a United States citizen, attempted to enter the United States from Mexico. A border patrol officer asked her to roll down the car’s rear driver-side window. D responded that the window was manual, so the officer left his inspection booth and tried to roll down the window himself. The officer “felt some resistance” and then heard “a crunch-like sound in the door.” Car doors are a common hiding spot for contraband. The officer investigated further with a “buster,” a handheld tool that measures an object’s density. After the buster detected an abnormal density in the doors, officers brought in a narcotics detection canine and sent the car through an X-ray machine. They discovered 56 packages of methamphetamine tucked inside the car’s door panels and underneath the carpet in the trunk. The methamphetamine weighed just over 54 pounds and had an estimated retail value of $368,550. D claimed that she had no idea drugs were hidden in the car. D was driving her boyfriend’s car. D also told officers that she had seen her boyfriend only “two, three times tops,” did not know his phone number, and did not know where he lived. Officers questioned her about two cell phones discovered inside the car. She acknowledged that she owned one of the phones. But, she maintained the other phone had been “given to [her]” by a friend-whom she would “rather not” identify. D insisted that the phone was “locked” and that she did not “have access to it.” The charges required P to prove that D “knowingly” transported drugs. D argued that she did not know that there were drugs in the car. Special Agent Andrew Flood testified as an expert witness. He planned to explain that drug traffickers “generally do not entrust large quantities of drugs to people who are unaware they are transporting them.” D objected under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). D argued that if Agent Flood testified that drug traffickers never use unknowing couriers, that would be functionally equivalent to an opinion about whether D knowingly transported drugs. The court agreed with D that Agent Flood could not testify in absolute terms about whether all couriers knowingly transport drugs. But, insofar as Agent Flood planned to testify only that most couriers know they are transporting drugs, the court concluded that his testimony was admissible. D testified under the most standard and D was found guilty. D appealed. The Court of Appeals held that Rule 704(b) prohibits only “an ‘explicit opinion’ on the defendant’s state of mind.” Because Agent Flood did not opine about whether D knowingly transported methamphetamine, the court concluded that the testimony did not violate Rule 704(b). The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.