Defense Motion in Limine/Quash requesting a Daubert Hearing on two officers who made a traffic stop (defective equipment), saw a passenger passing a bag of marihuana to another passenger, search incident to arrest turned up a switchblade belonging to the driver in the center console.

Wait isn't Daubert about admissibility of expert testimony?

What is the defense theory? That the officers were not equipment experts (RADAR?) so they didn't know it was defective... which led to a bad stop because the D wasn't actually in violation?

Or is the equipment maybe a field test for the weed? Are the officers even really testifying as experts? Would they be relating their actual experiences to the court regarding their initial reasonable suspicion for the stop? Wouldn't the "expert" opinions based on experience and training be limited to identification of dope? It wouldnt take an expert to indentify an illegal knife.

Defense theory is to exclude the officer's ability to testify that the 'green leafy substance' was marijuana by challenging the officer in a Daubert hearing where the marijuana was not later sent to a lab - i.e, trying to exclude the marijuana case that was the basis of the search incident to arrest that turned up the driver's switchblade.

The point of Daubert hearings are to exclude testimony based on unreliable [u]scientific[/u] theory or misapplication of a valid scientific theory. The officers did not base their conclusions on scientific theory they based them on experience and common knowledge. Most importantly, the officers did not make any scientific conclusions at all. They did not determine that the green leafy substance was marijuana, that's what a lab is for. The officers determined that it was probable that the substance was marijuana and you don't need an exacting scientific process to make that conclusion.

This sounds like one of those hearings where your response is to just shrug and say, "Judge..." and wait for your favorable ruling.

The officer's testimony is admissible as a lay opinion under Rule 701, just as anyone could testify that they were personally familiar with the smell and appearance of marihuana. Heck, the defendant could even get on the stand and testify that he knows marihuana, marihuana is a good friend of his and State's exhibit No. 1 is not marihuana.

Osbourn v. State 92 s.w.3d 531 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002).

Very useful in trial or at a hearing.