United States v. Lackey, 1:17-cr-00269

Defendant Maurice Lackey moved in limine to exclude expert testimony by Sgt. 1st Class Kimberly Boltz regarding IONSCAN testing of currency recovered from Lackey (and Akeem Simmons).
Boltz performed the test with a Smiths Detection IONSCAN 500DT and is proffered as an expert on IONSCAN technology, tests, and reports.
Lackey argued Boltz’s opinions were unreliable because the government failed to describe her methodology, prior IONSCAN reports varied across contexts, and the technique allegedly lacks uniform standards, peer review, and testability.
The government defended admissibility, pointing to Boltz’s training, certification on the IONSCAN 500DT, use of standard procedures, and supporting expected testimony from Dr. Richard Lareau about how IONSCAN devices work.
The court applied Rule 702 and Daubert/Kumho standards (qualification, reliability, fit), found Boltz well qualified, her methods sufficiently reliable and customary (including widespread use of IONSCAN devices), and her testimony fit and would assist the jury.
The motion to exclude was denied without prejudice; the defense may challenge or cross-examine Boltz on specific testimony at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualification of expert	Boltz is trained, certified, and experienced with IONSCAN 500DT	Experience alone insufficient for expert status	Court: Boltz is well-qualified; qualification standard construed liberally
Reliability of Boltz's methodology	Boltz used standard procedures from training and certification; methods are commonly used and will be supported by Dr. Lareau	Government failed to disclose methodology; prior reports varied by context; methods not uniformly testable or peer-reviewed	Court: Reliability standard is relatively low; Boltz's methods and experience suffice; methodology admissible; weaknesses go to weight
Fitness (relevance/usefulness)	Boltz’s testimony will help jury understand testing and whether currency was exposed to controlled substances	Testimony may overreach or be prejudicial	Court: Testimony is relevant and will assist jury; admissible under Rule 702; not merely telling jury the result

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical and other expert testimony)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (establishes admissibility factors for expert testimony)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (Third Circuit frames qualification, reliability, and fit trilogy)
Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003) (describes the trilogy of expert restrictions)
Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998) (qualification requirement to be interpreted liberally)
In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999) (expert basis need not be perfect; low threshold for admissibility)
Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 702 favors liberal admissibility when testimony assists factfinder)
Kannankeril v. Terminix Int’l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802 (3d Cir. 1997) (discusses admissibility and weight considerations)
Braun v. Maynard, 652 F.3d 557 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizes widespread use of IONSCAN devices)
United States v. Hernandez-De La Rosa, 606 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.P.R. 2009) (accepted IONSCAN reliability in a Daubert analysis)
Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 630 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (describes the relatively low standard for measuring reliability)