With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of error; and (4) the degree of acceptance in the relevant scientific community.” Id. 4 The citation in an attached footnote recognized that there may be no definitive boundary between “scientific” evidence and evidence based on “technical or other specialized knowledge”: “See also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579, ---, 113 S Ct 2786, 2800, 125 L Ed 2d 469, 487 (1993) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (suggesting that there is no clear demarcation between scientific, technical, and specialized knowledge).” O’Key, 321 Or at 320 n 5. 5 Cf. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 US 137, 148, 119 S Ct 1167, 143 L Ed 2d 238 (1999) (<HOLDING>). 6 Despite the Supreme Court’s suggestion in

A: holding that fre 702 applies to all offers of expert witness testimony requiring that the trial court determine the reliability and relevance of the offered submissions
B: holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge 
C: recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony
D: holding historical cellsite analysis testimony about how cell phones and towers connect clearly based on scientific technical or specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702 quoting fed r evid 701c
C.