Third Circuit Upholds Hotel Room Drug-and-Gun Convictions Despite Improper Expert Testimony

United States v. Evans, No. 24-2156 (3d Cir. May 19, 2026)

TL;DR

The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions of a New Jersey man after police found guns, fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, packaging materials, and cash inside his hotel room. Officers discovered additional drugs hidden above ceiling tiles during the execution of a search warrant.

The Court held:

• Officers acted reasonably when they searched the hotel room ceiling after noticing signs that contraband had been hidden there.

• A detective improperly gave some expert-style opinions while testifying as a lay witness, but the error was harmless because the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming.

The case is a useful reminder that:

• Search warrants allow officers to inspect hidden spaces where the target evidence could reasonably be concealed.

• Drug-trafficking testimony can cross the line from lay testimony into expert testimony.

  
  

Facts

Jabar Evans checked into the Haiban Inn Hotel in Jersey City on April 23, 2021. About two months later, he upgraded from Room 306 to a larger room, Room 207.

After Evans vacated Room 306, housekeeping discovered a plastic bag inside the room safe containing:

• Two handguns,

• Hollow-point ammunition,

• And letters bearing distinctive handwriting.

Police responded and learned Evans had an outstanding arrest warrant. Officers assembled outside Room 207 later that night. Evans initially acknowledged the officers but then stopped responding after they identified themselves as police. He even leaned out the hotel window and made eye contact with officers outside before retreating back inside.

After approximately forty minutes of silence, ESU officers forced entry and arrested Evans without incident.

Police then obtained a search warrant for Room 207 looking for:

• Firearms,

• Ammunition,

• Gun accessories,

• And identifying evidence tying the guns to Evans.

What officers found instead was essentially a full-scale narcotics operation.

Inside the room were:

• Bundles of heroin,

• Fentanyl,

• Methamphetamine,

• Cocaine,

• Crack cocaine,

• Marijuana,

• Codeine,

• Packaging materials,

• Drug presses,

• Scales,

• Cutting agents,

• Stamps and stamp pads,

• Approximately $8,000 cash,

• And roughly 13,000 glassine bags containing narcotics.

During the search, officers noticed a displaced ceiling tile sitting on the bed. A detective pushed upward on the tile and a gun magazine fell from the ceiling area. Officers then removed bags hidden above the ceiling tiles and discovered additional narcotics and packaging materials.

Evans was indicted on:

• Felon in possession of firearms,

• Possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and methamphetamine,

• And possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.

A jury convicted him on all counts.

Issues

1. Did officers exceed the scope of the warrant by searching above the hotel room ceiling tiles?

2. Did the trial court improperly allow a detective to provide expert-style testimony while presented only as a lay witness?

   
   

Holding

The Third Circuit answered all questions against Evans and affirmed the convictions.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The Ceiling Search Was Reasonable Under the Warrant

The Court emphasized that search warrants authorize officers to inspect any area where the target evidence could reasonably be concealed.

Here, officers were searching for:

• Firearms,

• Ammunition,

• Magazines,

• And evidence connecting Evans to the guns.

The detective’s decision to inspect the ceiling was based on observable facts:

• A ceiling tile was already displaced,

• Part of the tile was lying on the bed,

• And Evans had forty minutes alone in the room before police entered.

Once the detective pushed the tile and a gun magazine immediately fell out, the officers had direct confirmation that evidence was hidden there.

The Court compared the search to prior cases where officers lawfully:

• Removed drywall,

• Jackhammered concrete,

• Or searched concealed spaces after observing signs that contraband had been hidden there.

The key point: the method of execution was reasonable under the circumstances.

2. Some of the Detective’s Testimony Improperly Crossed Into Expert Testimony

This portion of the opinion is especially important for trial officers and prosecutors.

Detective Costigan testified extensively about:

• Drug packaging,

• Drug manufacturing,

• Street-level distribution,

• Dealer practices,

• Branding narcotics,

• Cash denominations,

• And why traffickers carry firearms.

The Third Circuit carefully distinguished between:

• Proper lay testimony based on firsthand observations, and

• Improper expert testimony disguised as lay testimony.

The Court explained that officers may testify as lay witnesses when:

• Their opinions are tied directly to what they personally observed,

• And their conclusions come from ordinary reasoning based on those observations.

So the detective could properly explain:

• What items he saw,

• How narcotics were packaged,

• And what the seized tools appeared designed to do.

But the detective crossed the line when he began testifying broadly about:

• How drug traffickers generally operate,

• Why traffickers carry guns,

• How dealers process narcotics,

• And what cash denominations supposedly signify in drug distribution.

Those opinions were not tied directly to observations from the room itself. Instead, they relied on generalized narcotics expertise accumulated over years of law enforcement experience. That made the testimony expert testimony under Rule 702 — not lay testimony under Rule 701.

Still, the Court found the error harmless because the evidence against Evans was overwhelming.

The defense strategy at trial was not that the room lacked evidence of trafficking. Instead, Evans argued the drugs and equipment did not belong to him.

Given the sheer amount of narcotics, manufacturing equipment, and packaging materials recovered, the Court concluded the detective’s improper opinions likely did not affect the verdict.

Street Takeaways

• A search warrant for guns or related evidence can extend into concealed spaces like ceiling voids, crawlspaces, or hidden compartments if officers reasonably believe evidence may be there.

• Officers should articulate why they searched hidden areas. In this case, the displaced ceiling tile and the defendant’s access to the room mattered.

• Drug investigators must be careful when testifying. Once testimony shifts from “what I observed” to “how drug traffickers generally operate,” prosecutors may need to qualify the officer as an expert witness.

• Courts continue to distinguish between:

  • Lay testimony based on firsthand observations, and

  • Expert testimony based on specialized knowledge.

  
  

Disclaimer

This article is provided for law enforcement training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Officers should consult agency policy, local prosecutors, and legal advisors regarding jurisdiction-specific legal standards and procedures.