Scope of a Search When Executing a Search Warrant

USA v. Evans, (3d Cir. 2026) May 19th 2026

In United States v. Evans, officers obtained a warrant to search a New Jersey hotel room for evidence connecting its occupant to illegal firearms. During the search, a detective noticed a piece of broken ceiling tile sitting on the bed. Standing on the bed, he pressed on the damaged tile, causing a loaded pistol magazine to fall from the ceiling. Searching the area above the drop ceiling, officers recovered duffel bags containing drugs, cash, and other incriminating evidence.

Evans argued the search exceeded the warrant’s scope. The 3rd Circuit disagreed, holding the ceiling space was a reasonable place to search for the items listed in the warrant. The damaged ceiling, the fallen magazine, and Evans’ opportunity to access the area all supported the detective’s decision to search the ceiling cavity.

A search warrant authorizes officers to look anywhere the listed evidence could reasonably be hidden. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in United States v. Ross (456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982)), the scope of a lawful search is defined by “the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.”

The principle is straightforward. A warrant for drugs, firearms, ammunition, cash, or documents may justify searching drawers, backpacks, crawlspaces … and the space above a drop ceiling. A warrant for a stolen refrigerator likely does not.

That’s precisely why the search in Evans was upheld. Firearm accessories and identifying evidence could reasonably have been hidden above the ceiling tiles.

‍

I periodically receive questions asking if the PACKTRACK record keeping system collects “double blind training” data. I was recently contacted by a new supervisor who was attending a class where this was discussed. It was his impression that the instructor was advocating for double blind training and that this was a necessary requirement to prove reliability. I can’t comment directly on the instruction as I wasn’t there. However, I do have considerable experience in this area. I’m also quite familiar with the views expressed by a range of defense experts, podcast authorities and trainers.

It’s easy to confuse the clinical definition of this topic with the practical application for police K9 training. In a double blind study, neither the participants nor the experimenters are aware of the test details. This helps eliminate bias and human influence. As a result, it’s considered the “gold standard” for scientific research. So why wouldn’t we use the same methodology for K9 training?

To properly explore this topic we need to start with a shared understanding of what “double blind” means in the context of police K9 training. Let’s see how it would work. In this type of training neither the handler nor the trainer can know:

•  If the target odor is present
•  Where the target odor is concealed
•  The intended purpose or goal of the training exercise

Think about what this might mean for the quality of training that you and your K9 receive. By applying this rigid model, the handler and trainer:

•  Don’t know if the final response was correct
•  Don’t know if the target odor was missed
•  Don’t know if the target odor was found using proper handling skills
•  Don’t know why a target odor wasn’t found (was it the dog, the handler, the environment?)
•  Can’t take corrective action at the appropriate time to effectively train and condition the behavior of the dog or the handler

This isn’t training, it’s shared ignorance. The timing of actions taken by the handler to correct or reinforce the behavior of the dog is critical to properly conditioning the canine. How are the handler, trainer and K9 supposed to improve under these conditions?

Rewarding or correcting a detection canine in an effective manner simply isn’t possible in a “double blind training” environment. Our goal is to train with intention and purpose. We want to correct or reinforce behaviors in a timely manner and push the handler and canine beyond their comfort zones. This is how we grow confidence and proficiency.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not against “double blind testing“. This is a very real activity that may be needed depending on the circumstances. However, “double blind training” just isn’t a thing. If you want to test yourself or your teams then please do so. Just don’t call it training.

‍

Make me Understand…

What your tattoos, your stickers, andyour t-shirts say about you as a L.E. professionals?

Exhibits 1 thru 14 were photographs of the defendant officer who was being sued for excessive use of force with his police dog. Many of the photographs appeared to have been copied from social media posts and all of them had graphic designs relating to police dogs or law enforcement in some relatable way. The line of questioning during the defendant’s civil deposition went something like this…

Officer, do you recognize the arms and tattoos in this photograph? The officer answers, yes, these are my arms and tattoos. Are any of your tattoo’s numbers and if so, what do they mean? The officer affirms that there are vertical hashes which represent one number for each. The 5^th line marks across four vertical lines to represent 5 in total for easier tabulation. The next question was, how many do these lines total in number? The officer replied, 57, then chuckles and says, “I am starting to run out of room for more.” The plaintiff’s attorney asks, what do these numbers mean? The officer answers back, “I have one for each dog bite that I’ve had with my police dog.”

The next several photographs were of stickers on the back of the officer’s laptop while it was mounted in his police car. The graphics were of aggressive dog heads, showing their teeth, a cartoon sticker with a police dog holding a severed human arm. More photographs depicted T-shirts that had the same types of graphics. One shirt had “TSGB” on it and the plaintiff’s attorney asked what that meant. The officer said, it means Talk Shit Get Bit.

I’d like to suggest to you, to consider these things from the perspective of someone outside the law enforcement profession. How do you think people might react and what opinions of us do you think they might have of us when they see these things? Our thoughts are expressed openly and displayed publicly with pictures and phrases written on the things that we wear and use daily. I would encourage you to represent yourself and the rest of us more professionally and less controversially.

These photographs/exhibits were introduced to the courts during this litigation for the exclusive purpose of demonstrating the mindset of the officer. He was keeping track of his bites by marking each one as a tattoo. The officer was keeping score and celebrating police violence to boast about the number of police dog bites he was getting. Most of our citizens have very little or no contact with police officers during their lives. The legal scrutiny that comes from the sayings on the shirts, stickers and tattoos can easily sway the opinions of people who sit on juries and judge your behavior.

K9 handlers and supporters argue that the sayings and images should be taken lightheartedly and at worst, just dark cop humor. Violence is simply an inherit part of the roles that the patrol dogs provide in real life situations where violence is met with violence to enforce the laws, some might argue. One side argues that the K9 aggression is a de-escalation method, and the shirts warn of the known consequences of committing criminal violence upon our citizens. Civil rights advocates call them a representation of a “brutality culture” and a promotion to glorify excessive force with police dogs.

I’m a retired police officer with more than 3 decades of police dog experience. Make me understand your thinking behind the shirts, stickers and tattoos. Be prepared, learn to articulate your thoughts, your opinions and your decisions.