This action arises out of the execution of search warrants on three properties owned by one or more of the Plaintiffs, John Andros and his wife, Julie Andros (together the “Androses”), Kings Parkway, LLC d/b/a 67 Motors (“67 Motors”), and Ideal Transport, LLC. The locations searched were the Androses’ home located at 172 Primrose Lane, Homerville, Georgia (“Residence”), the office and real estate on which 67 Motors is located at 67 West Plant Ave., Homerville, Georgia, and the office and real estate on which Ideal Transport is located at 174 Primrose Lane, Homerville, Georgia.
Although the three warrants were later quashed, an employee of National Insurance Crime Bureau (“NICB”), Special Agent Trent Van Lannen (“Van Lannen”), participated in the search at 67 Motors. Van Lannen was not physically present for the searches conducted at the Residence nor at Ideal Transport. Although Van Lannen used the title Special Agent he is not a law enforcement officer. NICB is a private company put together by large insurance companies to combat fraud. During the time he was present at 67 Motors, Van Lannen did not inform employees present at 67 Motors that he was not a law enforcement officer. Nor did any of the employees inquire whether he was a law enforcement officer.
NICB sought to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness Gary Vowell.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness
Gary Vowell has been a certified police officer in Georgia since 1977. He retired as the head of the Georgia Department of Public Safety in 2020. He has taught numerous courses dealing with policing in classrooms across the State of Georgia.
Discussion by the Court
NICB did not contest Vowell’s expertise. Nor did it contend that he is unqualified to opine on police procedures. Rather, NICB argued that Vowell’s testimony should be excluded because his opinions (1) on Van Lannen’s actions create duties where none exist in the law, (2) go to the ultimate issue in the case, and (3) are speculative to the extent he opines that had Van Lannen read the warrant, Van Lannen would have known he was not allowed to participate in the search. NICB also asserted that Vowell’s opinions are not helpful to the jury and are unnecessary because there are no aspects of Vowell’s opinions that cannot be adequately argued by counsel and understood by the jurors.
Plaintiffs argued that Vowell’s opinions provide information about law enforcement practices in a specialized professional context; i.e., law enforcement standards and the scope of permissible civilian participation.
While the full extent of Vowell’s testimony is unclear at this time, it appeared that it is intended to provide the jury with knowledge of law enforcement practices and procedures when a private citizen is involved in execution of search warrants as well as the responsibilities and reasonableness of actions taken by such private citizen. At this point, the Court found that it is not appropriate to preclude such testimony.
Held
The Court denied Defendant National Insurance Crime Bureau’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Gary Vowell. Of course, as permitted, the Court may reconsider upon the actual evidence presented at trial and each party continues to bear the responsibility to raise necessary or appropriate objections.
Key Takeaway
The standard to determine helpfulness is whether the expert testimony “concerns matters that are beyond the understanding of the average lay person.” Here, a lay juror would not know the practices and procedures regarding allowing private citizens to be present at, or to participate in, the execution of a search warrant, whether Van Lannen’s actions were consistent with those practices and procedures, or whether those actions were reasonable, considering Van Lannen’s own assertion of expertise in assisting law enforcement.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Andros v. National Insurance Crime Bureau Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 7:23cv135 |
| Case Name: | United States District Court, Georgia Middle |
| Order Date: | June 04, 2026 |
Leave a Reply