Terry stop in Nebraska

2019Because we also find that Shiffermiller’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, we affirm. 3 State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 , 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709 , 901 N.W.2d 272 (2017). 7 State v. Botts, 299 Neb. 806 , 910 N.W.2d 779 (2018). 8 See Terry v. Ohio, supra note 2 . - 254 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER 1.

2019Because we also find that Shiffermiller’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, we affirm. 3 State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 , 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709 , 901 N.W.2d 272 (2017). 7 State v. Botts, 299 Neb. 806 , 910 N.W.2d 779 (2018). 8 See Terry v. Ohio, supra note 2 . - 254 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER 1.

2019Because we also find that Shiffermiller’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, we affirm. 3 State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 , 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709 , 901 N.W.2d 272 (2017). 7 State v. Botts, 299 Neb. 806 , 910 N.W.2d 779 (2018). 8 See Terry v. Ohio, supra note 2 . - 254 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER 1.

2019Because we also find that Shiffermiller’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, we affirm. 3 State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 , 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709 , 901 N.W.2d 272 (2017). 7 State v. Botts, 299 Neb. 806 , 910 N.W.2d 779 (2018). 8 See Terry v. Ohio, supra note 2 . - 254 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER 1.

2019Because we also find that Shiffermiller’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, we affirm. 3 State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 , 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709 , 901 N.W.2d 272 (2017). 7 State v. Botts, 299 Neb. 806 , 910 N.W.2d 779 (2018). 8 See Terry v. Ohio, supra note 2 . - 254 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER 1.

2019Because we also find that Shiffermiller’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, we affirm. 3 State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 , 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013). 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709 , 901 N.W.2d 272 (2017). 7 State v. Botts, 299 Neb. 806 , 910 N.W.2d 779 (2018). 8 See Terry v. Ohio, supra note 2 . - 254 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER 1.

2018In State v. Wells, supra , the Nebraska Supreme Court stated that whether a detention is reasonable under the circumstances depends on a multitude of factors, including those factors set forth in United States v. Jones , 759 F.2d 633 (8th Cir.1985), an Eighth Circuit case examining the reasonable use of force during a Terry stop.

2018Id. [9] In State v. Wells, supra, the Nebraska Supreme Court stated that whether a detention is reasonable under the circum- stances depends on a multitude of factors, including those fac- tors set forth in United States v. Jones, 759 F.2d 633 (8th Cir. 1985), an Eighth Circuit case examining the reasonable use of force during a Terry stop.

2017In this case, we agree that the administration of a PBT is more in line with field sobriety testing and a Terry stop than it would be with a formal arrest. . . . . . . [A]n officer is reasonable in administering a PBT if he can point to specific, articulable facts indicating that an individual has been driving [while] under the influence of alcohol. - 956 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. McCUMBER Cite as 295 Neb. 941 State v. Prescott, 280 Neb. at 110-11 , 784 N.W.2d at 885-86 .

2017In this case, we agree that the administration of a PBT is more in line with field sobriety testing and a Terry stop than it would be with a formal arrest. . . . . . . [A]n officer is reasonable in administering a PBT if he can point to specific, articulable facts indicating that an individual has been driving [while] under the influence of alcohol. - 956 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. McCUMBER Cite as 295 Neb. 941 State v. Prescott, 280 Neb. at 110-11 , 784 N.W.2d at 885-86 .

2000State v. Chitty, 5 Neb.

1997See, State v. Williams, 249 Neb. 582 , 544 N.W.2d 350 (1996); State v. Kimminau, 240 Neb. 176 , 481 N.W.2d 183 (1992); State v. Chitty, ante p. 412, 559 N.W.2d 511 (1997); § 29-829.

2021We agree with the State. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 State v. Hartzell, 304 Neb. 82 , 933 N.W.2d 441 (2019). - 493 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LOWMAN The interaction started with noncoercive questioning.

2021We agree with the State. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 State v. Hartzell, 304 Neb. 82 , 933 N.W.2d 441 (2019). - 493 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LOWMAN The interaction started with noncoercive questioning.

2021The fact that the officers had no personal knowledge regarding the specific circumstances of the shots-fired incident is irrelevant, because this court has adopted the collective knowledge doctrine. “‘[I]nformation known to all of the police officers acting in concert can be examined when determining whether the officer initiating the stop had reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop.’” 39 Thomas concedes that reasonable suspicion may be based on a vehicle description alone when in relation to a crime 36 State v. Montoya, 305 Neb. 581 , 941 N.W.2d 474 (2020). 37 Id. 38 See Terry, supra not

2021The fact that the officers had no personal knowledge regarding the specific circumstances of the shots-fired incident is irrelevant, because this court has adopted the collective knowledge doctrine. “‘[I]nformation known to all of the police officers acting in concert can be examined when determining whether the officer initiating the stop had reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop.’” 39 Thomas concedes that reasonable suspicion may be based on a vehicle description alone when in relation to a crime 36 State v. Montoya, 305 Neb. 581 , 941 N.W.2d 474 (2020). 37 Id. 38 See Terry, supra not

2018A search of Shiffermiller’s - 269 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER Cite as 26 Neb.

2018Motion to Suppress The issues presented by this case are whether the stop of Shiffermiller exceeded the permissible scope and duration of a Terry stop, and whether Shiffermiller’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, necessitating suppression of the evidence gathered during the stop. - 258 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. SHIFFERMILLER Cite as 26 Neb.

2017In this case, we agree that the administration of a PBT is more in line with field sobriety testing and a Terry stop than it would be with a formal arrest. . . . . . . [A]n officer is reasonable in administering a PBT if he can point to specific, articulable facts indicating that an individual has been driving [while] under the influence of alcohol. - 956 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. McCUMBER Cite as 295 Neb. 941 State v. Prescott, 280 Neb. at 110-11 , 784 N.W.2d at 885-86 .

2015The district court concluded that this court’s opinion in Wilson, supra, “indicated that the allegations raised by [Terry in the motion to determine amounts due] constituted a material change in circumstances” and concluded that this was “a final Appellate Order” which was “both mandatory Vertical Stare Decisis, and the Law of the Case in this case and . . . binding on [the district court].” The district court held that this court’s opinion in Wilson, supra, “in referring to this case as one of a change of circumstances is Res Judicata, as [Christine] elected not to pursue a Petition for Furth

2015In Wilson, - 66 - Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals 23 Nebraska A ppellate R eports WILSON v. WILSON Cite as 23 Neb.

2014According to Hill, he was subjected to a Terry stop 6 State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531 , 811 N.W.2d 235 (2012). 7 Id. 8 See State v. Matit, ante p. 163, 846 N.W.2d 232 (2014). 9 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra note 2 .

2008We stated that other jurisdictions have determined that a roadside sobriety test "is more analogous to a limited Terry stop than to a formal arrest and may be justified by an officer's reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the driver is intoxicated." State v. Thomte, 226 Neb. at 664 , 413 N.W.2d at 919 .

2008We stated that other jurisdictions have determined that a roadside sobriety test "is more analogous to a limited Terry stop than to a formal arrest and may be justified by an officer's reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the driver is intoxicated." State v. Thomte, 226 Neb. at 664 , 413 N.W.2d at 919 .

2007The defendant in People v. Vasquez argued the Texas set-aside was similar to a pardon and cited People v. Terry, 61 Cal. 2d 137 , 390 P.2d 381 , 37 Cal. Rptr. 605 (1964), overruled, People v. Laino, 32 Cal. 4th 878 , 87 P.3d 27 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723 (2004), to support the propositions that a pardon must be given full faith and credit in accord with article IV, § 1, of the U.S. Constitution and that the Texas set-aside should have the same effect in his case as an Oklahoma pardon which was held in Terry to prevent the use of the pardoned conviction in the Terry defendant’s case.

2007The defendant in People v. Vasquez argued the Texas set-aside was similar to a pardon and cited People v. Terry, 61 Cal. 2d 137 , 390 P.2d 381 , 37 Cal. Rptr. 605 (1964), overruled, People v. Laino, 32 Cal. 4th 878 , 87 P.3d 27 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723 (2004), to support the propositions that a pardon must be given full faith and credit in accord with article IV, § 1, of the U.S. Constitution and that the Texas set-aside should have the same effect in his case as an Oklahoma pardon which was held in Terry to prevent the use of the pardoned conviction in the Terry defendant’s case.

2007The defendant in People v. Vasquez argued the Texas set-aside was similar to a pardon and cited People v. Terry, 61 Cal. 2d 137 , 390 P.2d 381 , 37 Cal. Rptr. 605 (1964), overruled, People v. Laino, 32 Cal. 4th 878 , 87 P.3d 27 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723 (2004), to support the propositions that a pardon must be given full faith and credit in accord with article IV, § 1, of the U.S. Constitution and that the Texas set-aside should have the same effect in his case as an Oklahoma pardon which was held in Terry to prevent the use of the pardoned conviction in the Terry defendant’s case.

2007The defendant in People v. Vasquez argued the Texas set-aside was similar to a pardon and cited People v. Terry, 61 Cal. 2d 137 , 390 P.2d 381 , 37 Cal. Rptr. 605 (1964), overruled, People v. Laino, 32 Cal. 4th 878 , 87 P.3d 27 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723 (2004), to support the propositions that a pardon must be given full faith and credit in accord with article IV, § 1, of the U.S. Constitution and that the Texas set-aside should have the same effect in his case as an Oklahoma pardon which was held in Terry to prevent the use of the pardoned conviction in the Terry defendant’s case.

2006U.S. v. Hardy, supra. See, also, State v. Lee, 265 Neb. 663 , 658 N.W.2d 669 (2003).

2006U.S. v. Hardy, supra. See, also, State v. Lee, 265 Neb. 663 , 658 N.W.2d 669 (2003).

2001Ed. 2d 604 (1985) (officer may rely on flyer or bulletin in making Terry stop if bulletin is based on articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion); State v. Benson, 198 Neb. 14 , 251 N.W.2d 659 (1977) (where no evidence was provided at suppression hearing regarding information or facts relied on as factual foundation for broadcast message, radio message alone did not establish existence of reasonable suspicion); State v. Micek, 193 Neb. 379 , 227 N.W.2d 409 (1975) (upholding traffic stop made solely on basis of radio bulletin that was based on facts creating reasonable suspicion or proba

2001Ed. 2d 604 (1985) (officer may rely on flyer or bulletin in making Terry stop if bulletin is based on articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion); State v. Benson, 198 Neb. 14 , 251 N.W.2d 659 (1977) (where no evidence was provided at suppression hearing regarding information or facts relied on as factual foundation for broadcast message, radio message alone did not establish existence of reasonable suspicion); State v. Micek, 193 Neb. 379 , 227 N.W.2d 409 (1975) (upholding traffic stop made solely on basis of radio bulletin that was based on facts creating reasonable suspicion or proba

2001App. 855 , 578 N.W.2d 453 (1998) (reasonable suspicion not present where State offered no factual foundation for fellow officer’s warning to arresting officer that driver of red pickup was drug dealer and had drugs on his person), overruled on other grounds, State v. Anderson, 258 Neb. 627 , 605 N.W.2d 124 (2000).

2001Ed. 2d 604 (1985) (officer may rely on flyer or bulletin in making Terry stop if bulletin is based on articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion); State v. Benson, 198 Neb. 14 , 251 N.W.2d 659 (1977) (where no evidence was provided at suppression hearing regarding information or facts relied on as factual foundation for broadcast message, radio message alone did not establish existence of reasonable suspicion); State v. Micek, 193 Neb. 379 , 227 N.W.2d 409 (1975) (upholding traffic stop made solely on basis of radio bulletin that was based on facts creating reasonable suspicion or proba

2001App. 855 , 578 N.W.2d 453 (1998) (reasonable suspicion not present where State offered no factual foundation for fellow officer’s warning to arresting officer that driver of red pickup was drug dealer and had drugs on his person), overruled on other grounds, State v. Anderson, 258 Neb. 627 , 605 N.W.2d 124 (2000).

2001App. 855 , 578 N.W.2d 453 (1998) (reasonable suspicion not present where State offered no factual foundation for fellow officer’s warning to arresting officer that driver of red pickup was drug dealer and had drugs on his person), overruled on other grounds, State v. Anderson, 258 Neb. 627 , 605 N.W.2d 124 (2000).