good faith exception in Nebraska

2018Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Reissue 2016). 11 See State v. Thalken, supra note 4 . 12 See State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 , 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015). 13 See State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HATFIELD Cite as 300 Neb. 152 exception to the rule.14 The Birchfield decision did not directly address whether the good faith exception should apply where consent to a blood test is given following an incorrect advise- ment that refusing such a test is a crime. [10] In State v. Hoerle,15 we concluded that the good faith exc

2017In arguing this, Hidalgo asserts that the affidavit did not sufficiently establish the reli- ability of the anonymous tip; the corroboration of information contained in the tip did not establish reliability, because the information confirmed was “innocent details”; an unspecified amount of marijuana leaves, seeds, and stems found during a trash pull does not establish probable cause; and the good faith exception does not apply here.2 1 State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). 2 Brief for appellant at 10. - 917 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v.

2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella

2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella

2023Following the cases discussed above, the U.S. Supreme Court further clarified the good faith exception in Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 , 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009).

2023Following the cases discussed above, the U.S. Supreme Court further clarified the good faith exception in Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 , 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009).

2019We recognize that the State has the 23 Id. at 548-49, 723 N.W.2d at 346 . 24 Id. at 553 , 723 N.W.23d 349. 25 See id. 26 State v. Nielsen, 301 Neb. 88 , 917 N.W.2d 159 (2018). - 810 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. KRUSE Cite as 303 Neb. 799 burden of showing that the good faith exception applies.

2019We recognize that the State has the 23 Id. at 548-49, 723 N.W.2d at 346 . 24 Id. at 553 , 723 N.W.23d 349. 25 See id. 26 State v. Nielsen, 301 Neb. 88 , 917 N.W.2d 159 (2018). - 810 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. KRUSE Cite as 303 Neb. 799 burden of showing that the good faith exception applies.

2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella

2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella

2023See Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011); Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 (1995); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (1987).

2023See Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011); Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 (1995); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (1987).

2019As noted, although Kruse argues the good faith exception does not apply to this case, he does not argue that any issues of fact exist as to 30 See Ortega, supra note 20. 31 See State v. Simnick, 279 Neb. 499 , 779 N.W.2d 335 (2010). 32 See State v. Marshall, 269 Neb. 56 , 690 N.W.2d 593 (2005). 33 See Nielsen, supra note 26 . 34 State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271 , 854 N.W.2d 616 (2014). 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Tompkins, supra note 14, 272 Neb. at 553, 723 N.W.2d at 349 . - 812 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. KRUSE Cite as 303 Neb. 799 whether the exception appli

2017Ed. 2d 677 (1984); State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271 , 854 N.W.2d 616 (2014). - 847 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HOERLE Cite as 297 Neb. 840 The exclusionary rule “operates as ‘a judicially created rem- edy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.’”17 Thus, a Fourth Amendment violation does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies.18 [8] Because the exclusionary rule should not be applied to objectively reasonable law enforcem

2018In Tompkins , we did cite U.S. v. Hahn, 922 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1991), a case in which a federal appellate court declined to apply the exception because the prosecution had not raised the issue before the trial court.

2018U.S. v. Hahn, 922 F.2d at 248 .

2015Even if they violated the 31 State v. LeBron, supra note 24, 217 Neb. at 454-55 , 349 N.W.2d at 921 (quoting United States v. Fitzgerald, supra note 30 ). - 937 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. TYLER Cite as 291 Neb. 920 particularity requirement, exclusion is not required, because the good faith exception applies. [10,11] That a Fourth Amendment violation occurred does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies.32 The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter police misconduct.33 It is inapplicable to evidence obtained pursuant to

2015Even if they violated the 31 State v. LeBron, supra note 24, 217 Neb. at 454-55 , 349 N.W.2d at 921 (quoting United States v. Fitzgerald, supra note 30 ). - 937 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. TYLER Cite as 291 Neb. 920 particularity requirement, exclusion is not required, because the good faith exception applies. [10,11] That a Fourth Amendment violation occurred does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies.32 The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter police misconduct.33 It is inapplicable to evidence obtained pursuant to

2023See Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011); Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 (1995); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (1987).

2023See Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 , 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011); Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 (1995); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 (1987).

2023The employer is entitled to an early demand, so that he may know the nature and amount of the claim; may settle it, if possible, or, if not, may investigate the facts and preserve his evidence.” Id. at 646, 682 N.W.2d at 727 .

2019The employer is entitled to an early demand, so that he may know the nature and amount of the claim; may settle it, if pos- sible, or, if not, may investigate the facts and preserve his evidence.” 12 Neb.

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sup- press based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review.4 Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial 3 See State v. Hildago, 296 Neb. 912 , 896 N.W.2d 148 (2017). 4 Id. - 805 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. KRUSE Cite as 303 Neb. 799 court’s findings for clear error.5 But whether those facts trig- ger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews in

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sup- press based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review.4 Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial 3 See State v. Hildago, 296 Neb. 912 , 896 N.W.2d 148 (2017). 4 Id. - 805 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. KRUSE Cite as 303 Neb. 799 court’s findings for clear error.5 But whether those facts trig- ger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews in

2019We recognize that the State has the 23 Id. at 548-49, 723 N.W.2d at 346 . 24 Id. at 553 , 723 N.W.23d 349. 25 See id. 26 State v. Nielsen, 301 Neb. 88 , 917 N.W.2d 159 (2018). - 810 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. KRUSE Cite as 303 Neb. 799 burden of showing that the good faith exception applies.

2019We recognize that the State has the 23 Id. at 548-49, 723 N.W.2d at 346 . 24 Id. at 553 , 723 N.W.23d 349. 25 See id. 26 State v. Nielsen, 301 Neb. 88 , 917 N.W.2d 159 (2018). - 810 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. KRUSE Cite as 303 Neb. 799 burden of showing that the good faith exception applies.

2018TOMPKINS ON APPEAL Finally, Henderson alleges that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that our opinion in State v. Tompkins , 272 Neb. 547 , 723 N.W.2d 344 (2006), modified on denial of rehearing 272 Neb. 865 , 727 N.W.2d 423 (2007), precluded us from finding, as argued by the State on direct appeal, that text messages from the cell phone found on Henderson were admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

2018TOMPKINS ON APPEAL Finally, Henderson alleges that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that our opinion in State v. Tompkins , 272 Neb. 547 , 723 N.W.2d 344 (2006), modified on denial of rehearing 272 Neb. 865 , 727 N.W.2d 423 (2007), precluded us from finding, as argued by the State on direct appeal, that text messages from the cell phone found on Henderson were admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

2018Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Reissue 2016). 11 See State v. Thalken, supra note 4 . 12 See State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 , 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015). 13 See State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HATFIELD Cite as 300 Neb. 152 exception to the rule.14 The Birchfield decision did not directly address whether the good faith exception should apply where consent to a blood test is given following an incorrect advise- ment that refusing such a test is a crime. [10] In State v. Hoerle,15 we concluded that the good faith exc

2015Even if they violated the 31 State v. LeBron, supra note 24, 217 Neb. at 454-55 , 349 N.W.2d at 921 (quoting United States v. Fitzgerald, supra note 30 ). - 937 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. TYLER Cite as 291 Neb. 920 particularity requirement, exclusion is not required, because the good faith exception applies. [10,11] That a Fourth Amendment violation occurred does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies.32 The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter police misconduct.33 It is inapplicable to evidence obtained pursuant to

2000The Court of Appeals, in reaching its conclusion that the good faith exception did not apply, relied upon this court’s decision in State v. Reeder, 249 Neb. 207 , 543 N.W.2d 429 (1996), for the proposition that the test for reasonable reliance was whether the affidavit was sufficient to create disagreement among thoughtful and reasonable judges as to the existence of probable cause.

2000The Court of Appeals, in reaching its conclusion that the good faith exception did not apply, relied upon this court’s decision in State v. Reeder, 249 Neb. 207 , 543 N.W.2d 429 (1996), for the proposition that the test for reasonable reliance was whether the affidavit was sufficient to create disagreement among thoughtful and reasonable judges as to the existence of probable cause.

2024HOEHN Cite as 316 Neb. 634 time of the violation, the Court of Appeals held that “Rockwell could have reasonably believed that he had jurisdictional authority to stop and arrest Hoehn.” 13 And because Rockwell had probable cause justifying the stop and arrest, the Court of Appeals determined Rockwell’s actions were not carried out in a deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard of Hoehn’s Fourth Amendment rights.

2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella

2024The Nebraska Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of § 29-215(3)(c) and found that the officer lacked jurisdictional authority to make the stop and arrest. 1 The Court of Appeals held that under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule, the defendant’s conviction, based on the evidence from his stop and arrest, 1 See State v. Hoehn, 32 Neb.

2024App. 446 , 999 N.W.2d 599 (2023). - 636 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 316 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2024ANDERSON Cite as 317 Neb. 435 because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in resi- dential units leased to others.

2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella

2024Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Hoehn’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution were violated, invoking the exclusionary rule. (iii) Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule Lastly, the Court of Appeals determined that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. 10 Because the exclusionary rule was created to deter police misconduct rather than to punish errors, 11 it does not apply to objectively reasonable law enforcement activity. 12 Because § 29-215(3)(c) had not previously been construed by an appella

2023ELIAS Cite as 314 Neb. 494 law. 16 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliber- ate that exclusion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system, because exclusion serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances, recurring or systemic negligence. 17 The good faith exception is applicable to an affidavit that fails to sat- isfy the substantial basis test to support probable cause, when police o

2023ELIAS Cite as 314 Neb. 494 law. 16 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliber- ate that exclusion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system, because exclusion serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances, recurring or systemic negligence. 17 The good faith exception is applicable to an affidavit that fails to sat- isfy the substantial basis test to support probable cause, when police o

2022The first ground for suppres- sion does not apply. 45 State v. Jennings, 305 Neb. 809 , 942 N.W.2d 753 (2020), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 432 , 208 L.

2022The first ground for suppres- sion does not apply. 45 State v. Jennings, 305 Neb. 809 , 942 N.W.2d 753 (2020), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 432 , 208 L.

2021Ed. 2d 496 (2009). 96 See State v. Sprunger, supra note 10. 97 Id. 98 Id. 99 See, United States v. Leon, supra note 83 ; State v. Sprunger, supra note 10; State v. Nuss, 279 Neb. 648 , 781 N.W.2d 60 (2010); State v. Edmonson, 257 Neb. 468 , 598 N.W.2d 450 (1999). 100 U.S. v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir. 2017). - 136 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SHORT Cite as 310 Neb. 81 The affidavits contained a modicum of evidence between the criminal activity at issue and the places to be searched, and the knowledge of law enforcement outside the four corners o

2021Ed. 2d 496 (2009). 96 See State v. Sprunger, supra note 10. 97 Id. 98 Id. 99 See, United States v. Leon, supra note 83 ; State v. Sprunger, supra note 10; State v. Nuss, 279 Neb. 648 , 781 N.W.2d 60 (2010); State v. Edmonson, 257 Neb. 468 , 598 N.W.2d 450 (1999). 100 U.S. v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir. 2017). - 136 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SHORT Cite as 310 Neb. 81 The affidavits contained a modicum of evidence between the criminal activity at issue and the places to be searched, and the knowledge of law enforcement outside the four corners o