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

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

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).

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).

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 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 burden of showing that the good faith exception applies.

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).

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.

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 whether the exception applies, but instead limit

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 whether the exception applies, but instead limit

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

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.

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

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

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 possible, or, if not, may investigate the facts and preserve his evidence.” 12 Neb. App. at 646 , 682 N.W.2d at 727 . - 910 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 27 Nebraska Appellate Reports BAUER v. GENESIS HEALTHCARE GROUP [2,3] We further stated in Williamson: The Nebraska Supreme Court stated in Scott v. Pepsi Cola Co., 249 Neb. 60, 65 , 541 N.W.2d 49, 53 (1995), that “[§] 48-133 [(Reissue 1993)] contemplates a situation where an employer has notice or knowledge suff

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 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 burden of showing that the good faith exception applies.

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress 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 court’s findings for clear error.5 But whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress 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 court’s findings for clear error.5 But whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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 law. 16 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate 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 satisfy the substantial basis test to support probable cause, when police officers act in objectivel

2023ELIAS law. 16 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate 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 satisfy the substantial basis test to support probable cause, when police officers act in objectivel

2022The first ground for suppression 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. Ed. 2d 128 . 46 State v. Kruse, supra note 40 . 47 Id. 48 Id. - 730 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Although McGovern argues that the issuing judge wholly abandoned his judicial role, we disagree.

2022The first ground for suppression 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. Ed. 2d 128 . 46 State v. Kruse, supra note 40 . 47 Id. 48 Id. - 730 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. McGOVERN Although McGovern argues that the issuing judge wholly abandoned his judicial role, we disagree.

2021We agree the good faith exception applies. [48,49] Application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a question of law. 94 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system, as exclusion serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent 92 See id. 93 Stevenson v. State, 455 Md. 709 , 168 A.3d 967 (2017). 94 State v. Sprunger, supra note 10. - 135 - Nebra

2021We agree the good faith exception applies. [48,49] Application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a question of law. 94 The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter such conduct and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system, as exclusion serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent 92 See id. 93 Stevenson v. State, 455 Md. 709 , 168 A.3d 967 (2017). 94 State v. Sprunger, supra note 10. - 135 - Nebra

2021And Short claims the affidavits are so facially inadequate that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply. [32,33] Probable cause sufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant means a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the item to be searched. 71 The Fourth Amendment’s express requirement of particularity for a search warrant is closely related to its express requirement of probable cause. 72 Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained the critical element in a reasonable search of property is not that the owner of property is su

2021And Short claims the affidavits are so facially inadequate that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply. [32,33] Probable cause sufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant means a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the item to be searched. 71 The Fourth Amendment’s express requirement of particularity for a search warrant is closely related to its express requirement of probable cause. 72 Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained the critical element in a reasonable search of property is not that the owner of property is su