Any person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move for return of the property so seized and to suppress its use as evidence. The motion shall be filed in the district court where a felony is charged and may be made at any time after the information or indictment is filed, and must be filed at least ten days before trial or at the time of arraignment, whichever is the later, unless otherwise permitted by the court for good cause shown. Where the charge is other than a felony, the motion shall be filed in the court where the complaint is pending, and must be filed at least ten days before trial or at the time of the plea to the complaint, whichever is the later, unless otherwise permitted by the court for good cause shown. Unless claims of unlawful search and seizure are raised by motion before trial as herein provided, all objections to use of the property as evidence on the ground that it was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure shall be deemed waived; Provided, that the court may entertain such motions to suppress after the commencement of trial where the defendant is surprised by the possession of such evidence by the state, and also may in its discretion then entertain the motion where the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion before commencement of the trial. In the event that the trial court entertains any such motion after the commencement of trial, the defendant shall be deemed to have waived any jeopardy which may have attached.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case:
State v. Cotton, 299 Neb. 650 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Cotton, 299 Neb. 650 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-822 (Reissue 2016) provides, in relevant part, the following: Any person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move for return of the property so seized and to suppress its use as evidence.”
State v. March, 658 N.W.2d 20 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 15× “ess entry was justified by the emergency exception, (2) that the single judge did not err in determining that the *453 trial court’s finding regarding the timing of Webber’s observations of the bathroom was clearly erroneous, and (3) that because March failed to file a second…”
State v. Pope, 224 N.W.2d 521 (Neb. 1974).
· cites it 22× “We wish to point out, however, that the pretrial motions to suppress made by the defendants pursuant to section 29-822, R.R.S.1943, were overruled by the court after a hearing.”
State v. Van Ackeren, 265 N.W.2d 675 (Neb. 1978).
· cites it 8× “Section 29-822, R. R. S. 1943, provides that motions to suppress evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure must be filed at least 10 days before trial or at the time of the plea to the complaint, whichever is the later, and provides: “Unless claims of unlawful search…”
State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “16 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-822 (Reissue 2016). 17 State v.”
State v. Vrtiska, 406 N.W.2d 114 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 4× “MOTION TO SUPPRESS In district court, Vrtiska, as authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-822 (Reissue 1985), filed a motion to suppress all physical evidence obtained under the search warrant for his residence and alleged that such search violated his rights “under the applicable…”
State v. Bartlett, 233 N.W.2d 904 (Neb. 1975).
· cites it 10× “No previous motion to suppress, directed to the money found in the search of defendant’s home, had been made under the provisions of section 29-822, R. R. S. 1943. A motion to suppress the evidence seized at the time and place of the defendant’s arrest had been timely filed,…”
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 4× “1995); and Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-822 (Reissue 1995). Nebraska's wiretap statutes are found at §§ 86-701 to 86-712.”
State v. Konfrst, 556 N.W.2d 250 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-822 (Reissue 1995). The test used to determine if a defendant has an interest protected by the Fourth Amendment is whether the defendant has a “legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises.”
State v. Donald, 256 N.W.2d 107 (Neb. 1977).
· cites it 8× “The record before us does not disclose that any written motion to suppress the evidence was ever filed in this case in accordance with the provisions of section 29-822, R.R.S.1943. An oral motion to suppress was made on the first day of trial.”
State v. Myers, 603 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 2× “1995); and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-822 (Reissue 1995) were violated.”
State v. Copple, 401 N.W.2d 141 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 2× “” On February 19, 1985, Copple filed a motion for a hearing at which the State would be required to demonstrate that all the State’s evidence, to be adduced at trial, was derived independently from information supplied by Copple pursuant to the May 10, 1984, agreement with the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.