State v. Andera, 950 N.W.2d 102

Officer stopped a vehicle for no license plates; three occupants: driver (female), front-seat passenger Brandi Andera, and a rear passenger.
Officer requested IDs; driver and Andera complied; officer could not recall whether Andera produced a license.
Driver consented to a search of the vehicle while outside near the trunk; occupants were removed and did not object to the planned search.
Officer searched the passenger compartment, found a single purse on the front passenger floorboard, did not ask whose it was, and opened it; she found a needle and, inside a wallet, a small bag of methamphetamine plus Andera’s ID and cards.
Andera (owner of the purse) denied ownership of the contraband, moved to suppress the evidence as an unlawful warrantless search; the district court denied the motion; Andera was convicted after a stipulated bench trial and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge search of the purse	Andera: she owned the purse and thus can challenge its search	State: passengers generally lack standing to challenge vehicle searches unless they have an interest in the container	Andera has standing because she had a property interest in the purse
Validity of driver’s consent to search the purse	Andera: driver could not validly consent to search a purse owned by Andera	State: officer reasonably believed the purse could belong to the driver; third-party consent is valid if belief is reasonable	Consent by the driver justified the search because a reasonable officer could believe the purse belonged to the driver; consent was valid until ownership was discovered
Seizure of methamphetamine under plain view	Andera: meth was found only after wallet opened; seizure was not in plain view and unlawful	State: officer lawfully opened the wallet during a consent search, saw needle earlier, and meth was immediately incriminating when observed	Seizure was lawful under the plain view doctrine given the prior lawful search and immediately apparent incriminating nature
Overall suppression ruling	Andera: suppression should have been granted and conviction reversed	State: motion to suppress properly denied	District court did not err; suppression was properly denied; conviction affirmed

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (third-party consent valid if officer reasonably believes consenting party has authority)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing limits for vehicle passengers)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (foundation for plain view doctrine)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (objective-reasonableness standard referenced in consent analysis)
State v. Konfrst, 251 Neb. 214 (Nebraska authority on third-party consent to search)
State v. Shurter, 238 Neb. 54 (Nebraska statement of plain view seizure elements)
State v. Wells, 290 Neb. 186 (overview of warrantless-search exceptions)
U.S. v. Barber, 777 F.3d 1303 (example supporting inference that a bag on front passenger floorboard may belong to driver)
State v. Caniglia, 1 Neb. App. 730 (Court of Appeals case discussed and distinguished regarding when driver cannot consent to passenger’s purse)