State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216

Dec. 21, 2014 shooting outside an Omaha apartment left two men dead and two injured; investigators recovered 30 .223-caliber casings at the scene.
Security camera footage showed men entering the building and one person firing a rifle-like weapon; a blue jacket with a distinctive logo was observed on footage.
Police obtained a warrant to search Baker’s residence (where he lived with family); warrant authorized seizure of “Any and all unknown make and model firearm(s), to include handguns, rifles, and/or shotguns” plus ammunition and companion equipment.
Search recovered a blue jacket similar to the one in the footage and a .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle; DNA and ballistics linked the items to the crime scene and to Baker.
Baker moved to suppress evidence from the search arguing the warrant lacked the Fourth Amendment particularity required; he also objected to admission of a recorded jail phone call to his ex-girlfriend on hearsay and Neb. Evid. R. 403 grounds.
Trial court denied suppression and admitted the phone call with a limiting instruction; jury convicted Baker of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and related firearm offenses; Baker appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/particularity of warrant authorizing seizure of “any and all” firearms	State: Warrant sufficiently described items (firearms and companion equipment) as particular as circumstances permitted given .223 casings and investigation	Baker: Phrase “any and all firearms” is too broad; gives officers unreasonably broad discretion and permits general search	Affirmed — warrant met particularity requirement; description was as definite as evidence allowed and did not permit open‑ended rummaging
Admissibility of recorded jail phone call (third‑party statements for context)	State: Clark’s statements were admissible solely to provide context to Baker’s statements; limiting instruction provided; probative value outweighed prejudice	Baker: Clark’s statements are hearsay and unduly prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403	Affirmed — court properly applied Rocha framework, found Clark’s statements contextually relevant, limiting instruction adequate, and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice

Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (holding that warrants must particularly describe items to be seized to prevent general searches)
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (discussing the particularity requirement of warrants)
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (addressing scope of warrants and related Fourth Amendment principles)
State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (Neb. 2015) (upholding a warrant authorizing seizure of “any and all firearms” where evidence identified a limited class of weapons)
State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (Neb. 2017) (framework for admitting third‑party statements as context and applying Rule 403 analysis)
United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2014) (warrant must be definite enough for executing officers to identify authorized property)