State v. Baker
298 Neb. 216
| Neb. | 2017Background
- December 21, 2014: a drive‑by shooting at an Omaha apartment parking area killed Jermaine Richey and Derek Johnson and wounded others; police recovered 30 .223‑caliber casings.
- Security camera footage showed individuals entering the building; one (later identified as Baker) wore a distinctive blue jacket and appeared to stiffly walk as if concealing a rifle; a shooter brandished and fired a rifle in the parking lot.
- Police obtained a warrant to search Baker’s residence (shared with his brother); the warrant authorized seizure of “Any and all unknown make and model firearm(s), to include handguns, rifles, and/or shotguns,” ammunition, casings, and companion firearm equipment.
- Search yielded a blue jacket matching the footage and a .223‑caliber semiautomatic rifle; DNA and ballistics linked Baker to the jacket and rifle and matched 27 of 30 casings.
- Baker moved to suppress evidence from the search arguing the warrant lacked particularity; he also objected to admission of a recorded jail phone call with his ex‑girlfriend (Clark) that the court admitted with a limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrant authorizing seizure of “any and all” firearms satisfied the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement | Baker: phrase is overbroad and permits general exploratory search; insufficiently particular to the things to be seized | State: warrant described firearms and companion items and was as specific as circumstances allowed given .223 casings and investigation; not a fishing expedition | The warrant was sufficiently particular and did not violate the particularity requirement; suppression denied |
| Whether evidence from the valid search was fruit of an invalid warrant | Baker: if warrant invalid, evidence should be suppressed | State: warrant valid; evidence admissible | Court did not reach fruit‑of‑poisonous‑tree analysis because warrant held valid |
| Admissibility of ex‑girlfriend Clark’s statements in recorded jail call (hearsay) | Baker: Clark’s out‑of‑court statements are hearsay and unduly prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | State: Clark’s statements were admissible non‑hearsay for context of Baker’s responses; limiting instruction given | Court held Clark’s statements were relevant as context and not substantially outweighed by prejudice; admission was not an abuse of discretion |
| Proper framework for third‑party statements admitted for context | Baker: trial court misapplied standards | State: applied framework from State v. Rocha to assess relevance and Rule 403 balancing | Court applied Rocha; compared probative value with and without context and concluded admission proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (Neb. 2015) (upheld warrant authorizing seizure of “any and all firearms” where forensic evidence limited which firearm types were implicated)
- State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (Neb. 2017) (framework for admitting third‑party statements given to provide context to a defendant’s statements; assess relevance and Rule 403 risk)
- Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1927) (articulates particularity principle to prevent general searches)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (discusses historical basis and warrant particularity requirement)
- United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2014) (warrant must be definite enough to enable officers to identify authorized property to be seized)