State v. Barbeau, 917 N.W.2d 913

On Dec. 11, 2015, Neb. State Patrol trooper Gregory Goltz ran a ruse checkpoint on I-80; signs warned of a checkpoint and a drug dog though none existed. Troopers monitored vehicles that exited immediately after the signs.
At ~2:52 p.m. Goltz observed a Lincoln Town Car exit after the sign, follow it several car lengths, and stop; the car displayed no metal plates but an in‑transit tag in a black plate frame that partially obscured the top/bottom and had red handwriting.
Goltz stopped the car, approached, read "North Carolina" on the tag, and asked the driver (Barbeau) for license and paperwork; Barbeau said he bought the car in NC and was returning to Oregon but produced no documentation or insurance.
Goltz had the driver step out, radioed for backup and a K‑9, and ran checks. A trooper found the passenger had an active warrant and arrested him; the canine alerted to the trunk. A subsequent search produced a rifle, ammunition, drug paraphernalia, controlled substances, and $39,575.
Barbeau moved to suppress, arguing the stop lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion and that the stop should have ended once the trooper could read the tag; the trial court denied suppression, concluding probable cause existed. Barbeau was convicted on drug‑related counts and appealed.

Issue	Barbeau's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of initial stop — probable cause / reasonable suspicion	Stop lacked probable cause and lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him	Stop was supported by probable cause because in‑transit tag information was partially obscured in violation of § 60‑399(2)	Stop was lawful as an investigatory stop supported by reasonable suspicion (court did not decide probable cause issue)
Whether officer’s subjective inability to read tag justified stop	Once trooper could read the tag (North Carolina), the investigative mission was complete and stop should have ended	The stop was justified by more than unreadability: tag placement, red handwriting, partial obstruction, and behavior (exit after checkpoint sign)	Continued investigation was permissible; officer's additional inquiries were reasonably related to the stop’s objective
Duration and scope of the stop (was it unreasonably prolonged)	The detention should have ended earlier; any further actions were unlawful	Routine checks (license, registration, warrants) and waiting for backup/K‑9 were within the scope of the stop	No undue prolongation; scope and brief duration were lawful and led to discovery via lawful investigative steps
Suppression — evidence tainted by unlawful stop	Evidence obtained from search should be suppressed	Evidence validly obtained following lawful stop and investigation	Motion to suppress properly overruled; convictions affirmed

State v. Nelson, 282 Neb. 767 (Neb. 2011) (officer may run checks and ask routine questions incident to a lawful stop)
State v. Childs, 242 Neb. 426 (Neb. 1993) (mere desire to verify compliance with registration laws is insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Bowers, 250 Neb. 151 (Neb. 1996) (absence of plates or in‑transit tags can give particularized suspicion of registration evasion)
State v. Kling, 8 Neb. App. 631 (Neb. Ct. App. 1999) (handwritten in‑transit tags can justify investigatory stop under Bowers)
State v. Woldt, 293 Neb. 265 (Neb. 2016) (standard of review for investigatory stops; reasonable suspicion reviewed de novo)
State v. Thalken, 299 Neb. 857 (Neb. 2018) (appellate review standards for suppression rulings)
State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822 (Neb. 2017) (traffic violations, even minor, create probable cause to stop)