State v. Botts
299 Neb. 806
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Around 2:30 a.m., Officer Drager found a vehicle stalled and partially blocking a roadway; Botts was outside the vehicle pushing it and said it was out of gas.
- Drager turned on lights, asked Botts what was wrong; Botts first told him to mind his own business and later asked for help. Drager declined to help per policy.
- Officer Tran, who had stopped Botts earlier that night, told Drager he had smelled alcohol in Botts’ vehicle a few hours earlier and saw alcohol in the car.
- After Tran arrived, Drager asked Botts whether he had been drinking; Botts became verbally abusive and backed up to a light pole where four officers surrounded him and one officer displayed a Taser.
- Botts was handcuffed, placed in a cruiser, and the stalled vehicle was towed; an inventory search (department policy) produced a machete under the driver’s seat, leading to a possession charge.
- The district court denied Botts’ suppression motion, Botts was convicted; the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed (concluding no probable cause and ordered conviction vacated), and the State petitioned for further review to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Botts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Botts was seized/arrested when surrounded at the pole or only when handcuffed | Seizure occurred when Drager approached to begin DUI inquiry (a tier-two stop); handcuffing and surrounding were reasonable safety measures and did not convert the stop into an arrest | Seizure/arrest occurred when officers surrounded Botts with one officer drawing a Taser, so arrest (and any search incident) lacked probable cause | Court: Botts was seized when Drager approached; precise second (surrounded vs. handcuffed) immaterial because ~10 seconds elapsed—arrest for probable-cause analysis upheld |
| Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Botts for DUI at time of arrest | Yes — totality: stalled vehicle, earlier stop with odor of alcohol and visible alcohol in vehicle, Botts’ escalating erratic behavior when asked about drinking gave officers probable cause | No — officers lacked contemporaneous smell of alcohol or admission; behavior had innocent explanations (frustration pushing car), and they didn’t know Botts had driven the vehicle | Court: Probable cause existed under the totality of circumstances; officers not required to rule out innocent explanations |
| Whether inventory search of towed vehicle was lawful and produced admissible evidence | Inventory search was authorized as department policy after lawful arrest/tow; machete admissible | If arrest lacked probable cause, inventory search was invalid and evidence should be suppressed | Court: Inventory search was lawful because arrest had probable cause; machete admissible |
| Whether Court of Appeals erred in vacating conviction | Court of Appeals applied overly technical dissection of facts and discounted officers’ assessment; state sought reversal | Botts argued appellate court correctly found no probable cause and suppression warranted | Court: Reversed Court of Appeals; remanded for consideration of other assignments of error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Woldt, 293 Neb. 265 (definition and tiers of police-citizen encounters)
- State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265 (discussion of tiers and seizure analysis)
- State v. McClain, 285 Neb. 537 (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (totality-of-circumstances and avoiding overly technical dissection in probable-cause analysis)
- United States v. Jones, 759 F.2d 633 (permissible officer actions to protect safety and maintain status quo during stops)
- State v. Botts, 25 Neb. App. 372 (Court of Appeals decision reversing conviction; reviewed and reversed by Nebraska Supreme Court)