State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916

Police obtained a warrant to search common areas and Gonsalves’ bedroom based on information from roommate informant Deven Moore; the affidavit omitted that Moore was in custody and intoxicated when he spoke to officers.
During execution, officers kept occupants in the living room; Bray was allowed to examine the warrant, use his phone, and (accompanied by an officer) briefly enter his bedroom to get a charger, during which officers observed a bong, grinder, and smelled marijuana.
After the upstairs search, officers told Bray they had seen paraphernalia in his room; Bray asked to call legal counsel, spoke privately on his cell phone for about five minutes, then agreed to a search and signed a written consent form that advised him of the right to refuse.
Officers then conducted an unassisted search of Bray’s room and seized substantial contraband beyond the items visible from the doorway; Bray was arrested and moved to suppress all evidence as fruit of an invalid warrant.
The district court held the warrant invalid under Franks because the affidavit recklessly omitted Moore’s custody/intoxication, but concluded Bray’s consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from the illegality to admit the seized evidence; Bray was convicted and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of warrant (Franks)	Warrant supported probable cause; omissions were not reckless	Warrant affidavit omitted material facts (Moore in custody/intoxicated), so probable cause lacking	Court: Warrant invalid; omission was reckless and affidavit lacked probable cause when corrected
Voluntariness of consent	Consent was coerced by officers’ presence and confrontation about visible items	Consent was a free, uncoerced choice: conversational tone, privacy to call counsel, review of written form	Court: Consent voluntary under totality of circumstances
Attenuation of consent from illegality	Consent flowed directly from illegal intrusion and confrontation; thus tainted	Consent was sufficiently attenuated: intervening counsel call, advisement of right to refuse, written consent, limited officer conduct	Court: Consent was sufficiently attenuated; evidence admissible
Good-faith reliance on warrant	Officer relied in good faith on issued warrant	Officer’s reckless omission precludes good-faith exception	Court: No good-faith exception; officer reckless, so good faith rejected

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to hearing when affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods or omissions)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (sets factors for attenuation analysis and relation of consent to Fourth Amendment violations)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (discusses "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine)
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (exclusionary rule and derivative evidence principles)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (officers may take reasonable measures to control occupants during execution of a warrant)
Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (authority to detain occupants during execution of a search warrant)
Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (considers voluntariness and coercion in detention contexts)
U.S. v. Greer, 607 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (consent held attenuated where suspect consulted a relative and signed a written advisement of rights)