State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916

Police obtained a warrant to search common areas and Gonsalves’ bedroom based on informant Deven Moore’s report; the affiant (Officer Bures) omitted that Moore was in custody and had alcohol in his system when he gave the tip.
District court determined the omission was reckless under Franks and that the affidavit, if corrected, would not have supported probable cause; the warrant was therefore invalid.
During execution, officers kept occupants in the living room; Bray freely used his phone and examined the warrant; he requested to retrieve a charger from his bedroom accompanied by an officer, who observed a bong and marijuana in plain view.
After the search of common areas, an officer told Bray about the observed paraphernalia, asked for consent to search Bray’s room, and said he would seek a warrant if consent was refused; Bray called a person he identified as his attorney, then signed a written consent form that advised of the right to refuse.
The subsequent search (with Bray’s written consent) uncovered additional contraband and cash; Bray was charged, moved to suppress all evidence, lost the motion, was convicted after a stipulated bench trial, and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of original warrant	State: affidavit supported warrant (implicitly)	Bray: omission that informant was in custody undermines reliability and probable cause	Court: warrant invalid under Franks due to reckless omission
Whether consent was voluntary	State: Bray freely and knowingly consented after advisals and call	Bray: detained, confronted, and pressured — consent coerced	Court: consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances
Whether consent was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal warrant	State: intervening circumstances (counsel call, advisement, written form) purge taint	Bray: consent followed closely after illegal entry; cannot be attenuated	Court: consent was sufficiently attenuated (temporal proximity slight against attenuation; intervening circumstances and lack of purposeful misconduct favor attenuation)
Exclusionary-rule application to seized evidence	State: exclusion not required because consent purged taint	Bray: evidence is fruit of poisonous tree from illegal warrant	Court: evidence admissible because consent attenuated from illegality

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (if a warrant affidavit contains deliberate or reckless omissions material to probable cause, defendant is entitled to a hearing)
State v. Lammers, 267 Neb. 679 (2004) (standards for assessing informant reliability in affidavits)
State v. King, 207 Neb. 270 (1980) (discussing self-corroboration and citizen-informant principles)
U.S. v. Greer, 607 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (attenuation where suspect consulted a relative and received written advisement before consenting)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (factors for attenuation analysis: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy of official misconduct)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule)
U.S. v. Reinholz, 245 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2001) (deference to trial court findings of fact in suppression/attenuation contexts)