State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916

Police obtained a warrant to search common areas and a roommate Gonsalves’ bedroom based on an informant (Deven Moore) who reported drug activity; affidavit omitted that Moore was in custody and had alcohol in his system.
District court found the omission reckless under Franks and held the affidavit, if supplemented, would not establish probable cause, rendering the warrant invalid.
During execution, officers monitored occupants in the living room; Bray (not the warrant subject) was permitted to move, examine the warrant, and retrieve a phone charger from his room accompanied by an officer, who observed a bong and marijuana odor.
After officers told Bray about the visible paraphernalia, Bray asked to call his attorney, spoke privately on his cell phone for ~5 minutes, and then signed a written consent form (after being advised of the right to refuse).
Search of Bray’s room (with his consent) yielded additional narcotics, drug paraphernalia, scales, and cash; Bray moved to suppress, arguing consent was involuntary and tainted by the illegal warrant.
Trial court denied suppression (consent found voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from the invalid warrant); Bray was convicted and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of warrant and effect of omitted facts	Omission of informant’s custody status was reckless; warrant invalid under Franks	Warrant was valid or evidence should still be admissible	Court: omission was reckless and warrant invalid (district court’s finding)
Voluntariness of Bray’s consent	Consent was coerced by presence of multiple officers, detention, and confrontation with visible items	Consent was a free, uncoerced choice: conversational tone, ability to move, asked to call attorney, read/received advisement	Court: consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances
Attenuation of consent from prior illegality	Consent was too temporally proximate and foreseeable; therefore tainted by the invalid warrant	Consent was sufficiently attenuated due to intervening circumstances (advisement, telephone consultation, written waiver) and lack of purposeful exploitation by police	Court: consent was sufficiently attenuated; exclusionary rule inapplicable
Officer conduct and flagrancy/purposefulness of misconduct	Omission from affidavit and entry measures were purposeful or exploitative	Omission was reckless (not intentional), and officers did not seek to obtain consent via the invalid warrant; routine safety measures were proper	Court: misconduct not flagrant or purposefully exploitative; attenuation favored admission

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standards for challenging warrant affidavits and Franks hearing)
State v. Lammers, 267 Neb. 679 (2004) (criteria for informant reliability)
State v. King, 207 Neb. 270 (1980) (citizen-informant/self-corroboration principles)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation doctrine and factors for admitting evidence after illegality)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) ("fruit of the poisonous tree" exclusionary rule)
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (purpose of exclusionary rule to deter constitutional violations)