State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916

Officers obtained a warrant targeting common areas and a specific roommate’s bedroom based on an informant’s tip; the affidavit omitted that the informant (Moore) was in custody and intoxicated when he spoke to the officer who prepared the affidavit.
The district court found the omission reckless under Franks and held the warrant invalid for lack of probable cause.
During execution, officers observed from an open doorway marijuana paraphernalia in Bray’s bedroom; Bray was brought to the living room and allowed to use his phone and examine the warrant.
Bray, escorted by an officer to retrieve a charger, had visible paraphernalia in his room; later an officer informed him of those observations, asked for consent to search, and said he would seek a warrant if refused.
Bray was allowed to call someone he identified as his attorney in private, then signed a written consent form after reading it; a subsequent search uncovered additional drugs, drug paraphernalia, scales, and cash.
The district court denied Bray’s suppression motion on the ground that his consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from the illegal warrant; Bray was convicted and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of warrant affidavit omissions	State contended the warrant was supported by informant info	Bray argued the affidavit omitted material facts (informant in custody) rendering it invalid under Franks	Warrant invalid: omission of informant’s custody was reckless and undermined probable cause
Good-faith reliance on warrant	State argued officers relied in good faith on issued warrant	Bray argued officer’s recklessness precluded good-faith exception	Court rejected good-faith: officer’s recklessness vitiated reliance
Voluntariness of consent	State argued Bray’s consent was voluntary (private call, advisement, written form)	Bray argued detention, confrontation, and threat to get a warrant coerced consent	Consent was voluntary on totality of circumstances (calm demeanor, advice, private call, written advisement)
Attenuation of consent from prior illegality	State argued intervening circumstances (consultation, advisement) purged taint	Bray argued temporal proximity and prior illegal search made consent tainted/futile	Consent was sufficiently attenuated (intervening counsel call, advisements, lack of flagrant official misconduct) so evidence admissible

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standard for attack on warrant affidavit omissions)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (lays out attenuation/consent analysis and factors)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine)
Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (attenuation analysis; exclusionary rule balances deterrence costs)
State v. Lammers, 267 Neb. 679 (Neb. 2004) (informant reliability indicia)
State v. King, 207 Neb. 270 (Neb. 1980) (citizen-informant/self-corroboration principles)