State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916

Police executed a warrant to search common areas and a roommate Gonsalves’ bedroom at a multi-occupant residence; affidavit relied on informant Deven Moore.
Moore had been in custody and intoxicated when he gave information, but the affidavit omitted that fact; officer Bures prepared the affidavit and did not disclose Moore’s custody/status.
During the authorized search, officers saw a bong, grinder, and marijuana in Bray’s bedroom through an open doorway; Bray was brought to the living room and allowed limited movement and cellphone use.
Bray accompanied an officer back to his room to retrieve a charger; officers later told Bray what they had observed and asked for consent to search his room; Bray called a person he identified as his attorney, was given privacy, and then signed a written consent form after reviewing it.
The district court found the warrant invalid under Franks (omission reckless) and rejected good-faith reliance, but denied Bray’s suppression motion because Bray’s consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from the unconstitutional entry.
Bray was convicted after a stipulated bench trial and appealed the denial of suppression; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bray)	Held
Validity of warrant: whether affidavit omissions (informant in custody/intoxicated) vitiated probable cause	Affidavit supported the warrant absent showing of reckless omission; search of common areas was lawful	Omission that informant was in custody meant he was not a citizen informant; omission was reckless under Franks, so warrant invalid	Court: Warrant invalid; omission was reckless and affidavit, if supplemented, would not support probable cause
Consent and attenuation: whether Bray’s consent to search purged taint of illegal warrant	Bray’s consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated by advisement, opportunity to consult counsel, and other intervening circumstances	Consent was coerced/futile because officers confronted him with items and he was detained; consent flowed from the illegal search and must be suppressed	Court: Consent voluntary and sufficiently attenuated; evidence admissible

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires hearing when affidavit contains recklessly or intentionally false statements or omissions that affect probable cause)
State v. Lammers, 267 Neb. 679 (2004) (ways to establish informant reliability in affidavit)
State v. King, 207 Neb. 270 (1980) (discusses citizen informant/self-corroboration limits)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation factors and consent as potential means to purge taint)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree principle)
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (exclusionary rule purpose to deter unlawful official conduct)
U.S. v. Greer, 607 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (consultation with relative and written advisement weighed in attenuation analysis)
U.S. v. Reinholz, 245 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2001) (deference to trial court findings of fact in search-warrant and officer-conduct contexts)