State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916

Police obtained a warrant (targeting roommate Gonsalves) based on an informant’s tip; affidavit omitted that the informant (Deven Moore) was in custody and intoxicated when he gave the information.
The district judge found the omission was reckless under Franks and that the affidavit, if supplemented with the omitted fact, lacked probable cause; the warrant therefore was invalid.
During execution of the warrant for common areas and Gonsalves’ room, officers observed drug paraphernalia in Bray’s bedroom through an open doorway; Bray was asked to stay in the living room while the search proceeded.
An officer accompanied Bray into his room to retrieve a charger and observed a bong and marijuana odor; later, officers confronted Bray in the living room and sought his consent to search his room.
Bray called a person he identified as his attorney on his cell phone in private, then signed a written consent form after being advised of his right to refuse; officers subsequently found substantial additional contraband and arrested Bray.
The district court denied Bray’s suppression motion, concluding (1) the warrant was invalid but (2) Bray’s consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from the illegality to permit admission of the seized evidence; Bray was convicted and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bray)	Held
Validity of warrant	Warrant was lawfully issued based on informant tip	Affidavit omitted that informant was in custody/intoxicated, so warrant lacked probable cause	Warrant invalid: omission was reckless; probable cause would not exist if omission included
Good-faith reliance on warrant	Officer relied on warrant in good faith	Officer was reckless; good-faith exception inapplicable	No good-faith exception: officer’s reckless omission defeats good-faith claim
Voluntariness of consent to search	Consent was voluntary after advisals and private call	Consent coerced by detention, show of force, and confrontation with items	Consent was voluntary based on totality of circumstances (privacy for call, review of form, calm demeanor)
Attenuation of consent from prior illegality	Consent purged taint due to intervening circumstances (advisal, counsel call, written consent)	Consent was tainted by prior illegal entry; attenuation insufficient	Consent was sufficiently attenuated (temporal proximity slight but intervening circumstances and lack of flagrant misconduct weigh in favor)

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes remedy where affidavit contains reckless omissions or falsehoods)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (sets factors for attenuation analysis and exclusionary-rule purposes)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (articulates "fruit of the poisonous tree" and attenuation principles)
Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (discusses attenuation and exceptions to exclusionary rule)
U.S. v. Greer, 607 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (consent after consultation and advisal can attenuate prior illegality)
State v. Lammers, 267 Neb. 679 (2004) (addresses establishing informant reliability in warrant affidavits)
State v. King, 207 Neb. 270 (1980) (discusses citizen-informant/self-corroboration principles)