State v. Brown
921 N.W.2d 804
Neb.2019Background
- In May 2016 Carlos Alonzo was shot and killed near 20th and Lake Streets in Omaha; police investigated Rolander L. Brown as a suspect.
- The State obtained Brown’s cell-site location information (CSLI) from his wireless carrier under a 2703(d) order issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The district court compelled disclosure and denied Brown’s motion to suppress the CSLI.
- Trial evidence included CSLI placing Brown near the scene around the time of the shooting, surveillance video of a car matching Brown’s vehicle, and testimony from Parris Stamps implicating Brown.
- The jury convicted Brown of second-degree murder and related firearm offenses; the court imposed lengthy consecutive and concurrent prison terms within statutory limits.
- Brown appealed, arguing four errors: (1) CSLI obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (post-Carpenter), (2) CSLI obtained in violation of the SCA, (3) admission of Stamps’s testimony about a later shooting in which Stamps was injured and his girlfriend died, and (4) excessive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression under Fourth Amendment (CSLI) | Brown: CSLI obtained without a probable-cause warrant; Carpenter requires suppression. | State: CSLI was obtained under the SCA; officers reasonably relied on then-binding precedent and statute. | Denied. Court finds Fourth Amendment violated post-Carpenter but exclusionary rule inapplicable because officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the SCA and prevailing precedent (Krull/Davis/Leon line). |
| Suppression under Stored Communications Act | Brown: SCA application/affidavit failed to show specific and articulable facts required by §2703(d). | State: Even if SCA showing was deficient, suppression is not an available remedy under the SCA (remedies exclusive). | Denied. Court holds suppression is not an SCA remedy and therefore unavailable. |
| Admission of Stamps’s testimony about being shot | Brown: Testimony was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial (would invite jury to infer Brown’s responsibility). | State: Testimony was relevant to explain Stamps’s changed cooperation and credibility; limiting instruction mitigates prejudice. | Admitted. Court finds relevance to witness credibility and that limiting instructions adequately reduced unfair prejudice under Neb. Evid. R. 403. |
| Excessive sentence | Brown: Sentences, though within statutory limits, failed to account adequately for his difficult upbringing. | State: Court considered presentence report, memo, defendant’s history, and violent nature of offenses. | Affirmed. Sentences within statutory range and court did not abuse discretion in weighing sentencing factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 684 (Neb. 2016) (prior Nebraska precedent holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (CSLI revealing physical movements is protected; generally requires a probable-cause warrant)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1987) (exclusionary rule does not apply when officers reasonably rely on a statute later found unconstitutional)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (exclusionary rule inapplicable when officers rely on binding appellate precedent)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant)