State v. Bryner, A-15-1193

On Jan. 9, 2015, Deputy Mayo stopped Curtis J. Bryner for speeding (75/70 mph in a 55 mph construction zone); Bryner was placed in the patrol cruiser while Mayo completed a warning.
Mayo ran Bryner’s license, asked routine travel questions, learned Bryner lived in a California area known for marijuana production, and noted indicators (rental car, "lived-in" appearance, a single backpack, fresh fingermarks on trunk).
After issuing a warning, Mayo asked Bryner if he would answer a few more questions; Bryner agreed and denied transporting hard drugs and initially denied large amounts of marijuana or cash.
Bryner denied consent to a vehicle search, but consented to a police canine sniff of the exterior; the dog alerted to the trunk and Bryner then admitted there was marijuana in the trunk.
Officers recovered approximately 22 pounds of marijuana in 19 heat-sealed bags; Bryner was charged with possession with intent to deliver, moved to suppress post-stop evidence, lost the suppression motion and a stipulated bench trial, and was sentenced to 1–2 years; this appeal followed.

Issue	Bryner's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether post-warning request that Bryner remain and answer additional questions constituted an unreasonable seizure	The stop had ended; remaining was a new seizure without reasonable suspicion and Bryner was not free to leave	Bryner voluntarily consented to stay and answer questions, so no seizure	Court held Bryner voluntarily consented to further questioning; no unreasonable seizure
Whether asking for a canine sniff after Bryner refused a vehicle search amounted to an invalid consent / unlawful detention	Consent to the dog sniff was mere submission to authority; no reasonable suspicion supported detention	Bryner voluntarily consented to the dog sniff; alternatively, officers had reasonable suspicion	Court held consent to the canine sniff was voluntary; declined to decide reasonable-suspicion alternative

State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (standard of review for suppression factual findings and legal questions)
State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500 (Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures)
State v. Anderson, 258 Neb. 627 (police requests to search or question do not automatically constitute seizures if noncoercive)
State v. Dallmann, 260 Neb. 937 (officer need not inform a lawfully seized person they are free to go for consent to be voluntary)
Flores v. Flores-Guerrero, 290 Neb. 248 (appellate courts need not reach alternative grounds when a decision is unnecessary)