State v. Croft
A-16-770
| Neb. Ct. App. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- On Aug. 4, 2015, police responded to reports Croft was armed at a school parking lot; later a call said he was in his father Art’s driveway, still armed.
- Officers located Croft seated in a Tahoe, ordered him out, took him into custody, handcuffed him, and placed him in a patrol car with no access to the vehicle interior.
- Art told officers Croft had taken two long guns from his home; officers searched the Tahoe for weapons and found a long rifle case containing a .12-gauge shotgun.
- During the vehicle search, officers opened a backpack and found Croft’s ID, pills, and drug paraphernalia (Schedule IV controlled substances).
- Croft moved to suppress evidence from the vehicle search as warrantless and not justified by any exception; the district court denied the motion.
- After a stipulated bench trial and renewed objection, Croft was convicted of two counts of possession of controlled substances and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Croft's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the vehicle (including backpack) was lawful | Search exceeded any search-incident-to-arrest exception; Croft was secured and could not access vehicle; no reasonable belief evidence of the arrest offense would be in backpack | Vehicle search was incident to arrest or otherwise reasonable because officers reasonably believed vehicle might contain evidence of the armed-possessor offense | Search was reasonable as incident to arrest because officers could reasonably believe vehicle contained evidence of the offense for which Croft was arrested |
| Whether officers needed individualized probable cause to open containers in the car | Opening the backpack exceeded scope; no specific probable cause for container | If probable cause exists to search vehicle for evidence of the offense, officers may search containers that could conceal the evidence | If search-incident-to-arrest or probable cause to search vehicle exists, officers may search containers (backpack) that could hide the evidence |
| Whether timing or uncertainty about reports of multiple firearms undermines validity of search | Unclear whether officers knew about two stolen long guns before searching; long guns couldn’t be in backpack, so searching backpack unrelated to weapon-search rationale | Even if timeline unclear, initial and follow-up reports that Croft was armed justified searching vehicle for weapons/evidence; officers reasonably sought to ensure no additional weapons | Uncertainty about timing did not negate reasonableness; officers reasonably searched to ensure no further weapons were in vehicle |
| Whether other warrant exceptions needed consideration | Only search-incident-to-arrest asserted; other exceptions not established by State | Court need not address other exceptions because incident-to-arrest justified search | Court affirmed search under search-incident-to-arrest and did not reach other exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest allowed only if arrestee within reaching distance or it is reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (if probable cause to search vehicle exists, police may search containers that might conceal the object of the search)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (when probable cause exists to search a car for contraband, officers may examine passengers’ belongings that could conceal contraband)
- State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (Neb. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings; probable cause and reasonableness principles)
- State v. Pester, 294 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2016) (Fourth Amendment protections under Nebraska Constitution; arrest and seizure principles)
- State v. Perry, 292 Neb. 708 (Neb. 2016) (state bears burden to show applicability of exceptions to warrant requirement)