State v. Dalland, 287 Neb. 231

Dalland was investigated after an officer smelled burnt marijuana at the law enforcement center and in the parking lot.
Officer Mertz conducted an entry-specific pat-down and then searched Dalland’s vehicle without a warrant or consent.
In the vehicle, needles containing trace methamphetamine were found, leading to a possession conviction.
Dalland moved to suppress the vehicle search, arguing lack of probable cause.
Court of Appeals reversed, concluding marijuana odor alone did not establish probable cause and that testimony about needles should be disregarded as a matter of law.
Nebraska Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether there was probable cause and how to treat inconsistent testimony from a nonparty witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause to search the vehicle	Dalland: odor alone insufficient; needles’ existence cannot be relied on.	State: odor plus prior knowledge of needles provide probable cause.	Probable cause exists based on combined odor and needles testimony.
Effect of witness testimony on probable cause	Mertz’s trial testimony about needles should be disregarded as inconsistent, per Riggs rule because he is a party.	Mertz is not a party; his testimony should be weighed like any witness.	Disregard of Mertz’s testimony as a matter of law was improper; credibility for nonparties weighs in fact-finding.
Scope of review and outcome	Court of Appeals erred in de-emphasizing testimony and in denying probable cause based on odor alone.	Trial court’s reasoning may be flawed but result may still be correct.	Correct result reached; the evidence supports probable cause and suppression ruling stands to be affirmed on remand.

State v. Watts, 209 Neb. 371 (Neb. 1981) (probable cause in vehicle searches based on odor considerations)
State v. Reha, 12 Neb. App. 767 (Neb. App. 2004) (application to odor-based probable cause beyond traffic stops)
Riggs v. Nickel, 281 Neb. 249 (Neb. 2011) (witness testimony discrediting when inconsistent with no reasonable explanation)
Ketteler v. Daniel, 251 Neb. 287 (Neb. 1996) (limit on applying strangling rule to nonparties in later cases)
State v. Osborn, 241 Neb. 424 (Neb. 1992) (nonparty witness credibility weighed by jury)
State v. Robertson, 223 Neb. 825 (Neb. 1986) (testimony credibility and party-status distinction)
Sacca v. Marshall, 180 Neb. 855 (Neb. 1966) (applies party-opponent rule to credibility assessment)
Momsen v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 210 Neb. 45 (Neb. 1981) (application of party witness credibility rule beyond plaintiffs)
State v. Chiroy Osorio, 286 Neb. 384 (Neb. 2013) (probable cause standard; totality of circumstances)
State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500 (Neb. 2011) (probable cause and reasonable belief standards)
J.P. v. Millard Public Schools, 285 Neb. 890 (Neb. 2013) (probable cause and reasonableness standards in context)
State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 (Neb. 2013) (Fourth Amendment and Nebraska search-and-seizure guarantees)
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (vehicle stop and warrantless search framework)