State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853

Police investigated a Papillion home burglary; numerous pieces of jewelry taken from the master bedroom.
The day after the burglary, officers saw Nathaniel Dixon walking with a ball cap and backpack; on noticing police he entered a public drainage ditch and emerged without the cap or backpack.
Dixon told officers the backpack was "over there" (pointing to the ditch) and later said it was his and that officers did not have his permission to search it; officers retrieved the backpack and searched it.
The backpack contained a tied pillowcase with 72 pieces of jewelry; the homeowner identified the items as hers and estimated their collective value at $2,000.
A pawnshop appraiser testified and produced an appraisal listing individual fair-market (retail) values totalling $1,561.50; jury found Dixon guilty of burglary and theft by receiving stolen property and fixed the value range at $1,500–$4,999.99.
Dixon moved to suppress (denied), objected to admission of the appraisal report (overruled), and moved to dismiss for insufficiency of value evidence (overruled); he appealed after conviction and habitual-offender sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence from the backpack should be suppressed because Dixon had a Fourth Amendment interest	State: backpack was abandoned so no expectation of privacy; search lawful	Dixon: he never abandoned the backpack because he asserted it was his when officers retrieved it	Court: affirmed denial of suppression — adopting objective abandonment test; found no clear error in conclusion Dixon abandoned the backpack (discarded in public ditch upon seeing police)
Admissibility of pawnshop appraisal report on value	State: appraisal was admissible as expert opinion on fair-market/replacement value	Dixon: appraisal focused on price not market value and was inadmissible (no developed briefed argument)	Court: did not consider the assignment because Dixon failed to specifically argue admissibility on appeal; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting it
Sufficiency of evidence to prove statutory element of value necessary to grade theft	State: owner testimony and expert appraisal together showed market value ≥ $1,500	Dixon: evidence proved only asking price/retail tags and not true market value; wholesale value shown was under $1,500	Court: conviction stands; even if specific gradation evidence were weak, conviction would stand and only sentencing gradation could be affected; here owner and expert testimony were sufficient to support jury's $1,500+ finding

U.S. v. Nowak, 825 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2016) (abandonment analysis uses objective facts; consider physical relinquishment and denial of ownership)
U.S. v. Basinski, 226 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2000) (to prove abandonment government must show defendant's words/conduct would lead reasonable officer to conclude relinquishment)
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left for collection)
Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924) (open-fields/abandonment doctrine foundations)
Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960) (abandonment/discard doctrine principles)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (2011) (statute requires proof of some value but not specific threshold to sustain theft conviction)
State v. Gartner, 263 Neb. 153 (2001) (purchase price can prove value but condition/age may be required to show market value at time of theft)
State v. Garza, 241 Neb. 256 (1991) (price tags can be relevant evidence of market value but are not always conclusive)