State v. Dubas
A-15-1165
| Neb. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- On Sept. 11, 2014, Lancaster County Deputy Heitman, seated in his marked cruiser at his home, observed a white Chevy truck he did not recognize drive through his neighborhood and ran the plate using his cruiser’s mobile data terminal.
- The plate returned to Ashley Beetem; Heitman checked Beetem’s “known associates,” saw Justin Dubas’s name and DMV photo, and believed the truck’s driver matched Dubas.
- The DMV check showed Dubas’s license had been suspended (suspension dated Sept. 26, 2012); Heitman then left his driveway to locate the truck but did not activate lights or siren.
- Heitman found the truck parked at a nearby residence where Dubas was working on a roof; Heitman approached, asked for ID, told Dubas his license was suspended, and ultimately arrested him about 10 minutes later.
- Dubas moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing Heitman lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop/contact him because no traffic violation occurred and Dubas was compliant; the trial court denied the motion and Dubas was convicted after a stipulated bench trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contact/stop violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable suspicion to investigate | Dubas: Heitman had only a hunch from an unfamiliar vehicle; no traffic violation observed; he was not free to leave because cruiser blocked driveway | State/Heitman: Officer conducted a DMV/known-associates check (no seizure) and, based on matching the driver to Dubas and discovering a suspended license, had reasonable suspicion to investigate and detain | Court: Affirmed — DMV check without seizure permissible; totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion to initiate investigatory stop |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Milos, 294 Neb. 375 (discusses Fourth Amendment and seizure analysis)
- State v. Soukharith, 253 Neb. 310 (computerized ID checks do not constitute a seizure)
- State v. Wollam, 280 Neb. 43 (investigatory stop requires articulable suspicion)
- State v. Lamb, 280 Neb. 738 (scope and standard for investigatory stops and frisks)
- State v. Au, 285 Neb. 797 (reasonableness and scope of investigatory stops)
- State v. Rodriguez, 288 Neb. 878 (totality-of-circumstances test for stops)
- State v. Bowers, 250 Neb. 151 (officers may act on reasonable suspicion before harm occurs)