State v. Ferguson
301 Neb. 697
| Neb. | 2018Background
- On March 9, 2016, Travis Ferguson was stopped at a gas station after a 911 caller reported a gray four-door sedan driving dangerously; Ferguson was driving his girlfriend Koch’s car with his two young children in the back seat.
- Deputy Schwarz detained Ferguson (who initially gave a false name) at the cruiser while verifying identity; database checks revealed a suspended license and an outstanding civil contempt (child support) warrant.
- About 20 minutes into the stop Schwarz called a canine unit; Koch (vehicle owner) refused consent to search. The canine arrived ~30 minutes after being called, alerted on the exterior, and officers then searched the vehicle and found ~1.6 grams of methamphetamine on the driver’s floorboard.
- Ferguson was later arrested; he was charged with possession of a controlled substance, false reporting, and child abuse (negligently placing minors in a situation endangering life/health).
- Ferguson moved to suppress the methamphetamine (arguing the detention was unlawfully prolonged under Rodriguez), and challenged several evidentiary rulings at trial; the district court denied suppression, the jury convicted on all counts, and the court imposed jail sentences (within statutory limits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ferguson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether detaining Ferguson at the gas station to await a drug dog and owner violated the Fourth Amendment | Dog sniff/search lawful because by the time sniff occurred officers had probable cause to arrest and search; continued detention was justified | Detention exceeded time reasonably necessary for traffic investigation (Rodriguez) and location/jail transfer should have occurred instead of waiting to facilitate sniff | Denial of suppression affirmed: detention became a higher-tier encounter supported by probable cause (suspended license, false info, warrant), so dog sniff/search were lawful |
| 2. Whether proffered testimony about prior drug incidents involving the vehicle was admissible | N/A (State objected) | Schwarz should have been allowed to testify about database records showing prior drug incidents involving Koch’s vehicle to support alternate possessor theory | Exclusion affirmed: testimony amounted to hearsay and Ferguson failed to identify an exception |
| 3. Whether testimony recounting a post-arrest telephone apology by Ferguson was admissible | Caller identification by voice was sufficient foundation; statements admissible as defendant’s admissions | Foundation was inadequate because circumstances/timing unclear | Admission affirmed: witness (children’s mother) identified Ferguson by voice, satisfying foundation |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for child abuse conviction (negligent endangerment) | Evidence of reckless driving plus meth within reach of unsupervised children supported negligent endangerment | Meth being reachable is analogous to many household risks and insufficient alone; jury’s theory unclear | Conviction affirmed: evidence (reckless driving, unattended children, meth in reach, narcotics’ toxicity) sufficient for negligent endangerment |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic-stop may not be prolonged beyond mission without reasonable suspicion; dog sniff after mission completed requires independent justification)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (exterior dog sniff during a valid traffic stop is not a Fourth Amendment search if it does not prolong the stop)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officers may conduct certain investigations unrelated to traffic stop so long as they do not lengthen detention)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (judicial probable-cause determinations must be made promptly after warrantless arrest; delays over 48 hours presumptively unreasonable)
- State v. Verling, 269 Neb. 610 (2005) (prolonged detention for dog sniff after traffic inquiry upheld where reasonable suspicion existed)
- State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265 (2017) (similar holding that post-investigatory dog sniffs are permissible when supported by independent reasonable suspicion or probable cause)