State v. Henderson, 854 N.W.2d 616

Background

Henderson convicted in Douglas County for first‑degree murder, attempted murder, and related weapon offenses; challenge to cell phone search evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds.
A gun was found on Henderson and a second gun was thrown under a vehicle; fingerprints and DNA tied Henderson to the scene and the victim, Voss, was linked to blood on Henderson’s clothing.
A cell phone found on Henderson led to a search; an initial warrant (Feb. 18, 2012) requested broad data from the phone; a second warrant (Sept. 14, 2012) added general statements about cell phones used in shootings.
District court ruled the cell phone search was permissible as a search incident to arrest, but later acknowledged probable cause for the second warrant and deemed the search to be in good faith; evidence from the searches was admitted at trial.
Nebraska Supreme Court analyzed whether the searches were valid under Riley v. California (2014), whether warrants satisfied probable cause and particularity requirements, and whether the good‑faith exception salvaged the evidence; ultimately affirmed the convictions and admissions of evidence.
Court affirmed, concluding the first search could not be justified as incident to arrest, but held the second warrant supported by probable cause though not sufficiently particular; however, the good‑faith exception and limited evidentiary disclosures meant suppression was not required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the cell phone search justified as a search incident to arrest?	Henderson contends the search was valid as incident to arrest.	State contends search fell within permissible scope of incident to arrest.	No; Riley controls; not justified as incident to arrest, but good faith and other factors sustain admission.
Did the warrants satisfy probable cause and particularity?	Probable cause existed but warrants were overly broad.	Warrants had probable cause but lacked sufficient particularity; good faith can save.	Probable cause existed for both warrants, but scope was too broad; good‑faith exception applied, so evidence admissible.
Was the admission of cell phone content (texts, photos) proper?	Henderson objected on foundation and hearsay; content should be excluded.	Text messages were admitted to show impact on state of mind, not as hearsay.	Admissible; not hearsay; was relevant to premeditation; cumulative evidence supported admission.
Did the district court abuse discretion in discovery rulings on gang files?	Protective order denied discovery of gang files; information could aid defense.	Files confidential; no necessity shown; no prejudice to defense.	No abuse of discretion; protective order affirmed; Henderson could present defense without secret files.
Did the mistrial and-related challenges to Narvaez/Levering testimony warrant reversal?	Mistrial should have been granted due to prejudicial references to gangs; testimony should have been struck.	Reference isolated; other corroborating testimony existed; no reversible error.	No reversible error; references were isolated and cumulative evidence supported conviction.

Key Cases Cited

Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (cell phone search requires a warrant; strong privacy interests)
Sprunger v. State, 811 N.W.2d 235 (2012) (need for particularity in computer/cell phone searches; no fishing expeditions)
Wiedeman v. State, 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013) (totality of the circumstances review for probable cause)
State v. Au, 829 N.W.2d 695 (2013) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion standard)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (good faith exception to exclusionary rule)
State v. Collins, 812 N.W.2d 285 (2012) (discretion in criminal discovery)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (limits on discovery; relevance; admissibility)
Glazebrook v. State, 803 N.W.2d 767 (2011) (chain of custody foundation; case‑by‑case)