State v. Hidalgo, 296 Neb. 912

Omaha Police received an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip that a Hispanic male “Roberto” (nicknamed “Sporty”), an 18th Street gang member in his early 30s, was a felon in possession of illegal firearms and lived at a specific Omaha residence.
Officers surveilled the address, observed several tattooed Hispanic men on the porch, and noted a white Nissan Sentra registered to Robert Hidalgo and Jacqueline Linares parked in the driveway.
A trash pull from the residence produced a mail piece addressed to the listed address and marijuana stems/seeds/leaves.
Based on the tip plus investigative corroboration (names, vehicle registration, gang-unit knowledge that Hidalgo was an 18th Street member with a similar nickname), officers obtained and executed a search warrant for the residence.
Searches recovered marijuana and multiple firearms (one in the residence, one in a neighboring yard, and one in the Nissan Sentra); Hidalgo later admitted the firearm in the vehicle was his.
Hidalgo, a prior Class IIIA felony accessory conviction, was charged and convicted (stipulated bench trial) of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and sentenced; he appealed, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and the vehicle search exceeded the warrant’s scope.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit supplied probable cause for the search warrant	Warrant lacked probable cause because the anonymous tip’s reliability wasn’t established; corroboration consisted of "innocent details"; trash pull marijuana remnants were insufficient; good-faith exception inapplicable	Probable cause existed based on totality: specific anonymous tip + independent corroboration (names, vehicle registration, gang affiliation, porch occupants) + trash pull evidence	Affirmed: totality of circumstances supported a substantial basis for probable cause; warrant valid
Whether officers exceeded the warrant’s scope by searching the vehicle in the driveway	Vehicle was not explicitly listed in the warrant, so its search violated the Fourth Amendment	Vehicle was parked on the described premises (about 10 feet from the front steps, no barrier); affidavit anticipated weapons could be stored in vehicles; vehicles on premises are generally searchable under a premises warrant	Affirmed: search of vehicle on the described premises was within the scope of the warrant

State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 (Neb. 2014) (standard for reviewing probable-cause affidavits and suppression rulings)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips)
State v. Vermuele, 234 Neb. 973 (Neb. 1990) (no requirement that alleged crime itself be fully corroborated to support probable cause)
U.S. v. Briscoe, 317 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2003) (cases finding marijuana possession can support probable cause)
U.S. v. Pennington, 287 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2002) (vehicle on premises may be searched under a premises warrant when sufficient connection exists)