State v. Hoehn, 6 N.W.3d 487

Michael Hoehn was stopped and arrested for DUI by Officer Rockwell, who acted outside his primary jurisdiction in responding to a citizen report of erratic driving.
The officer observed significant indications of impaired driving, including erratic maneuvers and visible physical signs of intoxication.
Hoehn moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop and arrest were unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and the Nebraska Constitution since Rockwell lacked jurisdiction.
The county court denied his motion, finding probable cause for the stop and arrest; conviction and sentence followed.
On appeal, the district court affirmed the conviction, but the Court of Appeals held that Rockwell acted outside his jurisdiction, though it upheld the conviction under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
The Nebraska Supreme Court took further review, ultimately holding that jurisdictional overreach by a police officer is not a Fourth Amendment violation if the stop and arrest were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Issue	Hoehn's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Does an officer's lack of territorial jurisdiction implicate the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression?	Jurisdictional overreach makes the stop and arrest unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment; evidence should be excluded.	Statutory jurisdiction does not affect Fourth Amendment rights; probable cause existed, so evidence is admissible.	Officer’s lack of jurisdiction did not implicate the Fourth Amendment; evidence was admissible if probable cause existed.
Was there probable cause for the stop and arrest?	Officer’s observations were insufficient.	Observations clearly provided probable cause.	Officer had probable cause; stop and arrest were reasonable.
Does violation of state law governing police jurisdiction require suppression of evidence?	Yes: state law violations should trigger the exclusionary rule under federal and state constitutions.	No; only constitutional violations trigger suppression, not mere statutory violations.	Suppression required only for constitutional violations, not for noncompliance with jurisdictional statutes.
Should the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply if jurisdiction was ambiguous?	No; officer should know jurisdictional boundaries.	Yes; officer could reasonably believe he had authority.	Not reached: court found no Fourth Amendment violation in the first place.

Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (holding that the Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest carried out in violation of state law, so long as probable cause exists)
State v. Cuny, 257 Neb. 168 (1999) (earlier Nebraska case suggesting jurisdictional violations may trigger exclusionary rule—later limited by this opinion)
Marksmeier v. Davie, 622 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2010) (arrest without statutory jurisdiction but with probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment)
State v. Masat, 239 Neb. 849 (1992) (previous case excluding evidence based on territorial jurisdiction—overruled in part by this decision)
State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 (1991) (same as above, overruled in relevant part)