State v. Jennings, 942 N.W.2d 753

Background

On Dec. 23, 2016, two masked intruders invaded the Brinkman home; Michael Brinkman was shot and later died; eyewitnesses described clothing and a white Dodge Durango seen near the residence.
Investigators obtained DNA from a piece of Texas toast at the scene; CODIS returned a possible match to Leandre R. Jennings III; subsequent buccal swab strongly matched Jennings.
An anonymous tip and rental records tied the Durango to Carnell Watt, who said she lent the vehicle to Jennings; vehicle Bluetooth and CSLI data linked Jennings and Watt to relevant locations/times.
Law enforcement obtained Jennings’ cell-site location information (CSLI) via a court order under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and later sought a residential search warrant for a North 60th Street address based on an affidavit that included the CSLI and CODIS information.
Jennings moved to suppress (1) the cell phone records/CSLI (arguing Carpenter requires a warrant) and (2) evidence from the residence search (arguing lack of probable cause and unconstitutional lack of particularity). The district court denied both motions; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jennings)	Held
Whether CSLI obtained via an SCA §2703(d) court order must be suppressed after Carpenter	Evidence should be admissible because police relied reasonably on the then-valid SCA provision; subsequent warrants cured defects	SCA order violated Fourth Amendment under Carpenter; evidence must be excluded and later warrants do not cure the prior constitutional violation	Court: Denied suppression; applied Illinois v. Krull good-faith exception to exclude remedy (not the right) because reliance on statute was objectively reasonable; later warrants need not be addressed
Whether CSLI and CODIS information may be used in the probable-cause affidavit for the residence warrant	The CSLI and CODIS info were obtained in good faith and could be included in the affidavit; they contributed to a fair probability that evidence would be found	Information was fruit of the poisonous tree (CSLI) and the CODIS reference was too vague to support probable cause	Court: Allowed use of both; affidavit, read commonsense under Gates, supplied probable cause to search the residence
Whether the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment particularity requirement (paragraphs 1, 2, 5)	Warrant language was sufficiently particular given the murder investigation; any overbroad phrases are severable from valid, specific item descriptions	Several clauses (e.g., "item(s) of evidentiary value," generic "clothing items") were unconstitutionally vague and authorized overseizure	Court: Paragraph 1 (venue items) valid; Paragraph 2’s vague preamble invalid but specific listing (cell phones, electronics) severable and valid; paragraph 5 mostly valid for listed items; some generic language potentially invalid but separable
Whether admission of photographs/items seized under any invalid portions of the warrant requires reversal	Any error was harmless given overwhelming, properly admitted evidence (DNA, CSLI, vehicle links)	Admission of items under vague clauses prejudiced Jennings’ trial rights	Court: Any admission under invalid portions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not affect the jury’s verdict; convictions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (CSLI generally requires a warrant)
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (good-faith exception applies where police reasonably rely on a statute later held unconstitutional)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception for warrants issued by detached magistrate)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule not required when error resulted from isolated negligence)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule exception when binding precedent renders conduct lawful)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances; commonsense reading of affidavits)
State v. Brown, 302 Neb. 53 (2019) (Nebraska treatment of SCA/CSLI issues and good-faith considerations)
State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216 (2017) (factors for assessing warrant particularity and objective standards for identifying seizable items)
State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271 (2014) (warrant clauses authorizing search of a cell phone must be limited to information linked to probable cause)
State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (2015) (under murder investigation facts, categorical descriptions like "any and all firearms" can be sufficiently particular)