State v. Khalil, 908 N.W.2d 97

Deputy Henkel stopped Khalil’s rental Nissan on I-80 for following a semi too closely; Khalil was asked to sit in Henkel’s patrol car while Henkel prepared a warning.
Henkel detected a faint odor he believed was raw marijuana, observed inconsistent travel stories between Khalil and a companion in a separate rented vehicle, saw a ‘‘lived-in’’ car with clothing/suitcase, noted Khalil’s nervous behavior, and observed multiple air fresheners.
After issuing a warning (total time about 10 minutes from stop to ticket), Henkel deployed a drug dog within 3 minutes; the canine alerted and a subsequent search uncovered 128 pounds of marijuana in the trunk.
Khalil was handcuffed at the scene, read Miranda warnings, later questioned, and admitted involvement and agreement to deliver for payment.
Khalil moved to suppress the statements and the search results on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds; the district court denied the motion and he was convicted after a stipulated bench trial.

Issue	Khalil's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of initial stop	Stop was invalid / improper extension tainted seizure	Stop was valid for following too closely	Stop was lawful; traffic violation gave probable cause to stop
On-scene unrelated questioning	Questions unrelated to traffic stop converted seizure into drug investigation	Routine inquiries (destination, ID) are permissible if they do not measurably extend the stop	Questions during ~10-minute stop did not measurably extend detention and were permissible
Extension to conduct canine sniff	Deploying dog after ticket impermissibly extended stop absent reasonable suspicion	Totality of circumstances gave reasonable, articulable suspicion to continue detention and sniff	Reasonable suspicion existed (odor, inconsistencies, nervousness, rental arrangement, items in car); deploying dog within minutes was reasonable
Miranda / right to counsel invocation	Henkel’s pre-warning drug question and later questioning after Khalil referenced counsel violated Miranda and Khalil had unequivocally invoked counsel	Khalil was not in custody during the traffic stop so Miranda warnings were not required; his comments about counsel were ambiguous, not an unequivocal invocation	Khalil was not "in custody" for Miranda during the stop; his statements about consulting a lawyer were ambiguous, so interrogation need not stop

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda safeguard requirements)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (officer inquiries not converting stop if not lengthened)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (officers may not extend completed stop absent reasonable suspicion)
U.S. v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d 407 (8th Cir. 2017) (reasonable suspicion may grow during a stop)
State v. Nelson, 282 Neb. 767 (Neb. 2011) (traffic stop scope and investigative steps)
State v. Bauldwin, 283 Neb. 678 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Voichahoske, 271 Neb. 64 (Neb. 2006) (reasonableness of continued detention and canine sniff timing)
State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352 (Neb. 2011) (delays for canine units evaluated for reasonableness)
State v. Landis, 281 Neb. 139 (Neb. 2011) (Miranda custody analysis for traffic stops)
State v. DeJong, 287 Neb. 864 (Neb. 2014) (Miranda and custodial interrogation)