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

Deputies stopped two rental vehicles traveling together on I‑80 for following too closely; Khalil was the Nissan driver and sat in Deputy Henkel’s patrol car while Henkel prepared a warning.
Henkel smelled a faint odor of raw marijuana, observed travel and vehicle facts (business clothes, suitcase, "lived‑in" appearance, many air fresheners), and noted inconsistent statements between Khalil and the other driver.
After issuing the warning (about 10 minutes after stop), Henkel deployed a drug dog (within 3 minutes of ticket issuance); the canine alerted and deputies searched the trunk, finding 128 pounds of marijuana.
Khalil was handcuffed at the scene, Mirandized later, questioned about a controlled delivery (said he would need to talk to his attorney), and ultimately admitted receiving payment to deliver the marijuana.
Khalil moved to suppress the canine alert, search results, and statements; the district court denied the motion, and Khalil was convicted after a stipulated bench trial and sentenced to 18–36 months.

Issue	Khalil's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether officer unlawfully expanded traffic stop by unrelated questioning	Henkel’s questions and exchanges extended stop into drug investigation	Questions were routine and did not measurably extend the stop (≈10 min)	No Fourth Amendment violation — questioning permissible
Whether detaining Khalil to conduct a canine sniff impermissibly extended the stop	Post‑ticket detention for dog sniff lacked reasonable suspicion	Totality of circumstances gave reasonable, articulable suspicion to continue detention	Reasonable suspicion existed; canine sniff lawful
Whether deployment/timing of drug dog and duration of continued detention were unreasonable	Rodriguez prohibits extending completed stop absent reasonable suspicion	Canine was on scene quickly (<3 min); prior cases permit longer waits; canine sniff is not a search	Detention length and method were reasonable; no violation
Whether Miranda warnings were required / right to counsel was invoked	Henkel’s question about drugs compelled incriminating response; Khalil later invoked counsel but questioning continued	Khalil was not in custody during patrol‑car conversation, so Miranda inapplicable; his attorney remark was ambiguous, not an unequivocal invocation	Miranda not required; no invocation of right to counsel; statements admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required only when person is in custody and subjected to interrogation)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (officer questioning unrelated to stop permissible if it does not measurably extend detention)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (absent reasonable suspicion, police may not extend an otherwise completed traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff)
State v. Nelson, 282 Neb. 767 (Nebraska standard on permissible scope of traffic‑stop investigation)
State v. Landis, 281 Neb. 139 (temporary detention for traffic stop is generally not custody for Miranda purposes)
State v. Voichahoske, 271 Neb. 64 (reasonableness of post‑stop delay for canine sniff analyzed; canine sniff not a Fourth Amendment search)
State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945 (invocation of right to counsel must be unambiguous and unequivocal)
State v. Bauldwin, 283 Neb. 678 (standard of review and application of Miranda and Fourth Amendment in suppression rulings)
State v. DeJong, 287 Neb. 864 (discusses Miranda safeguards in Nebraska)
State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352 (previous Nebraska decision finding lengthy canine arrival delay reasonable)
U.S. v. Murillo‑Salgado, 854 F.3d 407 (Eighth Circuit recognition that officer suspicion may grow during stop)