State v. Nunez, 299 Neb. 340

Background

Sgt. Hoffman stopped Mark Nunez for speeding, discovered a suspended license and an active warrant, arrested Nunez, and impounded his vehicle; Nunez’s 7-year-old son was a passenger and taken to family.
Before towing, officers searched the vehicle looking for keys; they found a pipe and later a black container whose contents field-tested positive for methamphetamine.
An inventory sheet was completed by another officer but the pipe and the black container were not listed on that sheet; no separate property/evidence report for the seized contraband was introduced or shown to exist.
Nunez moved to suppress the physical evidence, arguing the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and did not comply with the sheriff’s written inventory policy.
The district court denied the suppression motion; after a bench trial Nunez was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nunez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the vehicle search was a valid inventory search	Search deviated from written policy (search for keys not authorized; items not listed; no evidence report) so it was not a lawful inventory search	Search served caretaking/towing purposes; even if keys-search wasn’t in writing, officers would have inevitably discovered the items during a proper inventory	Inventory search was reasonable; deficiencies did not indicate a ruse and evidence admissible
Whether searching for keys before impoundment was allowed	Searching for keys is not in the written policy and thus improper	Searching for keys is a recognized practice to facilitate towing and prevent damage; Hoffman’s testimony supported that practice	Court assumed without deciding testimony insufficient to alter written policy but held inevitable discovery made the issue moot
Whether omission of seized items from the inventory sheet and lack of evidence report required suppression	Omission and absent evidence report show policy not followed and suggest searching for evidence, not inventory	Failure to strictly follow every step does not automatically invalidate an inventory search; omissions here do not raise inference of a ruse	Failure to list items and absence of evidence report did not negate reasonableness; no suppression required
Whether inevitable discovery applies	Nunez argued procedural errors preclude inevitable discovery	State argued that even without the keys-search, a valid inventory would have uncovered the contraband	Court applied inevitable discovery doctrine and concluded the items would have been found during a proper inventory

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hidalgo, 296 Neb. 912 (recognizing inventory searches conducted according to established policy are reasonable)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory-search justification and standards)
Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (inventory-search reasonableness)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches and Fourth Amendment)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory policies to prevent ruses for general rummaging)
State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226 (inventory deviations that suggest searching for evidence can require suppression)
State v. Filkin, 242 Neb. 276 (policy purpose to prevent rummaging and ensure inventory)
State v. Ball, 271 Neb. 140 (inevitable discovery doctrine applied in Nebraska)
U.S. v. Rowland, 341 F.3d 774 (failure to strictly follow procedures does not automatically mandate suppression)