State v. Nunez
907 N.W.2d 913
Neb.2018Background
- Sgt. Hoffman stopped Mark Nunez for speeding, learned Nunez’s license was suspended and there was an outstanding warrant, arrested him, and had the vehicle towed with his 7‑year‑old son removed by another officer.
- Officers searched the vehicle while locating the keys; they found a pipe and a black container whose contents tested positive for methamphetamine. Nunez was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
- The Washington County sheriff’s written impound policy required an inventory of impounded vehicles, searching unlocked containers, listing all identified items on an impound/inventory form, and creating a property/evidence report for contraband.
- At the suppression hearing, the inventory sheet was not introduced; it later appeared at trial and did not list the pipe or black container. No evidence/property report was produced or shown to have been completed.
- Nunez moved to suppress the evidence as a warrantless search; the district court denied the motion, convicted him after a bench trial, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Nunez’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers’ on‑scene search (while looking for keys) was a valid inventory search | Searching for keys wasn’t part of the written policy; therefore the search wasn’t an authorized inventory search | Searching for keys is a routine, established practice; alternatively, the items would have been inevitably discovered during a proper inventory | Court accepted inevitable discovery alternative and upheld admissibility; search permitted as inventory/inevitable discovery |
| Whether omission of seized items from the inventory sheet invalidates the inventory search | Failure to list the pipe and container shows noncompliance with policy and suggests a pretextual search | Omission is a procedural defect that alone does not prove the search was a ruse to find evidence | Court held the omission did not raise an inference of pretext; inventory search remained reasonable |
| Whether absence of a property/evidence report required suppression | No evidence/report was completed as policy requires; this procedural failure undermines inventory reliability | Failure to strictly follow paperwork requirements does not per se make an inventory unreasonable | Court held lack of an evidence report did not render the search unconstitutional |
| Standard for evaluating inventory searches and exceptions (e.g., inevitable discovery) | N/A (legal standard issue) | Inventory searches reasonably further caretaking functions; evidence admissible if inevitably discoverable by lawful means | Court applied reasonableness standard and inevitable discovery doctrine; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory searches are reasonable when conducted under standardized procedures)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory search doctrine; reasonableness standard)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches must not be a ruse to discover evidence; policies should limit officer discretion)
- State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226 (failure to follow inventory policy may support suppression when facts show search was a pretext)
- State v. Ball, 271 Neb. 140 (discussing inevitable discovery doctrine in Nebraska)
- U.S. v. Rowland, 341 F.3d 774 (failure to follow standardized procedures does not automatically mandate suppression)