State v. Porter, A-16-669

Background

On April 3, 2015, narcotics investigators Monico and Gratz observed Chauncey R. Porter make a short visit to an apartment under investigation for methamphetamine sales, then followed his vehicle and stopped him for multiple failures to signal.
The stop occurred in a fast-food drive-through; officers (initially in an unmarked car) asked Porter to exit for officer safety and began preparing a warning citation and running a license check.
Porter showed visible nervousness, admitted methamphetamine use when told the officers were narcotics investigators, made furtive hand movements near his groin, and asked officers to retrieve a sweatshirt from his car.
Officers conducted a pat-down and then asked Porter whether they could search his person and vehicle; Porter twice said "go ahead" and raised his arms. During the search, an officer pulled back Porter’s waistband and recovered a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine (about 6.9877 grams).
Porter moved to suppress, alleging unlawful detention, nonconsensual and overly intrusive search (including exposure/touching of genitals), and withdrawal of consent; the district court denied the motion, he stipulated to a bench trial, was convicted of possession with intent to deliver, and sentenced to 1–2 years imprisonment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Porter)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether officers unreasonably prolonged detention beyond traffic stop	Officers expanded detention and questioned beyond traffic purpose without reasonable suspicion	Officers had reasonable suspicion (brief visit to suspected drug location + furtive behavior + nervousness); questioning did not measurably extend stop	Denied — detention/ questioning lawful; 5–10 minute encounter and totality supported reasonable suspicion
Whether Porter voluntarily consented to searches	Porter did not voluntarily consent; consent was coerced and he was not told he could refuse	Porter affirmatively said “go ahead” twice and lifted his arms; no threats/promises	Denied — court found consent voluntary under totality of circumstances
Whether search exceeded scope or consent was withdrawn	Porter’s statements (“Quit touching my dick”) and alleged genital exposure/handling withdrew or limited consent; search became nonconsensual and invasive	Statement was not an unequivocal withdrawal; officer explained he was not touching genitals; looking into waistband was objectively within scope given consent to search for drugs and furtive gestures	Denied — scope reasonable and search did not exceed consent; withdrawal not shown
Whether sentence (1–2 years) was excessive	Court should have granted probation	State: sentence within statutory range and incarceration appropriate given drug history and risk to reoffend	Denied — within statutory limits and no abuse of discretion in sentencing

Key Cases Cited

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (temporary seizure during lawful traffic stop remains reasonable for duration of the stop)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (officer may not prolong traffic stop to conduct unrelated checks absent reasonable suspicion)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (unrelated inquiries during stop do not violate Fourth Amendment where they do not extend the detention)
State v. Nelson, 282 Neb. 767 (2011) (scope of investigation during traffic stop and reasonable suspicion standard)
State v. Milos, 294 Neb. 375 (2016) (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (2015) (consent must not be the product of overborne will)
State v. Howell, 284 Neb. 559 (2012) (objective-reasonableness standard for scope of consent)