State v. Rivera
297 Neb. 709
| Neb. | 2017Background
- At ~10:35 p.m. in a very dark recreation area, two Nebraska Game and Parks conservation officers encountered groups on opposite sides of a paved road; an officer parked a marked patrol vehicle and exited to investigate.
- While one officer was in the patrol vehicle, Jonathan Rivera approached in his truck, pulled onto the grassy shoulder, and drove slowly past the patrol vehicle near the groups; the officer then walked around the front of the patrol vehicle toward Rivera.
- Rivera stopped his vehicle when he saw the uniformed officer approach; the officer did not activate lights or siren, draw a weapon, block Rivera’s vehicle, or (based on the court’s implicit finding) gesture a stop.
- The officer told Rivera he would move the patrol vehicle if Rivera would wait a few minutes, observed bloodshot/watery eyes and slurred speech, asked about drinking, then detained Rivera and later arrested him for DUI.
- Rivera’s motion to suppress was denied by the county court (which applied the community caretaking exception), affirmed by the district court and the Court of Appeals; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ result but on different grounds.
- The Supreme Court held the initial encounter was not a Fourth Amendment seizure (Rivera stopped voluntarily), so application of the community caretaking exception was unnecessary; the encounter escalated to a constitutionally permissible detention based on reasonable suspicion from the officer’s observations.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police-citizen encounter constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | The officer’s conduct caused Rivera to stop, so a seizure occurred and the community caretaking exception should be narrowly applied | The encounter began as a consensual/first-tier contact and not a seizure | No seizure occurred at the commencement; Rivera voluntarily stopped and no show of authority was submitted to |
| Whether the community caretaking exception justified the officer’s contact/detention | The Court of Appeals improperly expanded the exception; it should not have been applied | The trial courts relied on the exception to justify the contact | Exception was unnecessary—correct result (denial of suppression) stands because the encounter was consensual and later escalated to a justified detention based on reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (2017) (framework for tiers of police–citizen encounters and reasonable suspicion analysis)
- State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (2007) (community caretaking exception should be narrowly and carefully applied)
- State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805, 765 N.W.2d 469 (2009) (no seizure without submission; a seizure may occur by show of authority)
- State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (2014) (Fourth Amendment protection requires an actual seizure)
- State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008) (officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to whether a seizure occurred)