State v. Rivera
297 Neb. 709
| Neb. | 2017Background
- At ~10:35 p.m. two conservation officers encountered groups of people on opposite sides of a dark paved road in a recreation area; one officer remained at the marked patrol vehicle while the other approached the groups.
- Jonathan J. Rivera drove up behind the parked patrol vehicle, pulled onto the grassy shoulder, and advanced slowly; officers testified the vehicle would have left the paved road if it had tried to pass on the left.
- A uniformed, armed (but not drawn) officer walked to the front/passenger side of the patrol vehicle and then toward Rivera’s truck; Rivera stopped when he saw the officer.
- The officer told Rivera he would move the patrol vehicle if Rivera would wait a few minutes; during that brief interaction the officer noticed bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech and asked about drinking; Rivera admitted drinking.
- Rivera was detained for DUI, arrested, and moved to suppress evidence arguing the initial stop was an unlawful seizure; the county court, district court, Court of Appeals, and Nebraska Supreme Court all ultimately upheld denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police-citizen encounter constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | Rivera: officer’s contact and causing him to stop was a seizure requiring suppression | State: Rivera voluntarily stopped; officer’s approach was a consensual encounter that escalated after observations | Held: No seizure occurred at the start; Rivera voluntarily stopped and encounter was first-tier/consensual |
| Whether the community caretaking exception justified the encounter/detention | Rivera: Court of Appeals improperly expanded the exception; any reliance impermissible here | State: county court applied community caretaking exception to justify contact | Held: Community caretaking exception unnecessary because no initial seizure; courts reached correct result though some relied on the exception |
| Whether officer’s observations gave rise to reasonable suspicion for detention | Rivera: initial contact unlawful so subsequent detention should be suppressed | State: observations (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, admission of drinking) provided reasonable suspicion to escalate to investigative stop | Held: After voluntary stop officer’s observations established reasonable suspicion, making detention lawful |
| Whether lower courts’ reliance on community caretaking doctrine required reversal | Rivera: reliance shows doctrinal expansion and error | State: the denial of suppression was correct on the facts | Held: Even if lower courts applied wrong reasoning, the ultimate result was correct and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372 (narrow, careful application of community caretaking exception)
- State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265 (framework for first-tier and second-tier police-citizen encounters)
- State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805 (seizure requires submission; officer may effect seizure by show of authority)
- State v. Lee, 290 Neb. 601 (appellate review of trial court factual findings for clear error)
- State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448 (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to seizure analysis)
- State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233 (Fourth Amendment protections apply only if a seizure occurred)
- State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (correct result will not be set aside even if lower court used wrong reasoning)