State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709

At ~10:35 p.m., two Nebraska Game and Parks conservation officers encountered two groups of people on a dark, unmarked paved road at Branched Oak Lake; officers parked on the right shoulder and one officer exited to investigate.
While one officer approached the groups, the other stayed in the marked patrol vehicle and observed Jonathan Rivera approach in his vehicle, pull onto the grassy shoulder, and drive slowly past the patrol vehicle toward the groups.
The officer exited the patrol vehicle and walked toward Rivera’s vehicle; Rivera stopped when he saw the uniformed officer. The officer did not activate lights or siren, draw a weapon, block Rivera’s vehicle, or (per the trial court’s implicit finding) gesture to order Rivera to stop.
The officer told Rivera he would move the patrol vehicle if Rivera waited a few minutes; during the conversation the officer observed bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech and asked about drinking, to which Rivera admitted he had been drinking.
Rivera was detained for a DUI investigation, arrested, moved to suppress the evidence, and was convicted; the county court, district court, Court of Appeals, and Nebraska Supreme Court all affirmed denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Rivera's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the initial police-citizen encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure	Rivera: The officer’s conduct (approach and causing Rivera to stop) amounted to a seizure requiring Fourth Amendment justification and the community-caretaking exception should not be expanded to validate it	State: The encounter was a consensual (first-tier) encounter that escalated only after officer observations; community-caretaking or investigative detention justified the detention once reasonable suspicion arose	The court held no seizure occurred at the encounter’s commencement; it began as a consensual encounter, then escalated to a lawful investigatory detention based on observed impairment
Whether the community-caretaking exception justified the initial contact/detention	Rivera: Application of the exception here improperly expands it beyond narrow limits	State: Lower courts permissibly relied on community caretaking to justify contact	The court concluded application of the community-caretaking exception was unnecessary because no seizure occurred; lower courts reached the correct outcome though they used the wrong rationale

State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (discusses tiers of police-citizen encounters and reasonable suspicion)
State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (community-caretaking exception to Fourth Amendment should be narrowly applied)
State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805, 765 N.W.2d 469 (seizure requires actual submission to show of authority)
State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (Fourth Amendment seizure principles)
State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to seizure inquiry)
State v. Lee, 290 Neb. 601, 861 N.W.2d 393 (appellate review of factual findings on suppression motions)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231, 888 N.W.2d 153 (correct result will not be reversed solely because lower court used incorrect reasoning)