State v. Rivera
297 Neb. 709
Neb.2017Background
- At ~10:35 p.m. two Nebraska Game and Parks conservation officers encountered two groups of people on opposite sides of a dark, unmarked paved road in a recreation area.
- Officers parked on the right shoulder; one officer approached the groups while the other returned to the patrol vehicle and called dispatch.
- Jonathan Rivera approached in his vehicle, passed the patrol truck on the right shoulder, and stopped when he saw a uniformed officer walk toward his vehicle; the officer did not activate lights/siren, draw a weapon, or block Rivera’s truck.
- The officer told Rivera he would move the patrol vehicle if Rivera would wait; the officer observed bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech and asked about alcohol consumption, to which Rivera admitted drinking.
- Rivera was detained for DUI, arrested, convicted after a bench trial, and appealed the denial of his suppression motion; lower courts applied the community caretaking exception to uphold the stop.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred at the encounter’s start and whether resort to the community caretaking exception was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police-citizen encounter constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | Rivera: The officer’s approach and conduct caused a seizure, so the community caretaking exception must be narrowly applied and does not justify the stop | State: The encounter was a voluntary, noncoercive encounter that escalated after the officer observed indicators of intoxication; community caretaking applied below | Held: No seizure occurred at the outset; Rivera voluntarily stopped, so Fourth Amendment protections were not triggered initially; subsequently, reasonable suspicion justified detention |
| Whether the community caretaking exception was necessary or properly applied | Rivera: Court of Appeals expanded the exception improperly | State: Lower courts permissibly relied on community caretaking to justify contact | Held: Community caretaking was unnecessary because no initial seizure occurred; lower courts reached correct result but on the wrong reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (Neb. 2007) (community caretaking exception must be narrowly and carefully applied)
- State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (Neb. 2017) (framework for first-tier and second-tier police-citizen encounters)
- State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805, 765 N.W.2d 469 (Neb. 2009) (show-of-authority seizure principles)
- State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (Neb. 2014) (Fourth Amendment seizure requires submission or physical force)
- State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2008) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to seizure analysis)
- State v. Lee, 290 Neb. 601, 861 N.W.2d 393 (Neb. 2015) (appellate review does not reweigh witness credibility in reviewing factual findings)
- State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231, 888 N.W.2d 153 (Neb. 2016) (correct result will not be set aside solely because lower court used wrong reasoning)