State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709

At ~10:35 p.m. in a dark recreation area, two conservation officers encountered two groups on opposite sides of a paved, unmarked road near Branched Oak Lake.
The officers parked their marked patrol vehicle at the right side of the road; one officer approached the groups while the other returned to the patrol vehicle to call dispatch.
Jonathan Rivera approached in his vehicle, passed the parked patrol vehicle on the grassy shoulder, and stopped with his front even with the patrol vehicle as an officer walked toward his vehicle in uniform (weapon not drawn or displayed).
The officer told Rivera he would move the patrol vehicle if Rivera would wait a few minutes; during the interaction the officer observed bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech and asked if Rivera had been drinking, to which Rivera admitted drinking.
Rivera was detained for a DUI investigation and later arrested; he moved to suppress evidence, arguing the initial contact was an unlawful seizure. The county court denied the motion relying on the community-caretaking exception; district court and Court of Appeals affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Rivera's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the initial police-citizen encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure	Rivera: Officer’s approach and causing him to stop constituted a seizure requiring suppression	State: Interaction was a voluntary encounter that escalated to investigative detention after officer observations	Held: No seizure at commencement; Rivera voluntarily stopped, so encounter was a first-tier encounter that escalated to second-tier based on observed signs of intoxication
Whether the community-caretaking exception justified the contact	Rivera: Court of Appeals improperly expanded the exception to justify the contact	State: Community-caretaking applied (as found below)	Held: Court did not need to rely on community-caretaking because no initial seizure occurred; exception not necessary and should be narrowly applied
Whether the subsequent detention was supported by reasonable suspicion	Rivera: Initial contact tainted subsequent detention	State: Officer’s observations (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, admission of drinking) gave rise to reasonable suspicion	Held: After voluntary encounter, observations provided reasonable suspicion to detain; detention was lawful
Whether lower courts’ reasoning required reversal despite correct outcome	Rivera: Erroneous application of community-caretaking justified reversal	State: Correct result should stand	Held: Correct result will not be set aside even if lower courts used wrong reasoning; affirmation stands

State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (Neb. 2017) (defines encounter tiers and seizure analysis)
State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (Neb. 2007) (community-caretaking exception must be narrowly applied)
State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805, 765 N.W.2d 469 (Neb. 2009) (seizure by show of authority and requirement of submission)
State v. Lee, 290 Neb. 601, 861 N.W.2d 393 (Neb. 2015) (appellate review does not reweigh witness credibility in suppression findings)
State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (Neb. 2014) (Fourth Amendment seizure requires showing a person was not free to leave)
State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2008) (officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant to seizure inquiry)
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 incorrect reasoning)