State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709

Background

Late-night at Branched Oak Lake recreation area: two conservation officers found groups on both sides of a dark, unmarked road; officers parked their marked vehicle and one officer walked toward the groups.
While one officer was in the patrol vehicle calling dispatch, Jonathan Rivera approached in his truck, slowed, and moved onto the grassy shoulder to pass the patrol vehicle; the officer then walked around the front of the patrol vehicle toward Rivera’s vehicle.
The officer was in uniform, displayed a badge, and carried a holstered firearm but did not draw it, activate lights/siren, honk, or block Rivera’s truck; testimony conflicted about whether the officer gestured for Rivera to stop.
Rivera stopped when the officer approached and, during a brief conversation, the officer observed bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech; Rivera admitted to drinking and was detained, tested, and arrested for DUI.
Rivera moved to suppress evidence, arguing the initial stop was an unconstitutional seizure; the county court, district court, and Court of Appeals upheld denial of suppression (lower courts relied on the community caretaking exception).
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to address use of the community caretaking exception and ultimately affirmed the result but held no seizure occurred at encounter outset, so the community caretaking rationale was unnecessary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial police-citizen encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure	Rivera: the officer caused a seizure when he made contact and stopped Rivera, so evidence should be suppressed	State: the encounter began without a seizure; officer’s approach was a consensual, first-tier contact that escalated after officer observed signs of intoxication	No seizure occurred at the outset; Rivera voluntarily stopped and a reasonable person would have felt free to leave
Whether the community caretaking exception justified the officer’s contact/detention	Rivera: lower courts improperly expanded the exception to permit the contact/detention	State: community caretaking applied (as held by lower courts)	Court: community caretaking exception need not be applied because no seizure occurred; result affirmed on independent Fourth Amendment analysis
Whether officer’s subjective intent matters	Rivera: officer intended to stop him, supporting seizure claim	State: subjective intent is irrelevant to whether a seizure occurred	Held: officer’s subjective intent irrelevant; objective circumstances control
Whether observations provided reasonable suspicion to detain	Rivera: initial contact was unlawful, so subsequent detention was tainted	State: officer observed signs (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, admission of drinking) that created reasonable suspicion	Held: after voluntary stop, officer’s observations established reasonable suspicion and justified detention

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (2017) (Fourth Amendment seizure test; tiers of police-citizen encounters)
State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (2007) (community caretaking exception to warrant requirement should be narrowly applied)
State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805, 765 N.W.2d 469 (2009) (no seizure without submission to show of authority)
State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to seizure analysis)
State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (2014) (Fourth Amendment protections require an actual seizure)
State v. Lee, 290 Neb. 601, 861 N.W.2d 393 (2015) (appellate review does not reweigh credibility when reviewing factual findings)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231, 888 N.W.2d 153 (2016) (correct result will not be reversed solely because lower court used wrong reasoning)