State v. Rivera
297 Neb. 709
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On May 24, 2014, at ~10:35 p.m., two Nebraska Game and Parks conservation officers encountered two groups of people on a dark, unmarked paved road in a recreation area.
- Officers parked a marked patrol vehicle at the scene; while one officer investigated on foot, the other remained in the patrol vehicle and called dispatch.
- Jonathan Rivera approached in his truck, pulled onto the grassy shoulder, and slowly passed the parked patrol vehicle; the officer exited and walked around the front of the patrol vehicle toward Rivera’s vehicle.
- Rivera stopped his truck when he saw the uniformed officer; the officer asked Rivera to wait while he moved the patrol vehicle, observed bloodshot/watery eyes and slurred speech, asked whether Rivera had been drinking, and then detained him for a DUI investigation leading to arrest.
- Rivera moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful stop; the county court denied the motion relying on the community-caretaking exception, and that denial was affirmed by the district court and Court of Appeals. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
Issues
| Issue | Rivera's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police-citizen encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure | The Court of Appeals improperly applied the community-caretaking exception because the officer caused Rivera to stop, producing a seizure | The officer’s approach did not constitute a seizure; he was performing a community-caretaking function and then developed suspicion | No seizure occurred at the commencement of the encounter; Rivera voluntarily stopped when he saw the officer |
| Whether the community-caretaking exception justified contact/detention | Community-caretaking was inappropriately expanded and should be narrowly limited | Community-caretaking applied to justify the officer’s initial contact | Court did not need to reach community-caretaking because no seizure occurred; lower courts reached correct result though via wrong reasoning |
| Whether officer’s observations supported escalation to investigative detention | Initial contact was a seizure so suppression required unless community-caretaking applied | Officer’s observations (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, admission of drinking) created reasonable suspicion | After voluntary stop (first-tier encounter), officer’s observations elevated the encounter to second-tier, giving reasonable suspicion for detention |
| Whether subjective intent of the officer matters to seizure analysis | Officer intended to stop Rivera, so encounter was a seizure | Officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant; seizure determined by objective circumstances | Subjective intent irrelevant; objective facts show no seizure because Rivera voluntarily stopped and officer made no authoritative gesture or force |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (Fourth Amendment seizure test; encounter tiers)
- State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372, 730 N.W.2d 335 (community-caretaking exception to be narrowly and carefully applied)
- State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805, 765 N.W.2d 469 (seizure by show of authority; need for submission)
- State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233, 846 N.W.2d 662 (Fourth Amendment seizure requires objective restraint on freedom)
- State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to seizure analysis)
- State v. Lee, 290 Neb. 601, 861 N.W.2d 393 (appellate review of factual findings for clear error)
- State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231, 888 N.W.2d 153 (correct result will not be set aside for wrong reasoning)