State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265

Background

On Aug. 5, 2015, Lincoln police approached a parked vehicle near a separate target vehicle tied to a wanted individual; the approached vehicle had three occupants including Rogers (rear passenger).
The lead officer saw the front-seat passenger reach under his seat, knew the driver as a narcotics contact, and briefly detained occupants to identify them; a warrant was found for the front-seat passenger, who was arrested.
After occupants exited, the lead officer observed a purse on the rear floor with a small plastic bag protruding that resembled drug-sale packaging; consent to search was refused.
Officers summoned a drug-detection dog, which alerted on the driver’s side; a subsequent search of the vehicle and purse recovered a pipe and a bag with residue that tested positive for amphetamines; items were tied to Rogers.
Rogers was charged with possession of a controlled substance, moved to suppress the stop and search, was denied, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 20 months to 5 years’ imprisonment.

Issues

Issue	Rogers' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether directing passengers to exit the vehicle constituted a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	Exit order was a seizure after officer determined the wanted person was not present, unsupported by reasonable suspicion	The show of authority and surrounding circumstances made a reasonable person feel not free to remain, so the exit constituted a seizure but was supported by reasonable suspicion	Court: Request to exit escalated encounter to tier-two (seizure); lawful because reasonable suspicion existed
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate occupants after identifying the wanted person was absent	Detention rested on an unparticularized hunch based on driver’s associations	Officer observed furtive movement (front passenger reaching under seat), recognized driver as narcotics contact, received assisting officers’ intel, and later observed a bag consistent with narcotics packaging	Court: Totality of circumstances produced reasonable suspicion to detain and conduct a dog sniff
Whether drug-dog sniff and subsequent search yielded admissible evidence	Evidence was fruit of illegal seizure/search and should be suppressed	Dog sniff was within reasonable time; alert provided probable cause for vehicle search	Court: Dog sniff lawful; alert gave probable cause; evidence admissible
Whether the sentence (20 months–5 years) was excessive	Sentencing court failed to meaningfully consider mitigating factors and did not explain why maximum reserved for worst offenders	Sentence was within statutory range; court considered relevant factors; no requirement for detailed findings	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Milos, 294 Neb. 375 (discussing tiers of police-citizen encounters and suppression review)
State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (analyzing when seizure occurs and suppression standards)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670 (review of reasonable suspicion and suppression principles)
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (constitutional limits on vehicle stops and seizures)
State v. Hedgcock, 277 Neb. 805 (when request to exit vehicle constitutes seizure)