State v. Rolenc, A-15-564

At ~3:00 a.m. on March 6, 2014, Officer Dufek ran the license plate of Rolenc's car and learned from NCJIS/DMV-related systems that Rolenc's license was revoked.
Dufek contacted Rolenc at a gas station; Rolenc could not produce license/registration/insurance and disputed the revocation, claiming a DMV error.
Dispatcher/NCJIS confirmed the revoked status; Rolenc was arrested. An inventory search of his towed vehicle found a meth residue pipe; Rolenc was charged with possession of methamphetamine.
DMV records showed a prior bond forfeiture triggered a points revocation; the Douglas County Court later sent documentation withdrawing the forfeiture and the DMV restored Rolenc’s points and generated a reinstatement notice on March 6.
Rolenc moved to suppress (arguing the stop/arrest/search were unlawful); the district court denied suppression, finding the officer reasonably relied on DMV/NCJIS information and that exclusion would not be a meaningful deterrent; Rolenc was convicted after a stipulated trial and sentenced to 12–24 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule for a warrantless seizure based on erroneous DMV/NCJIS info	Rolenc: DMV error meant arrest lacked probable cause; suppression required	State: Officer reasonably relied on DMV/NCJIS; application of exclusionary rule not warranted	Denied — suppression not required because the error was nonrecurring/negligent and officer’s reliance was objectively reasonable
Whether DMV/dispatcher error falls within good-faith exception or requires exclusion	Rolenc: DMV/NCJIS functions as law-enforcement adjuncts; prior Neb. decisions preclude good-faith exception	State: Recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent limits exclusion when error is isolated/negligent	Held for State: applying Herring/Davis/Arizona framework, no systemic/reckless conduct shown, so exclusionary rule inapplicable
Whether officer had probable cause to arrest absent updated DMV records	Rolenc: Lack of actual reinstatement letter meant no valid basis	State: NCJIS indicated revocation at the time; officer acted reasonably	Held for State: officer’s action was objectively reasonable based on available records
Whether sentence (12–24 months) was excessive	Rolenc: seeks shorter term or probation	State: sentence within statutory range and defendant has substantial criminal history	Held for State: sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion

Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule applies only when police conduct is deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith reliance on binding precedent or objectively reasonable police conduct precludes exclusion)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (court-employee database errors may not trigger exclusion where application would not deter misconduct)
State v. Bromm, 285 Neb. 193 (Nebraska Supreme Court decision recognizing intervening federal precedent affects analysis)
State v. Allen, 269 Neb. 69 (dispatcher error; Nebraska precedent on database/dispatcher-caused errors)
State v. Hisey, 15 Neb. App. 100 (earlier Nebraska App. decision treating DMV as law-enforcement adjunct for exclusionary-rule analysis)
State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Hunnel, 290 Neb. 1039 (sentencing review and factors to consider)