State v. Saitta, 306 Neb. 499

On July 3, 2018 at ~5:43 a.m., Omaha PD officers saw Richard Saitta looking into a building being demolished on a patrol route known for trespass/scrapping problems.
Officers turned into the alley, observed Saitta "hiding in the bushes," and approached; Buckley saw Saitta shove something into his left glove.
When Saitta began to back away, Buckley touched his back to stop him (the point the court treated as a seizure); Buckley then asked to see the glove, and Saitta handed it to him.
The glove contained a clear plastic bag later field-tested positive for methamphetamine; officers then placed Saitta in handcuffs and arrested him.
District court denied Saitta’s motion to suppress; after a bench trial the court convicted and sentenced Saitta to 1 year probation. Saitta appealed, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and the glove search lacked warrant/consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Saitta)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Lawfulness of seizure (investigatory stop)	Officers lacked specific and articulable facts to detain him; touch to stop was an unlawful seizure.	Officers had reasonable suspicion (time, location, hiding in bushes, furtive gesture, scrap metal nearby, glove type and July weather) to justify a Terry stop.	Stop was a tier‑two investigatory detention supported by reasonable suspicion; denial of suppression on this ground affirmed.
Lawfulness of glove search	Search lacked warrant and probable cause alone does not justify searching a person; evidence should be suppressed.	Although district court misstated reliance on probable cause, the search was permissible because Saitta voluntarily handed the glove (consent), and other exceptions were argued.	Warrantless search upheld on consent grounds: officer asked for the glove and Saitta handed it over (implied consent by action); suppression denial affirmed.

State v. Degarmo, 305 Neb. 680, 942 N.W.2d 217 (standard of review for suppression and consent to search)
State v. Krannawitter, 305 Neb. 66, 939 N.W.2d 335 (three tiers of police‑citizen encounters / seizure analysis)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing investigatory stop reasonable‑suspicion standard)
State v. Perry, 292 Neb. 708, 874 N.W.2d 36 (probable cause alone does not justify a person search without an exception)
State v. Schriner, 303 Neb. 476, 929 N.W.2d 514 (warrantless searches per se unreasonable; recognized exceptions)
State v. Modlin, 291 Neb. 660, 867 N.W.2d 609 (consent to search may be implied by action)
State v. Shiffermiller, 302 Neb. 245, 922 N.W.2d 763 (investigatory stop must be temporary and least intrusive)