State v. Salvador Rodriguez, 296 Neb. 950

On July 23, 2014, police responded to a domestic disturbance involving Lori Ezell, who said she was staying at the home of Salvador Rodriguez and had a key and a bedroom there while the owners were out of town.
Ezell returned from a walk, saw lights on, the garage open, and believed someone was in the garage; she asked Officer Wackler to check the house for an intruder.
Officers entered the unlocked house, cleared areas where a person could hide, and observed two firearms in plain view; while clearing a handgun for safety they discovered its serial number appeared defaced.
Based on those observations, officers obtained search warrants a week later and executed searches that yielded large quantities of methamphetamine (about 340 grams) under a basement couch and elsewhere.
At trial Rodriguez was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; he moved to suppress evidence from the initial warrantless entry, objected to testimony about his drug use as prior-bad-acts evidence, and alleged improper prosecutorial remarks during closing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez)	Held
1. Validity of warrantless entry/search	Entry was justified by exigent circumstances (possible burglary/intruder)	Warrantless entry into home was unreasonable, so evidence is fruit of unconstitutional search	Court held exigent circumstances justified entry; suppression denied
2. Consent to entry	Ezell had common authority to allow officers to enter	Ezell lacked authority to consent; entry therefore unlawful	Court affirmed entry need not be addressed because exigency alone justified search (alternative consent finding upheld by trial court)
3. Admission of testimony about prior drug use	Testimony about ongoing drug use at the house was direct evidence of the charged possession (continuous possession)	Testimony was prior-bad-acts propensity evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) and required notice/limiting instruction	Court held the evidence was intrinsic (continuous possession) and admissible; no limiting instruction required
4. Prosecutorial remarks in closing (house ownership)	Any remark that Rodriguez owned the house was harmless; ownership not dispositive	Prosecutor misstated facts and prejudiced the jury; trial counsel preserved error	Court refused to consider alleged remarks because closing argument was not in record/bill of exceptions; no reviewable error

State v. Eberly, 271 Neb. 893 (discusses emergency doctrine/exigent circumstances and objective-reasonableness standard)
State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (standard of review for suppression rulings: historical facts for clear error, legal questions de novo)
U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.) (continuous possession: evidence of possession on dates other than charged date can be direct evidence, not other-acts)
State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179 (addresses when possession evidence is treated as other-acts versus intrinsic; discussed limiting scope)
Hill v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 1 (Va. Ct. App.) (officers may enter without warrant to check for burglary/intruder where door ajar and occupant absent)