21 N.W.3d 490
Neb.2025Background
- Aldrick Scott was convicted by a Nebraska jury of first degree murder, using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and tampering with physical evidence following the death of his former girlfriend, Cari Allen.
- After killing Allen and concealing evidence, Scott fled the United States, was located in Belize, and was arrested, searched, and deported by Belizean authorities.
- During his Belizean detention, Scott’s cell phone was seized and later transferred to Nebraska law enforcement, who extracted incriminating internet search evidence.
- Scott moved to suppress the cell phone evidence, arguing the arrest/search violated foreign law and was a joint venture with U.S. authorities, thus invoking the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.
- Scott also argued the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, disputing premeditation and intent requirements for murder and tampering counts.
- The district court denied his suppression motion, found sufficient evidence, and imposed consecutive sentences; the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Belize cell phone evidence | Scott: Arrest/search in Belize violated law; joint venture with U.S., so exclusionary rule applies. | State: U.S. did not direct or control Belizean investigation; no joint venture; exclusionary rule inapplicable. | Not a joint venture; exclusionary rule does not apply; evidence admissible. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for first degree murder | Scott: Insufficient evidence of premeditation/deliberate malice; argued he panicked, did not plan. | State: Circumstantial evidence shows premeditation and motive due to jealousy. | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
| Use of deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony | Scott: Lacked evidence for murder, so evidence insufficient for weapon charge. | State: Murder conviction supports weapons charge. | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
| Tampering with physical evidence | Scott: No proof he believed an official proceeding was pending/coming when he disposed of evidence. | State: Evidence shows Scott believed investigation was imminent (to avoid getting caught). | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barajas, 195 Neb. 502 (Neb. 1976) (exclusionary rule applies to foreign searches only if a "joint venture" with U.S. law enforcement exists)
- State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 (Neb. 2024) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence and suppression motions)
- State v. Kilmer, 318 Neb. 148 (Neb. 2024) (elements for first degree murder and review of circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Simons, 315 Neb. 415 (Neb. 2023) (standards for the Fourth Amendment and reasonableness of searches)