State v. Shiffermiller
302 Neb. 245
Neb.2019Background
- At ~4:30 a.m., police responded to a reported fight; officers found Steven F. Shiffermiller near his parked car with a torn shirt and blood on his face and hands, matching the report.
- Officers questioned him, asked him to sit, and within 30–40 minutes no other party was found; Shiffermiller was handcuffed after being uncooperative and appeared intoxicated or under the influence.
- Officers decided to transport him for his safety and to prevent him from driving; before transport they performed a protective pat-down and felt brass knuckles, which they removed and seized after discovering he was a felon.
- After discovery of the brass knuckles (probable cause for arrest), officers searched Shiffermiller’s person and opened a flashlight that rattled, finding controlled substances and marijuana.
- Shiffermiller moved to suppress; the district court denied the motion, he was convicted after a stipulated bench trial, the Court of Appeals affirmed applying the community-caretaking exception, and the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shiffermiller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial detention exceeded a Terry investigatory stop | Detention was a reasonable investigatory stop to investigate an alleged fight | The stop and handcuffing were highly intrusive and amounted to an arrest without probable cause | Initial 30–40 minute investigation was a lawful Terry stop and did not convert into an unlawful arrest |
| Whether continued detention after investigation was lawful | Continued detention was justified under the community‑caretaking exception (safety and preventing impaired driving) | Continued detention became unconstitutional because investigation ended and no impairment was verified | Continued detention was reasonable under the community‑caretaking exception given intoxication signs, proximity to vehicle, and public safety concerns |
| Whether the pat‑down/search for weapons was lawful | Pat‑down was a minimally intrusive protective frisk for officer safety prior to transport | No reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous justified the frisk | Pat‑down was lawful (caretaking justification + Terry/weapon frisk); officer felt brass knuckles and lawfully seized them under plain‑feel doctrine |
| Whether opening the flashlight violated the Fourth Amendment | Search of flashlight was valid as incident to a lawful, contemporaneous arrest based on brass knuckles | Opening flashlight occurred before a formal arrest and thus was not incident to arrest | Search of flashlight was contemporaneous with arrest and lawful as search incident to arrest (Robinson rationale) |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (defines investigatory stop and frisk standard)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (community‑caretaking exception for vehicle incidents)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (scope of search incident to lawful custodial arrest)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (plain‑feel doctrine for pat‑downs)
- State v. Van Ackeren, 242 Neb. 479 (Neb. 1993) (three‑tier analysis of police‑citizen encounters)
- State v. Bakewell, 273 Neb. 372 (Neb. 2007) (adopts/analyzes community‑caretaking exception in Nebraska)
- State v. Wells, 290 Neb. 186 (Neb. 2015) (factors for determining when detention becomes de facto arrest)
- State v. Perry, 292 Neb. 708 (Neb. 2016) (warrantless search exceptions and burden on state)
- U.S. v. Maltais, 403 F.3d 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (detention duration can convert stop into arrest if unreasonably long)