State v. Thompson, 966 N.W.2d 872

Officer Hosick stopped Ronda Thompson for failing to stop at a sign and observed expired plates; he decided to issue a citation and returned to his cruiser to run checks and prepare paperwork.
After roughly 10 minutes and after preparing the citation, Hosick reapproached, stood in the open driver‑door threshold, returned documents, and asked about illegal items and permission to look in the car.
Thompson replied “No, go ahead. Help yourself,” began to exit, unlocked the vehicle, and later, after being asked to turn out her pockets, produced a baggie containing residue that field‑ and lab‑tested positive for methamphetamine.
Thompson moved to suppress the physical evidence as the product of an unlawful extension of the traffic stop; the district court denied suppression and admitted the evidence at a stipulated bench trial, finding consent voluntary.
She was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, sentenced to probation, and appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded the officer impermissibly extended the stop, that consent was voluntary but not sufficiently attenuated, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial (double jeopardy did not bar retrial).

Issue	State's Argument	Thompson's Argument	Held
Whether officer’s post‑paperwork questions unlawfully extended the traffic stop	The questioning did not unlawfully extend the stop or, if it did, it de‑escalated to a voluntary encounter	The officer’s questions came after the stop’s mission was complete and thus unlawfully prolonged the seizure	The additional questions occurred after the stop’s mission ended and unlawfully extended the seizure
Whether the encounter de‑escalated to a voluntary (tier‑one) encounter	The return of documents and the officer’s manner indicated a voluntary encounter	No de‑escalation: officer remained in door threshold and conduct/timing continued to constrain Thompson’s freedom	No de‑escalation; a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave
Whether Thompson’s consent to a vehicle/person search was voluntary	Consent was given freely and voluntarily	Consent was coerced/tainted by the illegal extension	Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances
Whether consent was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal stop to admit seized evidence	Consent was attenuated and the evidence admissible	Consent was the fruit of the illegal extension and must be excluded	Consent was not attenuated (temporal proximity, no intervening circumstances, and investigatory/flagrant conduct); evidence inadmissible; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial (double jeopardy does not bar retrial)

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2015) (traffic‑stop mission ends when tasks tied to citation are completed; stop cannot be prolonged absent reasonable suspicion)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2009) (officer may pose unrelated questions during stop so long as they do not measurably extend duration)
State v. Hartzell, 304 Neb. 82 (Neb. 2019) (de‑escalation analysis when officer returns documents and later requests consent)
State v. Bray, 297 Neb. 916 (Neb. 2017) (two‑part consent inquiry: voluntariness and attenuation; three attenuation factors)
State v. Gorup, 279 Neb. 841 (Neb. 2010) (officer advisement and intervening‑circumstance analysis in attenuation inquiry)
State v. Barbeau, 301 Neb. 293 (Neb. 2018) (permissible scope of officer questioning and checks during a lawful stop)
State v. Saitta, 306 Neb. 499 (Neb. 2020) (consent to search may be implied by a suspect’s actions)