State v. Thunder
A-15-891
| Neb. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Deputy Henkel stopped a swerving RV on I-80; Thunder was a passenger among four others.
- The driver and renter appeared nervous and did not know all occupants' names; the driver claimed Thunder was a friend who cannot drive.
- The renter consented to searching the RV; Thunder remained in the RV with others while the search began.
- A gun case containing a 9-mm handgun and a duffle bag with a .45-caliber handgun and ammo were found; Thunder admitted ownership of the firearms.
- Thunder claimed he did not know guns were in the RV; he suggested his brother might have placed them there.
- After identifying Thunder and confirming through dispatch that the 9-mm handgun was stolen, Thunder was Mirandized and arrested; he later provided further information in a police interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did renter's consent extend to Thunder's luggage? | Thunder: no extension to luggage without explicit consent. | State: common authority could permit broader consent given overall vehicle search. | Court did not resolve extent; suppression denied under plain view. |
| Was the 9-mm handgun immediately incriminating under plain view? | Thunder: not immediately apparent; no probable cause for plain view. | State: probable cause linked to suspected drug activity made incriminating nature immediately apparent. | Yes; incriminating nature immediately apparent; plain view search upheld. |
| Did Thunder's silence amount to consent to search his luggage? | Thunder: silencing does not equal consent. | State: silence is not consent unless unequivocal. | Not necessary to resolve; plain view justification suffices. |
| Was Thunder in custody before Miranda warnings in the patrol car? | Thunder: custodial interrogation occurred requiring Miranda warnings. | State: on-the-scene questioning not custodial. | Not custodial on scene; no Miranda violation. |
| Should statements made before Miranda be suppressed? | Thunder: statements obtained before Miranda should be excluded. | State: on-the-scene questioning valid; no custodial interrogation. | No error; statements properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reinpold, 284 Neb. 950 (Neb. 2013) (plain-view probable-cause framework for seizure)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983) (immediate-applicability of the plain-view doctrine)
- U.S. v. Banks, 514 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholds warrantless search of a gun case when identifiable as such)
- U.S. v. Coleman, 603 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2010) (out-of-state plates as suspicious context for drug trafficking)
- State v. Vyhnalek, 814 N.W.2d 768 (Neb. App. 2012) (container searches and diminished privacy expectations for gun cases)
- State v. Holman, 221 Neb. 730 (Neb. 1986) (on-the-scene questioning not custodial for Miranda purposes)
- State v. Bowers, 250 Neb. 151 (Neb. 1996) (on-the-scene investigation not requiring Miranda warnings)