867 N.W.2d 637
Neb. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Sept. 13, 2013, Officer Randy Davie responded to a report that a white Chevrolet pickup had knocked over traffic cones on Wisner’s main highway; he found cones knocked over and heard squealing tires nearby.
- Davie located and stopped the white pickup (driver: Jacob Biggerstaff) and began a DUI investigation after smelling alcohol; he did not use overhead lights or siren when effecting that stop.
- Adam Woldt, driving a dark pickup, was observed closely following Biggerstaff and then parked nearby with his window down; Davie gestured for Woldt to approach and then began a DUI investigation of Woldt after detecting the odor of alcohol.
- Woldt was given field sobriety tests and a breath test (.148), convicted in county court for first-offense DUI, and his motion to suppress evidence from the stop was denied; the district court affirmed.
- On appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals the sole issue was whether Davie’s stop of Woldt—conducted to gather information about possible crimes by a third party—violated the Fourth Amendment; the Court of Appeals held the stop was unreasonable and ordered the suppression of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless stop of a motorist solely to obtain information about a third party’s possible criminal activity was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Stopped motorists may be briefly detained to obtain eyewitness information about crimes; Davie reasonably stopped Woldt because he was following Biggerstaff closely and appeared to have information that would advance the investigation | The stop violated Brown/Lidster balancing because the matters under investigation were not of grave public concern at the time and Davie could have contacted Woldt later (he was known and identifiable) | The stop was unreasonable under the Brown v. Texas balancing framework; suppression should have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (establishing the balancing test for suspicionless seizures)
- Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (upholding limited information-seeking stops where they advance grave public concerns and are appropriately tailored)
- Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (checkpoint stops whose primary purpose is uncovering ordinary criminal wrongdoing are unlawful)
- State v. Piper, 289 Neb. 364 (Neb. 2014) (vehicle checkpoint constitutionality requires a plan limiting officer discretion)
- State v. Ryland, 241 Neb. 74 (Neb. 1992) (stop to get a witness statement that produced DUI evidence found unconstitutional)
- State v. Crom, 222 Neb. 273 (Neb. 1986) (invalidating ad hoc checkpoints lacking policymaker-approved standards)
- LaPlante v. State, 26 A.3d 337 (Me. 2011) (stopping motorists to ask about speeding not a grave public concern; suspicionless stop invalid)
- United States v. Brewer, 561 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2009) (upholding stop of vehicle leaving scene of shots-fired as reasonable under Lidster principles)