State v. Briggs
| Decision Date | 08 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. S-19-300.,S-19-300. |
| Citation | 308 Neb. 84,953 N.W.2d 41 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Maurice L. BRIGGS, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Bethany R. Stensrud, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
The district court denied Maurice L. Briggs’ motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of his vehicle, reasoning the search fell within the inventory search exception to the Fourth Amendment. Briggs was subsequently convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance. He appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed. On further review, we conclude the State failed to meet its burden of proving the search fell within the inventory search exception. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause with directions.
In December 2017, officers from the Omaha Police Department (OPD) responded to a report of an assault in progress in a shopping center parking lot. When Officer Joe Eischeid arrived on the scene, witnesses reported that the people involved in the disturbance were leaving in a black Jeep. Eischeid followed the Jeep to a nearby auto parts store, where it pulled in and parked. Eischeid activated the lights on his cruiser and pulled in behind the Jeep. The encounter that followed was recorded on the cruiser's camera and on Eischeid's body camera. Eventually, two more police officers arrived to provide backup.
A man and a woman exited the Jeep, and both reported having a verbal argument in the shopping center parking lot, but they denied the argument was physical. Both occupants provided officers with their names and birth dates, and police ran a records check. That check showed the female passenger had a history of drug-related convictions. Police asked the woman several times for permission to search her purse, and she consistently refused. She also told police that nothing in the Jeep belonged to her. The female passenger was eventually allowed to leave the scene.
Police were unable to locate any record for the name and birth date given by the male driver. A check of the Jeep's license plate showed it was registered to Briggs, and the photograph of Briggs in the police database matched the male driver of the Jeep. The database also showed Briggs had gang connections, his Nebraska license was suspended, and he had outstanding arrest warrants. Briggs was arrested on the warrants, as well as driving on a suspended license and supplying false information to a police officer. Police asked Briggs for consent to search the Jeep, but he refused. Police also called for a "K-9 unit," but it never arrived.
After Briggs was arrested and placed in the police cruiser, two OPD officers searched the Jeep. On Eischeid's body camera, he can be heard asking another officer if it was to be a "search incident to arrest," and the other officer replied, "No, it's an inventory search."
Footage and audio from the police cameras shows the Jeep was full of property, including multiple phone chargers, electronics, a credit or debit card, a wallet, at least two sets of license plates, a pair of tennis shoes, a tablet computer, a jacket and other clothing, and several suitcases. During the search, officers found a black bag which contained Briggs’ wallet, identification card, Social Security card, and several smaller bags containing suspected drugs. After the suspected drugs were found, one officer can be heard saying, "Well, there you go, there's that felony you were waiting on, there it is."
It is undisputed that officers did not create an inventory report of the property inside the Jeep. They did, however, prepare what they described alternatively as an "evidence report" or "property report," listing the items seized as evidence, which included the black bag, the suspected drugs and drug paraphernalia, and a license plate. The suspected drugs later tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamine, and Briggs was charged with two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance. He moved to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of his Jeep, arguing it was obtained in violation of his rights under both the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions. The State generally resisted the motion by asserting that OPD officers had conducted a proper inventory search.1
At the motion to suppress hearing, the State offered footage from Eischeid's cruiser camera and body camera. That footage is generally consistent with the facts outlined above. The State also adduced testimony from two of the three officers involved in the search.
Eischeid generally described the facts as detailed above. He also testified that once police discovered there were active warrants for Briggs’ arrest, they handcuffed him and placed him in the cruiser. Eischeid testified that after Briggs was arrested, the plan was to impound the Jeep for safekeeping. The State did not ask Eischeid about OPD's policy on impounding vehicles or conducting inventory searches.
On cross-examination, Eischeid admitted that after Briggs was arrested, Eischeid said to the other officer, "I get to search that car now, I can't wait ...." Ultimately, however, Eischeid testified that he searched only the "armrest glove box" and front passenger areas of the Jeep, looking for keys. After that, he primarily stayed with Briggs while two other officers conducted a search of the Jeep. Eischeid admitted that when he looked in the glovebox, he saw a wallet with credit cards, debit cards, a gift card, and cash, but he did not prepare an inventory report of any items.
Officer Tyler Hansen arrived on the scene shortly after Eischeid, and Hansen was one of the officers who searched Briggs’ Jeep. The State asked Hansen the following questions about OPD's policy on postarrest inventory searches:
Hansen testified the inventory search of Briggs’ Jeep was "conducted in accordance with OPD standard operating procedures," but the State did not ask Hansen what those procedures were, nor was a copy of the inventory search policy offered into evidence.
More specific details regarding OPD's inventory search procedures were elicited on cross-examination, when defense counsel asked Hansen the following questions:
Hansen agreed that the purpose of a property or evidence report "is to itemize ... the evidence that was collected for purposes of trial," while the "purpose[ ] of an inventory log [is] to protect [OPD] from being sued later if items are misplaced." Hansen admitted he did not prepare an inventory log following the search of the Jeep, and he did not know whether any other officer did so. No inventory log was offered by the State.
On redirect examination, the State asked Hansen whether "there [was] anything of true value" found during the search of the Jeep and he replied, "What we found [was] lots of bags of clothing and wigs." When asked whether it was "feasible to document all property in this case," Hansen responded that due to the amount of property in the Jeep, officers "just decided to document only the main — the high value important things." On recross-examination, Hansen admitted that OPD's policy manual on inventory searches states that officers are "supposed to inventory all property" and the manual "doesn't mention anything [about] whether it's valuable or not."
The district court overruled the motion to suppress. It found that OPD policy allowed officers to impound...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...S. Ct. 2525, 204 L. Ed. 2d 1040 (2019) ; Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013) ; State v. Briggs , 308 Neb. 84, 953 N.W.2d 41 (2021).2 Jackson v. Denno , 378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964).3 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue 2016).4......
-
State v. Miller
... ... affirmed ... Affirmed ... --------- ... [ 1 ] See, Mitchell v. Wisconsin, ... ___ U.S.___, 139 S.Ct. 2525, 204 L.Ed.2d 1040 (2019); ... Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S.Ct. 1552, ... 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013); State v. Briggs, 308 Neb ... 84, 953 N.W.2d 41 (2021) ... [ 2 ] Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S ... 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) ... [ 3 ] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-106 (Reissue ... [ 4 ] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) ... (Reissue 2020) ... [ 5 ] State v. Short, 310 Neb. 81, ... 964 ... ...
-
State v. Thomas
...State v. Cox , 307 Neb. 748, 950 N.W.2d 631 (2020).2 See id.3 State v. Hartzell , 304 Neb. 82, 933 N.W.2d 441 (2019).4 State v. Briggs, 308 Neb. 84, 953 N.W.2d 41 (2021).5 See State v. Van Ackeren , 242 Neb. 479, 495 N.W.2d 630 (1993).6 See Heien v. North Carolina , 574 U.S. 54, 135 S. Ct. ......
-
State v. Lowman
...deficient. We affirm the district court's judgment. AFFIRMED .1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2020).2 State v. Briggs, 308 Neb. 84, 953 N.W.2d 41 (2021).3 State v. Stack , 307 Neb. 773, 950 N.W.2d 611 (2020).4 State v. Theisen , 306 Neb. 591, 946 N.W.2d 677 (2020).5 State v. ......