State v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 22 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-21-440 |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Dawn Meyer |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the District Court for Gage County: Ricky A. Schreiner Judge.
Lee Timan, of Nelson, Clark & Timan, P.C., for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
Dawn Meyer appeals from her conviction for possession of methamphetamine. She contends that the Gage County District Court erred in overruling her motion to suppress certain evidence, in admitting that evidence over her objections at trial, and in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the order of the district court.
In early April 2020, law enforcement received a call about individuals going through a dumpster on private property in Gage County, Nebraska. Officer Zachary Smith responded to the call and arrived at the scene at approximately 2:39 a.m. Upon arrival, Officer Smith observed two individuals inside a vehicle parked in front of the private residence. Officer Smith pulled up behind the vehicle and approached the driver's side to conduct an investigation of the reported trespass.
Officer Smith questioned the driver and the passenger about whether they had been going through the dumpster on the property. The individuals answered affirmatively, acknowledged that it was private property, and acknowledged they did not have permission to be on that property. Officer Smith informed them that their actions were not permitted and asked to see their identification. The driver provided her identification which identified her as Dawn Meyer. The passenger did not provide his identification, but did provide his name.
Officer Smith was familiar with Meyer, as she had been previously investigated for drug-related conduct. As a result, as Officer Smith returned to his patrol car to complete a data check on Meyer and the passenger, in order to obtain their driving history, warrants, and other information, he simultaneously dispatched for the K-9 unit. While Officer Smith completed the data check in his patrol car, Officer Derek Hosick with the K-9 unit arrived and asked Meyer and the passenger to exit the vehicle. Officer Hosick's drug dog completed a canine sniff of the vehicle. The drug dog indicated by sitting at the rear driver's side door which informed Officer Hosick that the vehicle contained contraband. After completing the data check, Officer Smith again approached the vehicle to complete his trespass investigation. When Officer Smith asked whether the individuals had taken anything from the property, they indicated that they had not. Meyer and the passenger indicated to Officer Smith that they were just driving around and going through the dumpsters that evening. At that time, Officer Hosick informed Officer Smith that the drug dog had indicated during the canine sniff.
Due to the drug dog's indication, Officer Smith conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle during which officers located a marijuana pipe in a yellow container and a purse enclosing a black container which contained 8 grams of methamphetamine, a pipe, and some zig-zag wrappers. After Meyer waived her Miranda rights, Officer Smith questioned Meyer about the items located in the vehicle during the search. Meyer admitted that the purse belonged to her, but denied knowledge that the black container held methamphetamine. Meyer stated that she found the container in another dumpster and placed it in her purse. Upon questioning, the passenger denied having knowledge of the methamphetamine or seeing Meyer place a black container in her purse. Meyer was subsequently arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(3)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2020).
Thereafter, Meyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the stop and search of her vehicle on the grounds that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Meyer alleged that there was no evidence of a crime, and if there was, the canine sniff did not amount to probable cause to justify the search of the vehicle.
At the suppression hearing, the State called Officers Smith and Hosick to testify to the events that occurred on the night that Meyer was arrested. The State also offered into evidence, without objection, the footage from both officers' body cameras. Thereafter, the district court overruled Meyer's motion to suppress finding that the community caretaking exception applied and therefore the search of the vehicle was justified.
The case then proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts. The State offered into evidence the stipulated facts, the officers' body camera footage, and lab results confirming that the substance located in the purse was methamphetamine. Meyer renewed her objection to the evidence based on her motion to suppress, which was overruled. The district court found Meyer guilty of possession of methamphetamine and sentenced Meyer to 36 months' probation. Meyer has timely appealed to this court.
Meyer assigns as error, restated and renumbered, that the district court erred in (1) overruling her motion to suppress evidence of the contents of the container obtained pursuant to a warrantless search and overruling her objections to that same evidence at trial and (2) in finding that the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction.
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, we apply a two-part standard of review. State v. Short, 310 Neb. 81, 964 N.W.2d 272 (2021). Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court's findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that we review independently of the trial court's determination. State v. Short, supra.
When reviewing a district court's determinations of reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and probable cause to perform a warrantless search, ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause are reviewed de novo. State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352, 803 N.W.2d 450 (2011). But findings of historical fact to support that determination are reviewed for clear error, giving due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by the trial court. Id.
When a motion to suppress is denied pretrial and again during trial on renewed objection, an appellate court considers all the evidence, both from trial and from the hearings on the motion to suppress. State v. Lang, 305 Neb. 726, 942 N.W.2d 388 (2020), cert. denied U.S., 141 S.Ct. 415, 208 L.Ed.2d 119.
The relevant question for an appellate court on review of the sufficiency of evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406, 923 N.W.2d 725 (2019). In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence, regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, and regardless of whether the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insufficiency of the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case; such matters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the state, is sufficient to support the conviction. State v. Hill, 298 Neb. 675, 905 N.W.2d 668 (2018).
The facts in this record demonstrate that pursuant to a neighbor's report to police of a possible trespasser at the next door neighbor's property, Officer Smith responded and approached Meyer and another occupant sitting in a vehicle parked near the site of the reported incident. After making contact with Meyer about the incident, Officer Smith called for, and obtained, a drug sniffing dog which arrived and indicated to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. This indication by the drug dog ultimately led police to search and discover methamphetamine in Meyer's purse which was located within the vehicle.
Before addressing Meyer's claims, we note that the district court found that the community caretaking exception applied justifying the search of Meyer's vehicle. In State v. Montoya, 29 Neb.App. 563, 571, 957 N.W.2d 190, 198 (2021), this court explained:
An exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is the community caretaking exception. State v. Shiffermiller, [302 Neb. 245, 922 N.W.2d 763 (2019)]. The community caretaking exception provides that "'"[l]ocal police officers, unlike federal officers, frequently investigate vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability and engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute."'" [Id. at 258, 922 N.W.2d at 775.]
Here Officer Hosick was investigating the report of individuals going through a dumpster located on private property and there is no evidence that Officer Hosick approached Meyer's car for a community caretaking function, such as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial