State v. Reha
Decision Date | 24 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. A-04-401.,A-04-401. |
Citation | 686 N.W.2d 80,12 Neb.App. 767 |
Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellant, v. Jonathan E. REHA, appellee. |
Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Linda Caster Senff, Deputy Hamilton County Attorney, for appellant.
Susan M. Koenig, of Mayer, Burns, Ahlschwede & Koenig, Grand Island, for appellee.
The district court granted the motion of Jonathan E. Reha to suppress evidence seized during a search of his person, and the State appeals. Lt. Chris Kolb of the Nebraska State Patrol, the officer who performed the search, had observed that the odor of burnt marijuana emanated from the vehicle in which Reha was a passenger and that both Reha and the driver held cigarette lighters; therefore, probable cause existed to arrest Reha. Because I conclude that the search was valid as an incident to arrest, I reverse, and remand for further proceedings.
On January 7, 2004, the State charged Reha by information with one count of possession of methamphetamine. Reha subsequently filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the search of his person, alleging that the officer lacked probable cause for the search, that the search exceeded the "perimeters" of a protective pat-down search, and that the search violated Reha's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Nebraska and U.S. Constitutions.
Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court made specific findings of fact as follows:
The trial court entered an order sustaining Reha's motion to suppress and excluded the evidence seized from his person. The State appeals pursuant to Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Cum.Supp.2002), which provides for review by a single judge of this court.
The State alleges that the trial court erred in (1) holding that there was no probable cause for the search of Reha's person and (2) suppressing the evidence found as a result of searching Reha's person.
In reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence obtained through a warrantless search or seizure, an appellate court conducts a de novo review of reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations, and reviews factual findings for clear error, giving due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by the trial judge. State v. Keup, 265 Neb. 96, 655 N.W.2d 25 (2003).
On appeal, both parties accept the trial court's factual findings. Upon my review of the record, I cannot conclude that such findings are clearly wrong. I next proceed to a de novo review of the probable cause determinations.
"Probable cause to search is determined by a standard of objective reasonableness, that is, whether known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable prudence in a belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found." State v. Shock, 11 Neb.App. 451, 458, 653 N.W.2d 16, 24 (2002). Because of the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle in this case, it is clear that Kolb had probable cause to search the vehicle. See State v. Watts, 209 Neb. 371, 307 N.W.2d 816 (1981) ( ). However, the issue before this court is whether Kolb had probable cause to search Reha's person. "[A] search without a warrant before an arrest, also without a warrant, is valid as an incident to the subsequent arrest if (1) the search is reasonably contemporaneous with the arrest and (2) probable cause for the arrest exists before the search." State v. Twohig, 238 Neb. 92, 107, 469 N.W.2d 344, 354 (1991). Therefore, if Kolb had probable cause to arrest Reha before he initiated the search of Reha's person, he had probable cause to search Reha.
In Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003), the defendant had been sitting in the front passenger's seat of a car driven by its owner and there was another passenger in the back seat. Subsequently to a routine traffic stop, the driver opened the glove compartment in front of the defendant to retrieve the vehicle's registration. The police officer saw a sum of rolled-up money in the glove compartment and asked the driver whether he could search the vehicle. The driver consented, and the occupants were removed from the vehicle. Pursuant to the search, the officer retrieved five glassine baggies of cocaine from behind a rear armrest, in addition to the rolled-up money. The officer questioned the three occupants about the ownership of the cocaine and told them that if no one admitted to ownership, he would arrest them all. None of the occupants offered information about the ownership of the cocaine or money, and they were arrested. At the police station, the defendant acknowledged that the cocaine was his.
During a pretrial suppression hearing, the Pringle defendant argued that his confession should be suppressed as the unlawful fruit of an illegal arrest because the police had lacked probable cause for his arrest at the time of the traffic stop. The case was ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which addressed whether the officer had had probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime of possession of illegal drugs:
We think it an entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Thus a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe [the defendant] committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly.
540 U.S. at ___-___, 124 S.Ct. at 800-01.
In this case, Kolb detected the odor of burnt marijuana immediately upon making contact with the occupants of the vehicle. He observed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Perry
...(1981) ; State v. Daly, 202 Neb. 217, 274 N.W.2d 557 (1979) ; State v. Clark, 21 Neb.App. 581, 842 N.W.2d 151 (2013) ; State v. Reha, 12 Neb.App. 767, 686 N.W.2d 80 (2004).33 E.g., Blake v. State, 772 So.2d 1200 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Brunson v. State, 327 Ark. 567, 940 S.W.2d 440 (1997) ; S......
-
Gartner v. Hume
... ... Jena alleged that because of her employment with the Colorado Department of Corrections, the State of Colorado had offered her an opportunity to pursue her degree as a registered nurse; that Jena would have to move to Colorado to 686 N.W.2d 65 ... ...
-
State v. Dalland, S–12–615
...probable cause for the search of Dalland's vehicle, citing State v. Watts, 209 Neb. 371, 307 N.W.2d 816 (1981), and State v. Reha, 12 Neb.App. 767, 686 N.W.2d 80 (2004). The court found that Mertz did not search the vehicle until after Dalland informed him that there were needles in the veh......
-
State v. Seckinger
...on other grounds 203 Neb. 663, 280 N.W.2d 46 (1979) ; State v. Benson , 198 Neb. 14, 251 N.W.2d 659 (1977). Accord State v. Reha , 12 Neb. App. 767, 686 N.W.2d 80 (2004).19 Benson, supra note 18.20 Id. at 18, 251 N.W.2d at 661-62.21 Daly, supra note 18.22 Id.23 Ruzicka, supra note 18.24 Id.......
-
Appellate Practice in Nebraska: a Thorough, Though Not Exhaustive, Primer in How to Do it and How to Be More Effective
...that single judge opinions have nonetheless occasionally made their way into the reports of published decisions. E.g., State v. Reha, 12 Neb. App. 767, 686 N.W.2d 80 (2004); State v. Runge, 8 Neb. App. 715, 601 N.W.2d 554 (1999); State v. Ruiz-Medina, 8 Neb. App. 529, 597 N.W.2d 403 (1999);......