Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Nebraska v. Shalynn R. Hartzell. NE Search and seizure
The defendant was stopped in Hastings, Nebraska, for expired registration tags. The officer issued a "fix-it" ticket and gave the defendant back her license and registration. At that point, the officer said, "have a good night and drive careful," and began to walk back to her patrol vehicle, whose lights were still flashing.
When the officer reached the back of the defendant's vehicle, she turned around and approached the defendant. She asked, "hey, before you go, do you have a minute to talk to me?" The defendant agreed, and when the officer asked whether she could search the vehicle, the defendant "verbally indicated that she didn't have a problem with that."
The search found various drug items, and the defendant was arrested. At trial, the defendant moved to suppress the items found in the search and subsequently, arguing that she was still being seized when the search was conducted. The state, on the other hand, argued that the traffic stop had "de-escalated" by that point, and this was a separate consentual encounter. The trial court agreed with the state and allowed the evidence. After conviction, the defendant appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The high court agreed with the trial court's reasoning. When the officer told her to "drive safe," an ordinary person would conclude that she was free to go. While the officer's lights were still flashing, the defendant knew that the officer had not gotten back to her car, so this did not mean that the stop was continuing. In addition, the officer did not show any coercive authority, use an authoritative tone, brandish her weapon, or touch the defendant.
After addressing other issues, the supreme court affirmed.
No. S-18-1105, 304 Neb. 82 (Sept. 20, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com