Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for five counts of robbery, five counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, one count of second-degree assault, and one count of attempted escape, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his assignments of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made while in custody; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of witness identifications from photographic lineups; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that Defendant failed to prove the insanity defense; and (4) Defendant's sentences were not excessive. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of marijuana, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his suppression motion, Defendant sought to suppress evidence found in his vehicle during a felony traffic stop. The stop was initiated based on law enforcement's belief that Defendant's vehicle matched the description in a police bulletin of a vehicle used in a shooting committed three days prior. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the police bulletin was insufficient to justify the traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion, holding (1) the felony traffic stop was a tier-two police-citizen encounter; and (2) the law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant's vehicle based on the police bulletin alone. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, second offense, and speeding and operating a vehicle without a driver's license, holding that the Court could not consider Defendant's assignment of error that implicitly challenged the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705.Section 25-2705 prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it failed to found that the county court had violated his right to a jury trial. The Noting that Defendant's appeal inextricably involved an implied challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court could not reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. 2-109(E). View "State v. Catlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of two counts of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of Defendant's vehicle.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the search fell within the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. The court of appeals disagreed, concluding that the police did not use the inventory search as pretext for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that it was not possible on the record to determine whether the search was conducted in conformity with Omaha Police Department's standardized procedures governing inventory searches; and (2) therefore, the State failed to meet its burden to show that the search fell within the inventory search exception. View "State v. Briggs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that the district court did not err in admitting cell phone records for Defendant's phone and statements Defendant made to law enforcement.Prior to trial, Defendant filed motions to suppress his cell phone records and statements he made to law enforcement, arguing that the warrant authorizing the search of Defendant's cell phone records was obtained without probable cause and that his Miranda rights were violated when he invoked his right to remain silent and officers continued to question him. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting cell site location information evidence at trial; and (2) Defendant waived any right to assert error in the denial of his motion to suppress his statements made to law enforcement. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding compensation totaling $4,625,967 for Elkhorn School District's taking of forty-three acres of Tribedo, LLC's property, holding that the district court did not err in its trial rulings nor in accepting the jury verdict for total compensation due to Tribedo.After the board of appraisers awarded $2,601,600 for the taking Tribedo appealed, alleging that the award did not reflect the fair market value of the property taken and did not adequately compensate for damages to the remainder of Tribedo's property. Following the jury's verdict, Elkhorn moved for a new trial. The district court denied the motion and granted Tribedo's posttrial motions for an award of interest and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the proceedings below; (2) the district court did not err when it accepted the jury verdict; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Tribedo $590,925 in attorney fees. View "Douglas County School District No. 10 v. Tribedo, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's drug possession conviction, holding that the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for not having license plates. During the traffic stop, the officer obtained the driver's consent to search the vehicle. The officers found methamphetamine in a purse located on the front passenger floorboard. The purse belonged to Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the search violated her Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures because she did not consent to the search of her purse. The district court overruled the motion. After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search was constitutional because the officer reasonably believed that the driver could have owned the purse and the officer found the contraband in plain view upon opening the wallet that contained Defendant's identification. View "State v. Andera" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement in an alleged violation of his Miranda rights, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress.In denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the district court found that Defendant's pre-Miranda statements made to law enforcement were voluntary and not the result of an interrogation and that Defendant's post-Miranda statements were made voluntarily. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's pre-Miranda statements were made voluntarily and not in response to a custodial interrogation; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find that Defendant made his post-Miranda statements voluntarily. View "State v. Connelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree in this case, holding that the no-fault divorce statutory scheme governing dissolution found at Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-347 to 42-381 is not unconstitutional.On appeal from the dissolution decree, Defendant argued that, by virtue of establishing no-fault divorce, the statutory scheme deprives defendants in dissolution actions of procedural due process and constitutes special legislation in favor of plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 42-347(3) does not violate the procedural due process provisions of the United States and Nebraska Constitutions; and (2) section 42-347(3) does not constitute special legislation granting divorces. View "Dycus v. Dycus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part an order denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, holding that precedent required that the Court vacate the portion of the order related to ineffective assistance for failure to investigate.Defendant pled guilty to three counts of first degree murder and other crimes. No direct appeal was filed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal and that he would not have entered into the plea agreement if his attorney had properly investigated his case. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant's ineffective assistance claim concerning his direct appeal; and (2) the district court failed to follow the directive in State v. Determan, 873 N.W.2d 390 (Nev. 2016), when disposing of Defendant's second postconviction claim. View "State v. Dalton" on Justia Law