State v. Nielsen

Citation: 301 Neb. 88Docket: S-17-1033

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; September 14, 2018; Nebraska; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of State of Nebraska v. Matthew W. Nielsen, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the district court's affirmation of the county court's denial of Nielsen's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop and a warrantless blood draw. Nielsen was arrested for suspected drunk driving, after which he consented to a blood test following advisement. He argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, which ruled warrantless blood tests unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, should apply retroactively to his case. However, the county court rejected this claim, citing the good faith exception of the exclusionary rule, which allows the use of evidence obtained under a reasonable belief that the officer's actions were lawful at the time. The State successfully contended that Birchfield should not be applied retroactively, relying on the precedent set in Davis v. United States. The appellate court's review confirmed that the county court's findings were correct, affirming both the denial of the motion to suppress and the district court's judgment.

The county court bifurcated Nielsen’s trial, with the DUI charge decided by a jury, which found him guilty, while other charges were tried to the bench. Following sentencing, Nielsen appealed to the district court but did not submit a statement of errors, leading to a review limited to plain error. The district court upheld the jury's conviction and the denial of a motion to suppress, finding sufficient evidence and no error in the county court's decision.

Nielsen raised two assignments of error: (1) the district court's application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and (2) the State's failure to preserve this exception for review. The standard of review dictates that without a timely statement of errors, appellate review is restricted to plain error. In evaluating motions to suppress, historical facts are reviewed for clear error, while the legal implications of those facts are assessed independently.

Nielsen contended that the good faith exception should not apply to cases prior to the Birchfield decision, asserting that consent for blood draws was not voluntarily given. However, prior rulings established that evidence obtained through an officer's reasonable reliance on a statute that was not deemed unconstitutional at the time could allow for the exception's application. Since Nielsen's arrest occurred before Birchfield was decided, the county court correctly applied the good faith exception, a conclusion also supported by the district court's plain error review.

Nielsen further argued that the State did not assert the good faith exception at the county court level, but the State countered that it had, citing the case of Davis v. United States to support its position. The county court's denial of the suppression motion indicated that the good faith exception was indeed raised. Lastly, Nielsen claimed that testimony from the arresting officer at the suppression hearing exceeded the scope of cross-examination, but he failed to object during the hearing or raise the issue in his appeal, leading to the conclusion that such errors could not be considered by the appellate court.

The court declines to address Nielsen's claims about improper redirect examination and finds Nielsen's argument regarding the raising of good faith on appeal unconvincing. It references the case State v. Tompkins, highlighting that an appellate court cannot independently consider the good faith exception and that the State bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability. The court notes that while the State did not challenge Tompkins, it had opportunities to raise the good faith exception during trial or on appeal. The State cited relevant case law regarding the good faith exception to the county court, which the court acknowledges as sufficient. Ultimately, the district court’s review for plain error was deemed correct, with no error found in applying the good faith exception to warrantless blood draws prior to Birchfield. The decision of the district court is affirmed.