Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
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
In the case of State v. Matthew W. Nielsen, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, which upheld the county court's denial of Nielsen's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw conducted after his arrest for driving under the influence. The court noted that appellate review is limited to plain error when no timely statement of errors is filed. It applied a two-part standard of review for the motion to suppress: historical facts were reviewed for clear error, while the legal implications regarding Fourth Amendment violations were assessed independently. The county court had denied Nielsen's suppression motion based on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, asserting that the officer's reliance on the legality of the blood draw was reasonable at the time, despite subsequent rulings in Birchfield v. North Dakota declaring such warrantless blood tests unconstitutional. The State successfully argued that Birchfield should not be applied retroactively, referencing the Davis v. United States precedent. The court found that the denial of the motion to suppress was appropriate, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decision. The county court bifurcated Nielsen’s trial, with the DUI charge heard by a jury and other charges decided by the bench. The jury convicted Nielsen, leading to a timely appeal to the district court, which reviewed the case for plain error due to Nielsen's failure to submit a statement of errors. The district court upheld the jury's conviction and the county court's denial of the motion to suppress evidence. Nielsen assigns two errors: (1) the district court incorrectly applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and (2) the State did not preserve the good faith exception for appellate review. The standard of review indicates that without a timely statement of errors, appellate scrutiny is confined to plain error. Furthermore, when assessing a motion to suppress related to the Fourth Amendment, historical facts are reviewed for clear error, while legal conclusions are reviewed independently. Nielsen contends that the good faith exception should not apply to cases prior to the Birchfield decision, arguing that consent for the blood draw was not voluntary. However, the court cited a precedent (Hoerle) that allows for the good faith exception when law enforcement relies on statutes that are not clearly unconstitutional at the time of the action. Since Nielsen's blood draw occurred before the Birchfield ruling, the good faith exception was deemed applicable, and the district court found no plain error. Regarding the assertion of the good faith exception, Nielsen argues that the State did not raise it at the county court level, but the State contends it did, referencing the case of Davis v. United States. The court found the State sufficiently raised the exception, and Nielsen failed to object to the officer's testimony, nor did he raise this issue in the district court or assign any evidentiary error in his brief. Consequently, the appellate court does not consider unassigned errors. The appellate court did not address the State's argument regarding the good faith exception being raised for the first time on appeal, finding Nielsen's contrary argument unconvincing. In State v. Tompkins, the court noted that it cannot independently consider the good faith exception without it being properly raised. The State has the burden to demonstrate the applicability of the good faith exception and has opportunities to present this argument at both the trial court and appellate levels. In the current case, the State cited relevant case law pertaining to the good faith exception, which was appropriately considered by the county court. The court concluded there was no plain error in the district court's review or in the application of the good faith exception for warrantless blood draws prior to Birchfield. The decision of the district court is affirmed.