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. Short
Citation: 310 Neb. 81Docket: S-19-415
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court; September 17, 2021; Nebraska; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
1. A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss charges for speedy trial violations is generally factual and affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. 2. Trial courts have broad discretion regarding discovery sanctions, with their rulings upheld unless there is an abuse of discretion. 3. For motions to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment claims, appellate courts review historical facts for clear error but assess legal conclusions independently. 4. Appellate review of search warrant affidavits focuses on whether falsehoods or omissions were intentional or reckless, with de novo review for their necessity in establishing probable cause. 5. Courts should afford significant deference to a judge's determination of probable cause in issuing search warrants, avoiding de novo scrutiny. 6. The application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is a legal question. 7. The right to a speedy trial serves societal interests that may conflict with the accused’s interests. 8. Delays in a speedy trial can benefit the accused if adverse witnesses become unavailable or their memories fade. 9. Inquiry into the factors determining a speedy trial violation is unnecessary unless there is a presumptively prejudicial delay. 10. A defendant cannot claim a speedy trial violation after obtaining continuances to prepare for trial due to government delays. 11. Defendants cannot assert the loss of a speedy trial right due to delays arising from processes they initiated, even for other rights. 12. For mistrials, appellate courts focus on the period after the mandate for a new trial, ignoring earlier delays unless extraordinary circumstances arise. 13. Only deliberate misconduct resulting in significant delays merits consideration of the time before a mistrial in speedy trial analyses. A delay of one year or more in a criminal trial is generally considered presumptively prejudicial to the defendant's right to a speedy trial. However, for more serious crimes, longer delays may be acceptable to ensure accurate verdicts. Defendants possess a constitutional right to request evidence from the prosecution that is critical to their guilt or sentencing, and any suppression of favorable evidence by police is attributed to the prosecution. Due process is not violated if a defendant can request a continuance to prepare their defense after late evidence disclosure, provided that disclosure occurs before trial ends. The Fifth Amendment’s role in preventing oppressive delay is limited. Discovery in criminal cases is governed by statutory or court rules, and sanctions for government noncompliance should be minimal yet effective. Dismissal for discovery violations is only appropriate when no lesser sanctions suffice. Abuse of discretion by a trial court occurs when decisions are based on unreasonable or untenable reasons contrary to justice. Courts typically evaluate the validity of search warrant affidavits based solely on the affidavit's content. However, if a defendant alleges falsehoods in the affidavit, an evidentiary hearing may be warranted. Probable cause for warrants can be established through hearsay or the affiant's knowledge, and while there is a presumption of affidavit validity, this can be challenged if false or misleading statements are proven. Misleading omissions in affidavits can undermine probable cause determinations. If a defendant shows that falsehoods or omissions materially affected probable cause, courts will assess if evidence obtained was tainted. Negligence in affidavit preparation does not warrant suppression of evidence, as the exclusionary rule aims to deter misconduct rather than penalize simple errors. Search warrants require affidavits that establish probable cause, which is assessed based on the collective knowledge of officers involved in an investigation rather than solely on the firsthand knowledge of the executing officer. Probable cause, defined as a fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found, must adhere to the Fourth Amendment's requirements of particularity and factual basis. Affidavits must present specific facts and allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of probable cause, which can derive from the nature of the crime and reasonable inferences about where evidence may be located. While law enforcement can use commonsense conclusions and their experience, mere conclusory statements without supporting facts are insufficient. The magistrate must consider the totality of circumstances, including the credibility of information sources, to determine if probable cause exists. Courts should not invalidate affidavits based on hypertechnicalities if detailed circumstances and reasons for crediting the information are provided. Disagreement among reasonable minds on the existence of probable cause is common, but reliance on general assumptions about everyday behavior, such as the use of cell phones, cannot replace specific evidence to support a claim that a particular device contains evidence of a crime. Any statements made by law enforcement must be substantiated by particular facts and circumstances to demonstrate a substantial basis for probable cause. Sufficient probable cause for a search warrant related to a cell phone depends on the crime's nature and the data sought. Cell phones are typically with their users, suggesting they likely contain relevant evidence. A warrant may be deemed deficient if it relies solely on conclusory statements without supporting evidence. For the exclusionary rule to apply, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate and culpable to warrant deterrence. The good faith exception applies when officers reasonably rely on a warrant, even if it lacks a substantial basis for probable cause. The particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment aims to prevent vague warrants that allow arbitrary searches or seizures. A warrant must clearly define the property to be seized, with the required specificity varying by case circumstances and item types. Broad descriptions in a warrant can be acceptable if they align with supporting evidence, but a stronger evidentiary basis is required for broader scopes. Searches of cell phone contents must be limited to data related to the probable cause. Law enforcement cannot predict where criminal evidence will reside within a cell phone's digital data, and warrants should target specific crimes within defined time frames to avoid unconstitutional exploratory searches. A reasonable examination of all electronic data is often necessary to locate the relevant information. Warrantless searches and seizures are generally deemed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, except for a few established exceptions that must be strictly adhered to. A lawful custodial arrest allows for a full search of the individual, which is considered a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Searches incident to an arrest can occur prior to formal arrest if probable cause exists beforehand. The timing of the formal arrest does not affect the legality of the search, provided the evidence obtained is not necessary to establish probable cause. Probable cause for a warrantless arrest requires law enforcement to have trustworthy information at the time of arrest that would lead a cautious person to believe a crime has been committed or is in progress. The collective knowledge doctrine allows the assessment of probable cause for a warrantless arrest based on the combined information of all officers involved in the investigation. In a recent appeal, the defendant contested the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on delayed discovery disclosures affecting his right to a speedy trial. The defendant also challenged the admission of evidence obtained from searches of his residence and electronic devices, claiming violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. He argued the seizing of his cell phones was unlawful, the search warrant for his residence was based on false information, and that the warrants for his electronic devices lacked proper probable cause and particularity. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The defendant, Marcus L. Short, was convicted of first-degree murder and other felonies related to three shootings in August 2015, resulting in a life sentence and additional lengthy terms for the other convictions. Johnson escaped a shooter who pursued him, leaving behind a .45-caliber shell casing and a tennis shoe at the scene. On August 6, 2015, Neelon's residence was intentionally set on fire, and while Neelon was outside attempting to extinguish the flames, she was shot seven times and died. An anonymous tip mentioned an individual named "Shadow" who claimed involvement in a nearby shooting. Police apprehended Harlan, who matched witness descriptions of the shooter, attempting to flee from a location a few blocks from Neelon's home. Evidence found at the Neelon scene included three .45-caliber shell casings and a black knit glove, with a price tag linked to Short through a fingerprint match. On August 8, 2015, while at his girlfriend Mikayla Finley’s residence, Johnson heard what he believed were gunshots as he moved her Chevy Impala into the garage. He crashed the vehicle while trying to escape, and Finley provided a description of two males she saw near the Impala but could not identify them later. Witnesses described the shooters as wearing dark clothing, one being a Black male in his late teens. A white Monte Carlo was reported in the area at the time, and video surveillance captured it traveling on Fontenelle Boulevard. Four .45-caliber spent shell casings were recovered from the scene, which law enforcement connected to the earlier shootings. Detectives linked Short to the investigation based on evidence and matched the description of a white Monte Carlo found at his address. Det. Ryan Hinsley prepared an affidavit for a search warrant for Short’s residence, which was executed later that day. An affidavit for a search warrant, submitted by Hinsley, articulated reasonable grounds for believing that evidence related to a series of violent incidents would be found at 4268 Binney Street and a white Chevy Monte Carlo parked in the driveway. The warrant sought permission to seize items such as identifying venue items, firearms, ammunition, cell phones, computers, audio and video equipment, and clothing believed to have been used during the assault, specifically mentioning a black hoodie with a red ‘N’ and a black and red bandana. The affidavit detailed events leading to this request, noting an attempted felony assault on August 4, 2015, involving victim Garion Johnson, and a subsequent shooting on August 5, 2015, that resulted in a fatality. Investigators recovered a glove containing a fingerprint belonging to Marcus Short. On August 8, 2015, Johnson was shot multiple times while in a Chevy Impala, later dying from his injuries. Witness statements indicated that gunfire was heard, and two male suspects were observed, one wearing a black hoodie with a red ‘N’. Following the shooting, witnesses reported seeing two black males flee in a white Chevy Monte Carlo, which was later found parked in front of the Binney Street address. The affidavit also noted inconsistencies in the dates of the incidents but maintained the significance of the evidence sought. Officers located Marcus Short at his residence, where they discovered two firearms—a .45-caliber Glock and a .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver—in his bedroom. Additional items seized included muddy clothing, shoes, gloves, a cell phone receipt with Short's name and a 702 area code phone number, and documentation from the Douglas County public defender’s office listing Short's address and contact information. Although Short was not at his residence when officers first arrived, he returned voluntarily and was handcuffed for transport to the Omaha Police Department (OPD), where two cell phones and keys were seized from him. After an initial release of his phones, they were confiscated again following a disagreement among officers. Short was interviewed at OPD approximately three hours after his arrival, at which point law enforcement discovered the firearms, leading to his arrest for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. On August 11, 2015, officers obtained a search warrant for the LG flip phone and LG smart phone seized from Short. The accompanying affidavit detailed observations from witnesses regarding a suspect vehicle linked to a homicide, identified as a white Chevy Monte Carlo owned by Short. The affidavit emphasized that individuals involved in criminal activities often use cell phones for communication related to crime, including planning and documenting criminal acts. It outlined specific data categories on the phones that could aid the investigation, which were authorized for search under the warrant. A search warrant was issued to investigate two LG phones related to the homicide of Johnson, allowing police to access various types of data, including user account information, call logs, messaging records, email messages, installed applications, media files, internet browsing history, location data, and calendar information. The warrant permitted officers to examine files briefly to identify relevant content, acknowledging the potential for hidden or mislabeled data. The investigation revealed that the LG flip phone's number was 402-619-2962, and evidence was gathered by photographing its screen due to its inability to take screenshots. The LG smart phone's number was found to be 702-619-1025, and its SIM card was read after removal. The phone itself was locked, requiring specialized assistance to retrieve data, which included contacts and communications between the smart phone and Pope's phone, as well as visits to homicide-related news articles. Subsequent to the initial search, warrants were issued on August 11, 2015, for call records and cell site location information for both phones. A later warrant was obtained on December 5, 2018, due to prior evidence being deemed tainted from an unlawful arrest and violation of Miranda rights. The court determined that the December 2018 warrant was independent of the tainted evidence, as the same phone number was identified during a valid search at Short's residence. However, the absence of the LG flip phone in the 2018 warrant was noted, with no explanation provided for its exclusion. The appeal focuses solely on the December 5 warrant. A search warrant was issued to obtain customer and subscriber information for the LG smartphone associated with the phone number 702-619-1025, covering the period from July 8 to August 10, 2015. The warrant allowed officers to access various records, including user activity logs, call details, SMS details, data sessions, non-content information related to communications, and correspondence associated with the account. Additionally, the warrant required a current cellular site list in electronic format. The supporting affidavit for the warrant indicated that witnesses reported seeing two Black males fleeing the scene of a homicide, who then entered a white Chevy Monte Carlo. The vehicle was later located, and its owner was identified as Marcus Short. Investigators linked Short to the phone number through a court-ordered search of his residence, where documents bearing his name and receipts from a cell phone provider were found, confirming his association with the number. The affidavit stated that the records obtained from the warrant would assist in identifying other witnesses and suspects, determining the locations of the phone users, and establishing a behavioral pattern related to the crime under investigation. Affiant Officer asserts that data from cellular network providers is crucial for criminal investigations, as cell phones are frequently used in criminal activities for communication. The officer notes that interactions between cell phones and networks generate location-based data, which can occur intentionally, accidentally, or automatically. The affidavit details how requested information from cell phone service providers can assist investigations by identifying cell phone owners, constructing timelines, establishing communication links among individuals, confirming proximity to crime scenes, and assessing an individual's culpability. In this case, records were submitted to the FBI, where a special agent analyzed call records from two cell phones used during specific dates in August 2015. The analysis revealed that Short’s smartphone made calls that placed it outside the Neelon residence during relevant times, while Pope’s phone was located within the area during a critical call. Further analysis on August 6 showed similar findings, with Short’s phone again outside the residence footprint while Pope’s was inside. On August 8, both phones were tracked to the Johnson homicide scene, with Short’s phone initially at his residence before moving to the crime scene during the morning hours. Additionally, on October 4, 2016, defense counsel filed a motion to compel discovery, citing the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence as per a prior court order issued four months earlier. Short filed multiple motions regarding the disclosure of evidence and delays in his trial. Initially, he requested the State to provide various discovery materials, including DNA results, fingerprint analysis, cell tower data, and photographs related to the case. Although the State indicated it was working to expedite these materials, no immediate order was made. On December 12, 2016, Short's counsel moved to continue the trial due to significant delays in receiving discovery, which the court granted, resetting the trial to May 15, 2017, while pausing the "speedy trial clock." Following a late disclosure by the State regarding a witness identification on May 2, 2017, Short filed another motion to continue the trial on May 3, which was also granted, moving the trial to October 16, 2017. New counsel was appointed on June 27, 2017, who subsequently requested a further continuance, resulting in a new trial date of March 19, 2018. On November 14, 2017, Short sought additional discovery, specifically a Homicide Lead Sheet maintained by the OPD, which the court allowed, ordering ongoing updates from the State. On April 13, 2018, Short filed a motion to dismiss all charges or for complete discharge, citing violations of his due process and speedy trial rights, as well as ongoing issues with discovery. He highlighted a pattern of misconduct by the OPD that impeded his ability to prepare for trial, particularly with the trial set to start soon after the latest discovery was disclosed. Short did not request another continuance for his trial, which had already been postponed twice due to late discovery disclosures. He argued that the state's failure to comply with discovery obligations infringed on his right to a speedy trial, asserting that he needed more time to prepare to present exculpatory witnesses. Short sought dismissal of all charges with prejudice or, alternatively, a complete discharge, citing misconduct by the Omaha Police Department (OPD) that hindered his ability to receive a fair trial. An evidentiary hearing on Short's motion took place over three days in April 2018, featuring testimonies from detectives Phillips and Watson, who were involved in the Neelon homicide investigation. They acknowledged significant delays in report generation, which deviated from standard operating procedures. Both admitted to experiencing delays in their work due to various factors, including workload prioritization and personal issues, such as Watson's medical leave. Other detectives testified that timely reporting is critical, noting that delays exceeding a year are unacceptable. The Douglas County Attorney described an "open file policy" for discovery, indicating reliance on OPD to communicate evidence updates promptly. Multiple instances were noted where Detectives Phillips and Watson failed to timely provide evidence, leading to previous mistrials. The Douglas County Attorney communicated concerns regarding these detectives to the OPD command staff but lacked authority over the department. On April 26, 2018, the court denied Short’s motion to dismiss or seek complete discharge, recognizing ongoing discovery efforts, with material provided as recently as April 11, 2018. In assessing whether Short's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, the court distinguished between the investigations of the Johnson and Neelon homicides due to different OPD homicide teams. The court found no speedy trial violations concerning the Johnson homicide, attributing timely investigations to the assigned team, thus overruling Short's related motion. For the Neelon homicide, the court applied the Barker v. Wingo factors: delay length, reason for delay, assertion of the speedy trial right, and prejudice to the defendant. The court determined a delay of about 10 months occurred, with three continuances resulting from Short's motions. Despite delays, there was no evidence of deliberate state obstruction, and Short could not demonstrate that his defense was prejudiced by unavailable witnesses or witness recollection issues caused by the delay. Consequently, there was no violation of Short’s speedy trial rights. Regarding due process, the court dismissed Short's claim that alleged violations warranted the dismissal of all charges with prejudice. It concluded that the actions of Detectives Phillips and Watson, along with the OPD's lack of oversight and the County Attorney's Office's involvement, did not reflect bad faith. The court recognized a pattern of procedural failures but found no evidence of intentional misconduct or attempts to gain an unfair advantage, concluding that dismissal of charges was not justified. Regarding statutory discovery violations, the court noted Nebraska's lack of specific guidelines for dismissing cases based on such violations, referencing that outside jurisdictions typically prefer a continuance as a sanction. The Eighth Circuit's relevant factors include the government's delay motives, intent, degree of prejudice to the defendant, and the effectiveness of less severe sanctions. The court determined that neither the State nor its representatives acted in bad faith, and any prejudice to the defendant, Short, could be remedied with a continuance, which was offered should he request it. Short proceeded with jury selection on April 30, 2018, without requesting a continuance, leading to a mistrial on May 8 due to improper jury contact. A retrial was scheduled for January 7, 2019, by mutual agreement. Short did not renew his dismissal motion based on discovery violations before the retrial, which began as scheduled. During the retrial, Short objected to evidence obtained from his alleged unlawful arrest and the subsequent search of his residence. The court overruled his objections regarding the seizure of his cell phones, reasoning that they would have been inevitably discovered following his lawful arrest after firearms were found at his residence. The court reaffirmed its earlier decision that the phones were seized unlawfully during a de facto arrest without probable cause but allowed for their seizure under the inevitable discovery doctrine. The objection to the affidavit supporting the search of Short’s residence was overruled. Key points in the affidavit included the discovery of Short’s fingerprints on a glove, witness reports of two Black males fleeing the scene in a white Chevy Monte Carlo, and Short's proximity to 4268 Binney Street. The court determined that, even after removing disputed information and adding omitted details, the affidavit still established probable cause for the search. Additionally, the court found no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods in the affidavit. Officer Hinsley based his affidavit on information from interviews with witnesses and relayed details from Sgt. Danette Culler. There was a discrepancy regarding whether Short’s fingerprint was found on the glove or a pricetag. Various witnesses reported differing accounts of the shooting, with some seeing one or two males fleeing. Hinsley acknowledged he did not include Finley’s failure to identify Short as the shooter in the affidavit, a decision he admitted lacked justification. Ultimately, the court deemed Hinsley’s and Culler’s testimonies credible and insufficiently supported claims of intentional misleading regarding the affidavit. The court concluded that discrepancies in the affidavit concerning Short's fingerprint on a glove versus a price tag were due to mistake or negligence, not perjury or reckless disregard. It deemed the location of Short's arrest as “at the location” of 4268 Binney Street, rather than a few houses away, as insignificant. The court found that the statement about witnesses seeing “two Black males” was not misleading or reckless, as it was based on summaries from multiple witnesses, most of whom observed two suspects. The omission of Finley’s failure to identify Short was also not considered misleading or reckless. Short objected to the evidence obtained from searches of two cell phones, arguing that the warrants lacked particularity and the affidavits did not establish probable cause. He claimed the affidavits only generically connected cell phone data to police investigations without linking it to the specific crimes. The court rejected these objections, affirming that the affidavits demonstrated probable cause and that the warrants were sufficiently particular, specifically addressing the Johnson homicide investigation. Even assuming a lack of probable cause, the court ruled that the warrants were executed in good faith and were particular in nature. Short’s assignments of error included claims that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from his residence after a “Franks hearing,” asserting the affidavit lacked sufficient evidence for probable cause; denying suppression of two cell phones seized during his unlawful arrest; and denying suppression of information from the phones due to unlawful seizure and insufficient warrant evidence, claiming it was overly broad and lacked particularity. The court denied Short's motions to suppress call records and cell site location information, finding the search warrant to be valid despite claims of insufficient probable cause, overbreadth, and lack of particularity. The court also rejected his motion to dismiss based on the State's non-compliance with discovery requirements and his motion for complete discharge due to alleged violations of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In reviewing the case, the court emphasized the broad discretion trial courts have regarding sanctions for discovery violations and affirmed that factual determinations on speedy trial dismissals would be upheld unless clearly erroneous. The evaluation of whether a search warrant's supporting affidavit contained falsehoods or omissions was also clarified, indicating that such findings are subject to clear error review, while the determination of their impact on probable cause is a legal question reviewed de novo. Short's assertions included that the trial court erred in denying his motions, arguing the prosecution's delays in disclosing police interviews violated his rights. He contended that these delays prejudiced him regarding his ability to prepare a defense and impaired his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The constitutional right to a speedy trial, rooted in the Sixth Amendment and supported by Nebraska's Constitution, is central to Short's motions. This right differs from other protections as it embodies both individual and societal interests, where delays may inadvertently benefit the accused by affecting witness availability and memory. The evaluation of a speedy trial claim involves a four-factor test: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) assertion of the speedy trial right by the defendant, and (4) potential prejudice to the defendant. Notably, only delays deemed presumptively prejudicial trigger a deeper examination of these factors. In the context of statutory rights, some courts attribute delays caused by the defendant's requests for continuances—arising from the prosecution's failure to provide discovery—to the prosecution itself. However, there is limited judicial support for claims that continuances granted at the defense's request due to the prosecution's delays infringe on constitutional speedy trial rights. Specifically, the U.S. court in U.S. v. Shulick rejected the notion that a defendant could later claim a violation of their speedy trial rights after having sought continuances to prepare for trial. Courts generally disapprove of parties asserting rights at the last moment, particularly before a trial, as seen in various cases such as U.S. v. Hastings and Com. v. Taylor. In U.S. v. Shulick, the court noted that delays from a defendant's interlocutory appeal do not typically support claims of constitutional speedy trial violations, emphasizing that defendants should not benefit from dismissals due to their own procedural requests. Similarly, in the case of State v. Short, the court determined that Short could not claim a speedy trial violation after requesting continuances due to the State's late discovery disclosures. Although Short eventually filed for dismissal citing his right to a speedy trial, the court emphasized that the analysis should focus only on the period following the mistrial. The presence of a mistrial limits the consideration of delays to those after a new trial mandate. The court found no deliberate misconduct by the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) that would justify considering delays prior to the mistrial, confirming that the assessment of Short's speedy trial rights should only involve the time after the mistrial. The delay before trial was 246 days, approximately 8 months, which is below the threshold of one year commonly recognized as "presumptively prejudicial" in speedy trial analyses. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that delays may be tolerated longer for serious crimes. In this case, the mistrial resulted from third-party misconduct, not from prosecutorial actions, meaning the defendant, Short, cannot claim a speedy trial violation based on this mistrial. Given the complexity of the case—two murder charges and multiple shootings—the 246-day delay is not considered presumptively prejudicial, thus eliminating the need for the four-factor analysis typically applied in such situations. Short did not challenge the delay after the mistrial, and while courts do not assume waiver of constitutional rights from silence, a failure to assert the right to a speedy trial complicates claims of denial. The court found no intentional or bad faith delays, and Short did not demonstrate prejudice concerning his defense despite claiming oppressive incarceration duration. The determination of whether to dismiss charges for speedy trial violations is a factual question, and the district court’s finding that Short's right was not violated was not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, Short's claim of an independent due process violation due to delays from late discovery disclosures was also deemed without merit. Due process mandates that criminal defendants must have a fair opportunity to present a complete defense, which includes access to exculpatory evidence. This constitutional right allows defendants to request evidence from the prosecution that is material to their guilt or relevant to sentencing. Delays in disclosing favorable evidence can be prejudicial, especially if such evidence is lost or not revealed before trial concludes. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the suppression of favorable evidence by the state, including evidence known only to police, violates due process. However, no due process violation occurs if the defendant has the chance to request a continuance to prepare for defense when late-disclosed evidence is provided before trial ends. Additionally, delays in bringing an accused to trial after arrest or indictment do not violate due process, as the Fifth Amendment's role in protecting against such delays is limited. The court has discretion to impose discovery sanctions for non-compliance with discovery rules, and these decisions are generally upheld unless there is an abuse of that discretion. The court has the authority to impose several remedies for failure to disclose evidence, including ordering discovery, granting continuances, prohibiting undisclosed witnesses or evidence, or issuing other just orders. In criminal cases, when sanctioning the government for noncompliance, the court must select the least severe sanction that effectively punishes while ensuring future compliance. A continuance is preferred, as it can alleviate any prejudice caused by late disclosures, allowing the defense to better prepare. Dismissal is deemed an extreme measure, suitable only for severe cases of bad faith or irreparable harm affecting the fairness of the trial. In the case concerning Short, the district court found no bad faith in the late disclosures by either the Omaha Police Department (OPD) or the prosecution, a determination deemed not clearly erroneous. The court concluded that any prejudice to Short could be addressed by providing adequate time to utilize the late-disclosed information, indicating willingness to grant a continuance if requested. Short did not pursue this option. The district court's decision to avoid the harsh sanction of dismissal was upheld, as no abuse of discretion was found in its judgment. Although the court expressed concern over the neglect leading to the late disclosures, it was determined that the conduct was not intentional or reckless. The OPD had taken steps to rectify the situation. Short's additional claims revolved around objections to evidence obtained from alleged Fourth Amendment violations. The Fourth Amendment mandates that warrants be issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must specifically describe the location to be searched and the items to be seized. In the case concerning Short, he challenges the validity of the search warrant for his residence, which led to the seizure of two handguns, clothing, and items linking him to an LG smartphone. While it is generally accepted that a court reviews only the content of the affidavit for probable cause, Short argues that the affidavit contained material falsities and omissions, rendering the warrant invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Franks v. Delaware establishes that a warrant must be supported by truthful information, although not every detail must be correct. The requirement is that the affiant believes the information is true. A warrant cannot stand if it is later shown to contain deliberately or recklessly false statements. The presumption of validity for search warrant affidavits can be overcome if a defendant demonstrates that the affiant knowingly included false or misleading statements or omitted crucial information. Omissions can mislead if they undermine the inferences drawn from the affidavit. If a defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that false statements or omissions were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, the court must then determine if the evidence obtained from the search should be excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree," according to the independent source rule. The Nebraska Supreme Court addresses the review process of an affidavit supporting a search warrant, emphasizing the need to evaluate the affidavit by removing any false or misleading statements and including omitted information. If, after these adjustments, the affidavit fails to demonstrate probable cause, the search warrant must be voided, and any evidence obtained must be excluded. Mere negligence in the preparation of the affidavit does not warrant suppression of evidence, as the exclusionary rule aims to deter misconduct. The court reviews the trial court's findings for clear error regarding any falsehoods or omissions, while it reviews the determination of whether these inaccuracies were essential to the probable cause finding de novo. In the case of State v. Short, the court will consider only specific arguments raised on appeal regarding alleged material untruths in the affidavit. Short contests three statements: the location of his fingerprint, the inaccurate description of his location at the time of the incident, and the misleading implication regarding eyewitness accounts of the suspects. Each claim suggests discrepancies that could affect the assessment of probable cause. Short contends that no eyewitnesses to the shooting recognized the white Chevy Monte Carlo, and only one witness, unaware of the shooting, saw two men enter the vehicle. The primary issue on appeal is the inability of witness Finley to identify Short in a photographic lineup. The district court determined that any misstatements or omissions in the investigation were not intentional, made in bad faith, or recklessly disregarded the truth, and that they were not material to establishing probable cause. Short argues that testimonies from Hinsley and Culler conflicted regarding the source of a misstatement about a fingerprint's location, but this disagreement does not demonstrate that the district court erred in its assessment of intent. Additionally, Short points out Culler’s inexperience and a separate inquiry into Hinsley’s conduct but fails to provide sufficient evidence that false statements were made knowingly or with reckless disregard. The court found no inadvertent misstatements regarding Short's location or evidence of his fingerprint. Regarding the omission of the identification from the photographic spread, Finley had indicated there may have been two individuals involved, suggesting the oversight was not material. The court reaffirmed that collective information among police can support probable cause, and since the district court did not err in its findings, it will not reassess the affidavit after correcting any misstatements. Short also challenges the admission of evidence from the search of his cell phones, arguing that the supporting affidavits lacked probable cause and particularity, and that the phones were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court will examine the sufficiency of the affidavits related to probable cause. Short challenges the adequacy of the affidavits supporting the search of his cell phones, arguing that they fail to establish a necessary connection between the alleged crimes and the items to be searched. He contends that the affidavits are so deficient that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. To justify a search warrant, probable cause must demonstrate a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the item searched. The Fourth Amendment requires both particularity in the warrant and a probable cause connection between the crime and the items sought. The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that the key issue in a reasonable search is whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the specific items to be seized are located in the property being searched, rather than merely suspecting the property owner of a crime. Affidavits must provide detailed facts and circumstances to allow a magistrate to independently assess probable cause, although the nexus can be inferred from the nature of the crime and evidence sought. Probable cause can be informed by common-sense conclusions about human behavior and the expertise of law enforcement, but conclusory statements without supporting facts are insufficient. Ultimately, the determination of probable cause hinges on whether the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that the affidavit established such cause, considering the totality of the circumstances presented. The magistrate tasked with assessing probable cause must make a practical decision based on the totality of circumstances presented in the affidavit, including the credibility and knowledge of those providing hearsay information. A fair probability must exist that contraband or evidence of a crime is likely to be found in the specified location. Courts should avoid hyper-technical invalidation of affidavits when the details are sufficient and the sources credible. The determination of probable cause by a judge warrants significant deference from reviewing courts. In the case of Short, he contends that the affidavit supporting the search of his phones lacked substantive content, providing the magistrate insufficient basis for an independent probable cause determination. Specifically, Short argues that the affidavit only indicated he was a suspect and generally noted the tendency for suspects to possess evidence of their crimes on cell phones. This argument extends to a separate affidavit from 2018 regarding call records and location data, which he claims relied on generic assertions about criminal behavior without establishing a clear connection to the specific evidence sought. Contrastingly, the court previously upheld a sufficient affidavit in State v. Said, where specific investigative details linked the suspect's cell phone usage to the crime under investigation. The court emphasized that law enforcement cannot rely solely on the general nature of cell phones or common communication practices as a basis for probable cause; particularized information is essential to justify a search warrant for a specific device. Probable cause for searching cell phones requires law enforcement statements to be supported by specific facts and circumstances, demonstrating a substantial basis for believing that evidence of a crime will be found. The adequacy of particularized information to support probable cause depends on the nature of the crime and what is sought in the warrant. For instance, searches related to accomplices need affidavits indicating the suspect worked with others during the crime, possessed a cell phone at that time, and a law enforcement officer’s belief that the search would yield evidence of coordination among participants. For cell site location information, a nexus is established if the affidavit indicates the suspect likely committed a crime that would make location information incriminating and confirms ownership or use of the phone. The affidavits in this case contained detailed facts from the investigation, arguing that they supported the likelihood of finding evidence related to the homicides. The district court concluded that, despite the adequacy of the affidavits, the officers acted in good faith while executing the warrants, which applies the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception hinges on whether police conduct was sufficiently deliberate and culpable to warrant exclusion as a deterrent. The Nebraska Supreme Court examined the application of the good faith exception regarding search warrants, which allows for reliance on a warrant that may lack a substantial basis for probable cause if police officers act in objectively reasonable good faith. The inquiry focuses on whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have recognized the search as illegal despite a magistrate's approval. The court emphasized that when evaluating an officer's good faith reliance on a warrant, it must consider the totality of circumstances, including information beyond the affidavit's text. An affidavit is deemed sufficient if there is any evidence linking the criminal activity to the search location, even if only slight. In this case, the affidavits presented a minimal connection between the criminal activity and the places to be searched, and law enforcement's knowledge outside the affidavit provided a sufficient basis for believing evidence would be present in those locations. The court noted that while the law regarding searches of cell phones and related records is fact-specific and not previously addressed, the law was not clear enough to deem the officers' belief in the sufficiency of the affidavits as unreasonable. Thus, the court upheld the district court's decision rejecting objections to the warrants based on alleged deficiencies. Additionally, the court analyzed the particularity requirement for search warrants, which mandates that warrants clearly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. This requirement aims to prevent broad and vague searches reminiscent of historical general warrants. The court reinforced that the particularity requirement is integral to safeguarding against indiscriminate searches. The Fourth Amendment restricts open-ended search warrants that grant excessive discretion to law enforcement and allows for the seizure of items beyond what is specifically described. To meet the particularity requirement, a warrant must clearly define the property to be seized, with its specificity tailored to the circumstances and items involved. A search warrant for cell phone contents must be limited to data related to the probable cause justifying the search. Short contends that the warrants for his cell phones replaced overly broad language with an exhaustive list of potential contents, allowing law enforcement to "rummage around" for evidence. However, other courts have upheld similar warrant language, asserting that scanning all digital files on a cell phone is akin to a thorough search of a house or filing cabinet for evidence, as criminals often conceal incriminating material unpredictably. The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that searching a cell phone can yield more information than searching a home, yet it did not deem such extensive searches impermissible when conducted under a valid warrant. Officers are unable to predict the location of evidence related to a crime within a cell phone or call records, as digital evidence can be hidden in various formats such as texts, videos, emails, and applications. Courts do not impose preemptive restrictions based on data type or specific applications, recognizing that law enforcement may need to briefly examine data beyond what is explicitly identified in a search warrant. The critical limitation to avoid unconstitutional searches is that warrants must specify evidence related to a particular crime and time frame, preventing broad fishing expeditions. The examination of all electronic data associated with a cell phone is often necessary and deemed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The warrants in question were upheld as constitutional, as they were sufficiently specific and focused on evidence of a particular crime, aligning with previous rulings such as in State v. Goynes. The warrant in Goynes authorized the search of various types of cell phone data, including: cell phone configurations, call logs, messaging services, installed application data, media files, internet browsing history, and location data, all aimed at establishing connections and timelines relevant to an incident. The court rejected claims that the warrant was overly broad, distinguishing it from previous cases where warrants lacked particularity. Specifically, it noted that the warrants in Henderson violated particularity requirements by allowing searches for "any other information" without specifying a crime. In contrast, the Goynes warrants detailed the crime of homicide and defined a specific time frame, thus maintaining particularity. The court concluded that the authority to examine files briefly did not negate this requirement. Additionally, the court found no merit in the argument that the searches of Short's phones were illegal due to their seizure, as relevant phone number information was obtained lawfully during a residence search, and Short acknowledged ownership of the phone in question. The evidence obtained from the seizure of Short’s cell phones was limited to contacts between Short and individuals named Pope and Harlan, as well as data indicating Short accessed news reports related to homicides. The seizure of the phones was deemed lawful despite being warrantless, as it fell under exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, specifically searches incident to a valid arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Robinson supports that searches can be reasonable under these circumstances. Even if an arrest occurs after a search, as long as probable cause existed beforehand, the search remains valid. Law enforcement had probable cause to arrest Short based on credible information: fingerprints linking him to a homicide scene, eyewitness accounts of two males leaving the scene in a specific vehicle, and the discovery of that vehicle at Short’s last known address. This collective knowledge provided a reasonable basis for law enforcement to believe that Short was involved in the homicides, establishing probable cause for his arrest at the time the phones were seized. Therefore, the legality of the phone seizure does not require further examination of the district court's decision. Short's cell phones were seized during a search incident to a warrantless arrest deemed lawful due to probable cause, thus not violating the Fourth Amendment. The district court's conclusion that law enforcement acted within constitutional bounds is upheld. The search warrants for Short’s phones and related digital records were sufficiently detailed, and the supporting affidavits provided adequate evidence linking the suspected criminal activity to the locations searched, allowing for good faith reliance by law enforcement. The court found no errors in denying Short’s motion to dismiss or for absolute discharge concerning his rights to a speedy trial and due process. Although concurring with the outcome, Justice Miller-Lerman expressed concern about the court addressing the good faith exception without first resolving the Fourth Amendment issues, suggesting that this approach may hinder the evolution of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence related to cell phone searches. He referenced U.S. v. Leon, emphasizing the necessity of resolving constitutional questions before applying the good faith exception to ensure proper legal guidance.