Opinion ID: 2213342
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: claim of general exploratory search

Text: As a part of his claim that the search was unreasonable, Vrtiska contends the officers conducted a general search of his dwelling. In State v. Traxler, 210 Neb. 435, 438, 315 N.W.2d 440, 441 (1982), we stated: A general search for evidence of any crime is prohibited by the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Constitution of Nebraska, both of which provide that probable cause be shown before the search may occur. As stated in State v. Waits, 185 Neb. 780, 786-87, 178 N.W.2d 774, 779 (1970): The search much [sic] be one directed in good faith toward the objects specified in the warrant or for other means and instrumentalities by which the crime charged had been committed. It must not be a general exploratory search through which the officers merely hope to discover evidence of wrongdoing. See, also, State v. Traxler, supra . However, when officers, in the course of a bona fide effort to execute a valid search warrant, discover articles which, although not included in the warrant, are reasonably identifiable as contraband, the officers may seize such articles whether those items are initially in plain sight or come into plain sight subsequently as a result of the officers' efforts. See State v. Traxler, supra . The sequence of events, according to evidence from the officers, included discovery of the contraband shotgun during the course of a search authorized by a warrant. Such contraband was discovered while officers were acting within the scope of their authority under the search warrant and was not discovered after cessation of authority by completion of the search authorized. Vrtiska has failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the search and seizure on his premises were unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional, in violation of Vrtiska's rights under the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district court had a factual basis to conclude that the entry and search of Vrtiska's dwelling were reasonable. The findings by the district court are not clearly erroneous and are affirmed.