Opinion ID: 2224483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review; burdens regarding searches

Text: In determining the correctness of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence claimed to be constitutionally inadmissible, an appellate court will uphold the trial court's findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous. In reviewing a trial court's findings on a suppression motion, an appellate court recognizes the trial court as the trier of fact and takes into consideration that the trial court has observed witnesses testifying regarding such motion. See, State v. Coleman, 239 Neb. 800, 478 N.W.2d 349 (1992); State v. Abdouch, 230 Neb. 929, 434 N.W.2d 317 (1989); State v. Blakely, 227 Neb. 816, 420 N.W.2d 300 (1988); State v. Vrtiska, 225 Neb. 454, 406 N.W.2d 114 (1987). If police have acted without a search warrant, the State has the burden to prove that the search was conducted under circumstances substantiating the reasonableness of such search or seizure. State v. Staten, 238 Neb. 13, 21, 469 N.W.2d 112, 118 (1991). Accord, State v. Juhl, 234 Neb. 33, 449 N.W.2d 202 (1989); State v. Abdouch, supra ; State v. Vrtiska, supra . [A] defendant who seeks to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant has the burden of establishing that the search warrant is invalid so that evidence secured thereby may be suppressed. State v. Staten, 238 Neb. at 23, 469 N.W.2d at 119. Accord State v. Vrtiska, supra .