Court Opinion

ID: 9718515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:26:21.405759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:59.938056
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
dissenting.
In State v. Holmberg, 194 Neb. 337, 231 N. W. 2d 672, we said: “We are not unmindful of the possibility of abuse of the statute as we interpret it. We have no hesitancy in saying that if the facts should *318disclose that the stop is a mere pretext for other reasons, it would be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment. We hasten to state, specifically and emphatically, that a spot check is not to be used as a pretext to search for evidence of some possible crime unrelated to the requirements of section 60-435, R. R. S. 1943.” I joined in the majority opinion in that case upon the premise that we meant what we said in the above statement. Apparently all who joined in that opinion did not.
The record here discloses as is demonstrated in the dissent of White, C. Thomas, J., that the officer stopped the car of the defendant on a mere hunch and without any rational cause for suspicion. It was not a bona fide stop to accomplish the purposes authorized by section 60-435, R. R. S. 1943.
The reasons for my views were elaborated in the majority opinion in State v. Colgrove, 198 Neb. 319, at p. 324, 253 N. W. 2d 20 (1977), and I will not repeat them here.