Court Opinion

ID: 9726658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:02:37.041623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:29.621590
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
The controlling issue in this case, as I view the record, is whether the seizure of the property, admittedly in the defendant’s possession, by the Sheriff of Box Butte County and a State Patrol criminal investigator was lawful.
The Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this state, protect against both unreasonable searches and unreasonable seizures. It is undisputed that the officers had no warrant and there was no probable cause for the seizure of the property at the farm in Sheridan County on October 21, 1974. The determination in the majority opinion that the seizure was lawful rests upon several factual conclusions that in my opinion are not supported by the record.
The record will not support a finding that the defendant had no right to possession or use of the shed in the Krejci pasture that contained the property seized. It is undisputed that the defendant had rented the land where the shed was located. In the absence of a reservation of the buildings, a lease of the land included the structures on the land. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Krejci himself testified as follows: “Q And *642Joe (Schrader) leases all of that land around this shed where you saw these items? A Yeah. Q And that is part of the pasture? A Yeah. Q And Joe can use the shed if he wants to? A Well, there was nothing said about it. Q But he could use it if he wants to? A Yeah.”
On the other hand, the evidence is nearly conclusive that the seizure was directed at the defendant. The sheriff said he went to the Krejci farm to see if the fuel tank reported to be there matched the description of one that had been stolen in Box Butte County about 2 weeks earlier. When the sheriff arrived at the farm he learned from Krejci that the defendant had leased the pasture. The sheriff further testified that he had seen some of the same or’ similar property as that found in the shed at another farm rented by the defendant while trying to levy an execution against the defendant on October 11, 1974.
The officers had no information that any of the items in the shed, other than the fuel tank, might be stolen property. None of the items seized were contraband or otherwise unlawful. In order for the seizure without a warrant to be lawful the officers had to have knowledge of facts which would create a reasonable belief that the articles seized offended against the law. There had to be a nexus between the items seized and criminal behavior. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782.
I agree with Judge McCown that nothing Krejci said or did could excuse or justify the unlawful seizure.
There was no probable cause for the seizure of all items found in the shed. See Kremen v. United States, 353 U. S. 346, 77 S. Ct. 828, 1 L. Ed. 2d 876. In my opinion the motion to suppress should have been sustained as to all items except the fuel tank.