Court Opinion

ID: 9733323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:03:03.101451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:40.501065
License: Public Domain

*647Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I regret that I must respectfully dissent from the majority in this case. While I would generally concur with the principles of law set out by the majority, I believe the facts in this case do not justify the application of those rules. The record discloses that as the officers followed the truck, it pulled into a McDonald’s parking lot and the driver ordered food. There was nothing suspicious about the driver or his driving other than it was believed that these individuals had, on other occasions, been involved in drug dealing at 2312% L Street. There was no evidence that the occupants were at the moment engaged in any illegal activity.
While the defendant was waiting for his food, the officers were advised by Lt. Olson that if the officers thought the driver “had spotted their tail” they should stop him, as a search warrant was being prepared for the residence at 2312% L Street. The officers then blocked the vehicle’s path and stopped it as it was leaving the McDonald’s parking lot. The officers advised the occupants that they were conducting an investigation and asked for the defendant’s driver’s license and registration. The defendant complied with the request. The officers then ran a vehicle check on the registration and were advised by Lt. Olson to arrest the party and transport him to Central Police Station. No reason for the arrest was given. At that point in time the officers had no evidence that any crime had been committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed. All they knew was that the individuals or some of them had been involved in drug dealing and the home at 2312% L Street was to be searched pursuant to a search warrant, which was then being obtained. It was not until after they had arrested the defendant pursuant to instructions by Lt. Olson that they sought to secure the vehicle and for the first time observed the plastic bag protruding from a slit in the seat.
Officer Caniglia, one of the arresting officers, testified that he was ordered to arrest the defendant, take *648him to police headquarters, and tow his vehicle before any weapon or cocaine was found. The arrest was in fact then accomplished and the defendant handcuffed before anything was found in the truck.
While the need to combat crime is ever present, we must not disregard the clear mandates of the Constitution. This case now stands for the proposition that if one has a prior criminal record and is known to deal in illegal activity, he or she may be arrested and their persons or properties searched without warrant on the basis of their prior association with crime. Such a conclusion totally annihilates the protections sought to be provided citizens by the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Neb. Const, art. I, § 7. There is simply no evidence in this record to indicate that prior to the arrest being made anyone associated with law enforcement believed that there were drugs present in the vehicle, or that at the time of the defendant’s arrest he was then actually engaged in a drug transaction. Probable cause has been defined as existing if the facts and circumstances known to the officer warrant a prudent and reasonable man in believing that in the case of an arrest the arrestee has committed the offense. See, Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S. Ct. 168, 4 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1959); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S. Ct. 1623, 10 L. Ed. 2d 726 (1963). Mere good faith on the part of arresting officers cannot justify a warrantless arrest. I believe that the motion to suppress should have been sustained.