Court Opinion

ID: 9689043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:17:11.64845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:43.645890
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I generally concur in the majority opinion in this case. I must, however, dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that conditions in a probation order requiring the probationer to submit to warrantless searches and requiring the execution of a waiver of extradition as a condition precedent to probation do not deny to the probationer those constitutional rights which he retains notwithstanding his conviction of a crime.
I have already set out my reasons for so holding in my dissent in State v. Morgan, 206 Neb. 818, 295 N.W.2d 285 (1980), and will not repeat them here.
Carrying the arguments of both State v. Morgan and the instant case to a possible conclusion, one could argue that an individual placed on probation could be required as a condition of probation to give up all of one’s constitutional rights. I do not believe *505that such a requirement is lawful. I would hold that such requirements as those contained in the instant order of probation were invalid and should not be enforceable under the conditions presented in the instant case.