Court Opinion

ID: 9663479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:40:03.230721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:50.600068
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
“ ‘[A]n investigatory stop must be justified by objective manifestation that the person stopped is, has been, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. . . .’ ” State v. Nowicki, 209 Neb. 640, 645, 309 N.W.2d 89, 92 (1981).
In this case, Kavanaugh was leaving his mobile home business at 1:20 a.m., driving a pickup with a camper. He stated that he often worked late at his place of business. The officer testified that he saw Kavanaugh pull out of the parking lot but did not recognize the truck through the fog. He then followed the defendant for approximately 2 minutes and, after observing no aberrant driving behavior, stopped the defendant.
The officer stated that his reason for the stop was that the vehicle was coming out of a business at 1:20 in the morning. No thefts or burglaries or any incidents of vandalism had been reported by Kavanaugh that day. The officer testified that there was “suspicious activity”; there had been some vandalism and other criminal activity within 1 or 2 miles of the defendant’s business. There is no testimony as to the exact nature of the criminal activity nor as to how near in time the activity had *899occurred.
These observations and suspicions do not establish an “objective manifestation” that criminal activity has been, or will be, engaged in. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .” U.S. Const, amend. IV. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this protection applies not only to citizens in their homes, but also to citizens driving on the public roads. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 58 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1979). In this case, that constitutional safeguard has been abridged. Both the stop and the subsequent arrest were illegal.
Therefore, any evidence arising from the unlawful conduct of the officer, including his observations of the defendant’s apparent intoxication, should have been suppressed.
Shanahan, J., joins in this dissent.